DoJ Asst AG Keisler Allegedly Engaging in Obstruction of Justice
Here is handy guide to review Keisler for the 4th Circuit. [ Click ]
The information below relates to the problems Keisler has over the DoJ involvement with the illegal NSA activity. Here is detailed information on the NARUS STA, which you will see blocked out in the affidavits. [ Click ]
Keisler is part of the DoJ management system that would know, or should have known, the details of the NSA activity, the scope of the warrants, and whether or not he has appropriately reported to DoJ OPR information related to his peer misconduct, per the ABA standards of conduct.
Alleged Obstruction of Justice: Thwarting State Investigation into DoJ-NSA Misconduct and Illegal Activity
Asst. US Attorney Peter Keisler, formerly with Sidley Austin representing AT&T, is interfering with New Jersey State Attorney fact finding related to the NSA, and his former client.
Ironically, it was Sidely Austin moved for the Presiding judge to recuse himself in the AT&T litigation. Unlike the court which formerly used AT&T as a service provider, Keisler actually worked for a firm which had AT&T as a client.
Perhaps Keisler might voluntarily recuse himself. The DC Bar ethics investigation, allegedly not isolated to Addington could relate to possible disbarment over alleged fraud and the other misconduct related to the cover-up over the NSA illegal activity.
Sidley Austin is also linked with a former US DoJ official, Brad Berenson. Keisler is associated with Sidley Austin, one of the AT&T counsel, clearly Keisler is not independent.
Keisler's now got a problem. For purposes of possible Keisler disbarment, the issue is whether he has failed, and has worked with AG Gonzalez, to avoid the required agency reviews in re FISA. This would amount to alleged fraud.
The New Jersey state investigation is not a federal matter. This is a state matter, and the DoJ has no basis to prevent the State officials from enforcing state law.
Keisler may not take action that obstructs a state from ensure the Supreme Law of the Land is enforced within the State borders.
Warning on searching Keisler's desk.
14th Amendment mandates equal protection of the laws ("nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"). It is irrelevant that Keisler does not want to follow the 14th Amendment; or that Congress is too lazy to ensure that the 14th Amendment as it applies to the State is or is not enforced or preserved.
542 U.S. 426: Affirming Concurrrent Jurisdiction, state courts can hold trials on matters related to Federal statutes and issues.
181 U.S. 92 It is settled law, that once a state court makes finding of facts related to a local matter, the Supreme Court has no say in that matter. ["And questions of fact, as has been repeatedly held, when once settled in the courts of a State, are not subject to review in this court."] By saying FISA violations are not something that the Congress can review in any form, DoJ and Keisler would have the court believe that Congress does not have exclusive jurisdiction on the matter.
ELKO COUNTY GRAND JURY: Federal government cannot stop a state-level subpoena of non-federal entities.
50 USC 413
EO 12333: Para 3.1 imposes a duty on Congress to act; and the States may lawfully review criminal matters related to citizens within their border. It is irrelevant that the Congress and AG refuse to enforce or follow federal law.
Let's talk about FISA. It's the law of the land. AG Gonzalez has to follow it. Period.
Here's the language from the DoJ's US Attorney manual:
The same possibility is not presented by Congress's power to reduce or limit the duties of an officer. Except with respect to (certain) constitutional officers, Congress has plenary authority to eliminate offices altogether, subject to the general separation of powers principle. The lesser-included power to take away part of an officer's authority does not in itself enable Congress to choose which individual will exercise authority and thus does not implicate the Appointments Clause. See United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U.S. 273, 284 (1888) (Congress, as "the legislative body which created the office" of Attorney General, has the authority to put "restrictions . . . upon the exercise of [the Attorney General's] authority"). Ref
The Congress, through FISA, has stipulated requirements for the AG to follow. This is within the Constitution.
Conversely, once there is litigation related to that statute, the AG does not have any power to thwart that investigation, or otherwise take any action to block any lawful inquiry into that criminal activity.
It's not lawful to intimidate witnesses, prevent them from testifying, or otherwise taking action that dissuades lawful communication to a tribunal:
Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler also warned lawyers for the phone companies that responding to the subpoenas "would violate federal laws and executive orders."
A separate letter that Keisler, head of the department's Civil Division, sent to Farber made the same points, but it took a softer approach.
"We sincerely hope that you will withdraw the subpoenas, so that litigation over this matter may be avoided," Keisler said.Click
By issuing this statement, we could conclude:
Here's a sample set of guidelines that show:
The request for authorization from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General should be made in writing and include a copy of the warrant application as well as a brief description of the facts and circumstances that form the basis for the recommendation of the authorization. In addition, the request must include a statement that it is authorized by the United States Attorney or the supervising Department of Justice attorney. If the request for authorization is made orally, or if, in an emergency situation, the application is authorized by the United States Attorney or the supervising Department of Justice attorney, a written record, as described above, must be sent to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General within seven days.
Note: The above types of actions are similar to what was done with Congress: Abuse power, interfere with normal procedures, and otherwise thwart fact finding.
There's been no credible showing that the Executive Order is lawful or consistent with public policy.
DoJ has no basis to obstruct the timely review of the evidence.
It is not appropriate for any attorney in the DoJ to threaten the public or members of the community with "adverse consequences" or "possible legal sanctions" for them engaging in Constitutionally protected conduct: Fact finding, discovery, and presentment of information related to criminal conduct by the NSA, DoJ, phone companies, and other attorneys in the AG's office.
There has been no fair showing by the government that the discussion of the legal issues is related to classified information.
There is no basis for DoJ to assert that the information is related to any classified information. Rather, the information is related to criminal activity, and cannot be protected under this gag order.
Quest has already provided the public in the EFF filing, a copy of the information related to DoJ's refusal to follow FISA. There is no basis to assert that the program is or is not real. Qwest already confirms it is real; and the DoJ has refused to deny what Qwest has asserted. This is now a problem for Keisler to explain. His oath is not to the President, but to the US Constitution. He has to choose.
[ See 150 N.J. 30] N.J.R.E. 607 permits hearsay on witness credibility, in re phone companies. This can be established given the different accounts Gonzalez has provided on whether the phone companies did or did not freely cooperate; and whether the DoJ did or did not follow clearly promulgated procedures for securing warrants.
Oath: "Peter Keisler was sworn in as the Civil Division's Assistant Attorney General on July 1, 2003"
Removal of US Attorney: 272 U.S. 52 (47 S.Ct. 21): Congress has the inherent authority, and recognized power to remove the Asst. AG, Keisler.
28USC544: Faithfully execute duties.
18 USC 1512: Interference with testimony.
18 USC 1511: Obstruction of State law enforcement in re gambling. We know that there has to be at least two people involved, because as the USAM manual shows us, there is a memo, and AG Gonzalez should have signed off on the effort as extraordinary.
[ 150 N.J. 30] N.J.R.E. 607 permits hearsay on witness credibility, in re phone companies.