ABA: Enhanced Peer Review Process
The American Bar Association plans to embark on an "education" campaign to inform the voters of the problem.
Simple message for the American Bar Association: We know the problem -- it's you. The real solution is for the ABA to outline for the public your plan to assert the rule of law.
This note outlines what the public should reasonably expect the American Bar Association do.
What You Can Do
A. Contact Bruce Fein
Given his public statements on unconstitutional conduct, and membership on the ABA committee to review Executive Signing statements, contact Bruce Fein at this e-mail to share your views on this subject. [Note this site is not, repeat not affiliated with The Lichfield Group or Bruce Fein; and the views contained here may not necessarily coincide with Mr Fein's views or opinions]
B. Contact ABA
Discuss the plan outlined below, and share your views with your friends and others at the American Bar Association: ABA Contact: Ref
The American Bar Association is the organization which acts as the organizing and oversight mechanism for the American attorneys. Although American attorneys are regulated through the states, the attorneys take an oath to the Federal Constitution.
The ABA recently issued several reports related to Constitutional issues: Presidential signing statements; Guantanamo treatment, and the separation of powers. Although interesting, these reports would have been more useful had they been issued in 2001-2002 time frame. In the interim, we have learned about the Iraq WMD, illegal war in Iraq, and the torture and illegal kidnapping of Americans.
The ABA has a problem. Its IP numbers, like the DoJ Staff attorneys, have been traced to specific webpage updates related to material totally unrelated to official business, the law, or matters of the Constitution. Putting aside the apparent reckless disregard for ABA and DoJ policies, the issue is that ABA staff at the Association and inside the DoJ have, at a time when the DoJ says that attorneys were (paraphrasing) "busy with other things, and couldn't get FISA warrants" were, in fact, not busy and had time to do what they refused to do: Assert the rule of law.
471 U.S. 626 Attorney sanctions sustained. The attorny system of oversight, and the state bar disciplinary process has enforceable powers to investigate and discipline attorney-peers for violations of the attorney professional standards of conduct.
449 U.S. 539 Standard of review: "mortal best to discharge their oath of office"
431 F. Supp. 2d 1159 [5 USC 3331 enforcement must state clear requirements and obligations of those taking oaths]
377 U.S. 533 "a denial of constitutionally protected rights demands judicial protection" as it applies to the States right to a republican form of government, which DoJ Staff attorneys have undermined, threatened, and subverted.
524 U.S. 666 "fear of foreign criminal prosecution held to be beyond scope of Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination" ["The District Court found that though it had not been made aware of a treaty between the U.S. and Israel requiring disclosure of information related to war crimes, OSI had shared such information in the past and that it would be consistent with OSI's mandate from the Attorney General for OSI to do so again. 918 F. Supp. 588, 596 (EDNY 1996).']
US Constitution, Article VI: "[A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution . . .This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" Ref
Article 82, Geneva Convention: Binding obligation on all DoJ Staff Attorneys to ensure the Geneva Conventions are followed and fully enforced Ref
Hamdan: Geneva Conventions are requirements, and should have been followed and enforced in the period 2000-2006, when the DoJ and DoD Staff attorneys were in a position to, but failed, prevent and report illegal activity to the appropriate authorities within the government and the ABA bar disciplinary board system. Ref
Act of May 13, 1884, Ch. 46, 23 Stat. 22: Oath of office is a requirement ["thenceforth applicable to all officers of the United States government", which means DoJ Staff attorneys in their role as an attorney, and as an officer of the United States] Ref [ Subsequent legislative history Section 2(b)(3)
5 USC 3331 requirements were, or should have been, well known and available on Intel Link after 1996, well before the period of interest 2000-2006, when the ABA peer review process failed Ref]
Precedents: Lawyers indicted for war crimes planning [Keitel et al] Ref
Argument and allegations:
1. DoJ and DoD staff attorneys have taken an oath to support the US Constitution, including all treaties, and laws of the land; within that promise comes the obligation to ensure the States and its citizens enjoy the guaranteed right to a republican form of government;
2. DoJ and DoD Staff attorneys have a duty through Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions to ensure the laws of war are enforced, followed, not actively violated;
3. Nuremburg is precedent for holding lawyers accountable for war crimes they planned, refused to stop, and failed to take action to prevent;
4. DoJ and DoD Staff attorneys knew, or should have known the laws of war, Geneva Conventions, and did have access to the requirements on the Intel Link system;
5. Action taken to avoid enforcing, or planning and action taken to violate the laws of war, amounts to a war crime;
6. DoJ Staff attorneys and others, who have failed to distance themselves from the illegal war crimes planning, have committed violations of the Geneva Conventions;
7. If indicted and convicted for war crimes, the DoJ Staff Attorney conduct and violations of the law would amount to conduct that [a] violates the ABA professional standards of conduct; and [b] warrants disbarment from the American Bar Association and state-level of DC Bar; and
8. Attorneys have an obligation and duty to report peer professional misconduct, which they appear to have failed to do as required under the professional disciplinary systems; the failure to report illegal conduct and war crimes violations amounts to a secondary line of criminal conduct warranting ABA investigation and grounds for disbarment.
In 2006, fully six [6] years after this nation's citizenry has been told, not asked, to assent to this non-sense abuse of power and violations of the Constitution, the ABA appears to have somewhat been stirred from its coma. The way forward is for the American Bar Association to accept that its honorable resistance to the rule of law and Constitution has been exhausted, and We the People expect and demand leadership from the legal experts in the ABA.
The ABA has two general options:
1. Outline a plan to indict current and former White House and DoJ-DoD Staff attorneys for alleged war crimes planning, [inter alia: Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, Haynes, Viet Dinh, Keisler; and
2. Outline a plan for how the UN General Assembly will lawfully extract from US control any and all DoJ Staff attorneys, and lawfully render them to The Hague. (This could include a forced deportation mechanism of DoJ Staff attorneys to The Hague. [ 790 F.2d 1024 ])
The ABA has until 1 Sept 2006 to work with the US Attorney, and ensure there are issued indictments against those attorneys who have been involved with the planning, organizing of war crimes and who were in a position to stop, but failed, to prevent these war crimes.
The ABA has at its disposal assets, resources, expertise, and investigators. It is possible for the ABA to quickly travel, get information, and organize a discovery plan.
At this juncture, the problem -- rather, the challenge -- is that the RNC controls the House Judiciary Committee. However, there is nothing stopping the ABA from gathering, and publishing, evidence of war crimes so that the voters can make informed voting decisions in November 2006.
Public indictments against the DoJ Staff attorneys would support the "educational" goals of the ABA.
This is not a negotiation. These are your requirements.
I expect the ABA to include in the presentations sufficiently detailed information so that the voters have a sense that there is someone in American who is concerned with the rule of law.
There is available public contact information related to German war crimes planning. This information should be used as a starting point to outline your plan. I expect the ABA Staff to provide an initial briefing to the ABA leadership no later than Monday, 31 July 2001 outlining your plan to provide the formal briefing and discovery plan:
By Close of Business Friday, 1 August 2006 I expect a reasonable budget estimate and draft ABA direction to lead this discovery effort.
I expect in the 1 August 2006 briefing and presentation:
You shall provide the initial presentation to the US Attorney NLT 1 Sept 2006.
Loss of Discretion
The ABA, this late in the game, has lost the power to exercise discretion. It is time that they are told: 5 USC 3331 violations needs to be investigated; and DoJ-White House staff attorneys who are involved in the illegal war crimes planning and advising are to be lawfully targeted.
The ABA education plan is too slow. The faster, more prudent approach is for the ABA to conduct high profile, public investigations on matters within the ABA influence: Disbarment of the ABA-related staff attorneys in DoJ, DoD, and the White House.
I expect the ABA to closely work with the House Judiciary, providing information in preparation for impeachment proceedings. You do not have the authority, and you may not offer anyone any promise or reward for cooperation with the rule of law: They have no choice.
Further, it is reasonable that the ABA provide to the public copies of the Amicus briefs related to 5 USC 3331 violations; and the other legal documents related to demonstrating to the court that the Specter FISA-Bill is unconstitutional in that it unlawfully targets ongoing litigation, contrary to the Separation of Powers, in these precedents.
General Assembly: Rending US Personnel to The Hague
Given the White House lack of interest in the Constitution, the ABA needs to prepare, on a parallel track, and presentation for the UN General Assembly. This briefing should have one objective: To lay the foundation, as a backup, to guide the General Assembly to lawfully direct the US to provide the indicted DoJ Staff attorneys to UN control, for delivery to The Hague.
Whether the UN General Assembly is or is not under threat of sanctions by the US is irrelevant. When dealing with war crimes, any and all states have jurisdiction to prosecute. It is not lawful for the US to engage in any retaliation against anyone for enforcing the law and UN Charter against inhuman treatment or war crimes.
It will be the job of the ABA to outline for the public the progress of your planning, and a copy of the final briefing given to the UN General Assembly no later than 1 Sept 2006. Your goal is simple: Provide reasonable assurances, that in the absence of White House cooperation, there is in place a back-up plan for external courts at The Hague to do what the ABA and US Attorney refuse to do: Review facts, issue findings, and lawfully prosecute the DoJ Staff attorneys for war crimes planning, and malfeasance in failing to stop war crimes that they knew or should have known were occurring.
The ABA plan to the General Assembly needs to include the specific points of contact the UN needs to get final clearance to land, lawfully upload the DoJ Staff attorneys, and depart US airspace without interference by any US or US-related entity. Once the DoJ Staff attorneys have departed US airspace, they are not to be interfered with, nor can there be any mid-flight interception or forced landing.
The ABA plan shall outline the specifics of how the DoJ Staff will be lawfully detained, arrested, and transported to the most convenient airport; the conditions of their detention; and what methods will be used to ensure they are lawfully treated in accordance with Geneva.
Once they are lawfully rendered to The Hague, the ABA shall take primary legal control of the detainees, and act as their counsel. Whether the detainees choose to hire personal counsel is a separate matter. However, the ABA needs to outline the legal plan for the UN General Assembly the methods which will be used to ensure that the DoJ Staff attorneys, once they are in The Hague, are not released prematurely, nor are US or allied forces permitted to interfere with the legal proceedings.
ABA Coordination with US National Command Authority
The ABA has attorneys on the DoD Joint Staff and are the DoD General Counsel. The ABA attorneys are able to work with the planning cells within the Joint Staff to support his requirement. This tasking is well within the requirements of the Joint Staff to support; and well within the competence of the DoD Attorneys to fully coordinate using e-mail and the Intel Link system.
The ABA shall, through the US DoD General Counsel and Joint Staff make it clear to all NATO and US-allied forces that any attempt to interfere with this lawful rending to The Hague, or subsequent efforts to interfere through interception or pre-mature release will be considered a subsequent violation of the laws of war: Illegally interfering with legal proceedings to enforce the Geneva Conventions. The subsequent violations will attach penalties to the individual and state actors that interfere. This specifically means that any US ground, sea or air forces or agents which interfere with the proceedings shall be considered a subsequent war crime and interference with the war crimes trial process.
The ABA shall outline how it will formally present to the American Joint Staff and White House and other military national command authority how the ABA will take legal action and work with the US Attorney and other Geneva nations to ensure that the transport of DoJ Staff attorneys is fully supported, and faces no opposition by the National Command Authority or any other allied military force. The Joint Staff should be prepared to issue stand down orders, and ensure that all fighter aircraft within range of the UN aircraft are directed to avoid any interference.
Further, the ABA shall work with other nations to ensure that the DoJ Staff attorneys, while in detention are treated in accordance with Geneva. This means that the ABA needs to outline how the staff will be trained, how the detaining officials will be overseen, and what method there will be to ensure the Red Cross has full access to the DoJ Staff attorneys while they are in detention at The Hague.
Clear Precedent: Nuremburg
The ABA's job in this situation is novel, complex, and unique, but not unprecedented. During the War Crimes trials at Nuremburg it was members of the American legal profession that oversaw the discovery and litigation. The US attorneys were the ones who ensured the processes at Nuremburg were lawful, and worked closely with the legal community to ensure the proceedings were not only fair, but perceived to be fair.
The easy approach is for the ABA to lawfully review, and timely provide to the public information on their peer reviews of ABA staff attorneys in the White House, DoJ, and DoD. The more difficult, but equally capable is the more complex path of delivering the DoJ Staff to a jurisdiction that shows an inclination to enforce the law: The Hague.
Regardless the approach ultimately taken, the ABA has until 1 Sept 2006 to outline both plans, and issue indictments against the lead legal community who have been instrumental in this illegal activity: Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, Viet Dinh, Haynes, and Keisler.
It is time for the ABA to decide whether it wants to continue its dishonorable resistance to the rule of law and Constitution. The ABA has at its disposal vast financial resources and legal expertise. This has come from the American People and corporations -- your clients, and those most in need of your assistance.
Just as Americans have hired you -- and paid you -- now is the time to show that you do not need to be called upon for financial reasons, but simply because you voluntarily took an oath to do what you have always had the requirement to do: Protect this Constitution from the domestic enemies within your ranks.
Gone are the days when you can turn a blind eye, pretending your peers are merely supporting a client in the adversarial system. Rather, your peers are openly defying their oath, and actively engaging in war crimes.
The ABA has within its power to direct staff resources and gather information that would lead to the disbarment of those within your ranks who have defied their oath. The ABA has failed to effectively lead this public charge. Other competing organizations are willing to continue their work where the ABA shows a lack of interest in ensuring their peer review process has integrity.
When the dust as cleared, we can discuss whether the ABA will or will not maintain independence; how the ABA will be overseen by Congress; and what methods the ABA will be required to follow when subjected to public oversight and monitoring.
Putting those governance issues aside, it is the job of the ABA membership to gather information, and present evidence of your peer misconduct, and involvement in war crimes. Whether the DoJ OPR does or does not have the information, as required, is irrelevant.
Your job is to organize your talents, expertise, and resources so that the public has a sense by 1 Sept 2006 that you are interested in the rule of law. Your goal is simple: To publicly demonstrate through indictments that you are willing to gather evidence against your peers involved in war crimes planning; and work closely with the US Attorney to ensure the DoJ Staff is lawfully gutted of your peers who have failed to assert their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.
Make no mistake, the public is fully capable of making adverse inference. If the ABA fails or does not meet these deadlines it is within the scope of possibility that other methods can and could be used to lawfully extract from American control those in the DoJ who have allegedly been in active support of illegal war crimes, and have them lawfully rendered to the Hague.
The short answer: Americans have only one option: The rule of law. You will either do this voluntarily, or you will be compelled.
Supporting Material
Hamdan: Showing that the Geneva Conventions are applicable, known to the DoJ-DoD Staff attorneys, and were requirements which they recklessly failed to ensure were followed, and actively planned efforts to violate Ref
Article 82 of Geneva showing that the legal community has had an ongoing responsibility to ensure the laws of war were fully implemented Ref Ref
Article 3, showing how the ABA Staff attorneys should be treated while they are in detention Ref
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, showing that it is a basis to disbar a member of the attorney association when they engage in criminal activity. Ref
Specific evidence supporting the above allegations against Addington, Yoo, Keisler, Gonzalez [Backup, Viet Dinh, Moschella and Haynes
Evidence showing DoJ Staff attorneys were actually engage in non-official business at the time that the Attorney allegedly made misleading statements to Congress over whether there were or were not sufficient DoJ Staff Support to get the required FISA warrants Ref
Precedents making it illegal to enforce the Specter FISA-bill, unconstitutionally violating the separation of powers Ref
Precedent of German War Crimes trials after Nuremburg, showing that information is available for the ABA to learn lessons from the Germans and quickly organize this plan Contact information Ref
DoD Planning Cell structure showing DoD Staff and ABA-related personnel have a direct role and position within the Joint Staff planning cells Ref
A DoD Phone Book showing the specific DoD Staff attorneys the ABA needs to contact to ensure the JAGs and other DoD attorneys are fully aware of their legal requirements to implement Article 82 and support all war crimes proceedings
Sample Attorney misconduct process at the DC Bar, showing that the procedure to lawfully disbar someone is something the ABA fully understands, can support, and can focus resources to meet the 1 Sept 2006 deadline Ref
The website for the US Attorney and FBI so that the ABA can provide other evidence of war crimes activity, and subsequent information related to other offenses that the US legal system can prosecute
The location of The Hague so that the ABA knows which jurisdiction and legal practice areas need to be considered when finalizing this plan for presentation on 1 Sept 2006 Ref
Copies, for reference, of the Nuremburg Indictments that should serve as a useful guide for the ABA on outlining charges against the DOJ Staff attorneys Ref From
The IP numbers of these within the DoJ Staff that have engaged in non-official conduct while the Attorney General left the incorrect impression that there was no possible way for the FISA requirements to be followed Ref
Copy of FISA, showing that the Attorney General has made inconsistent statements on whether the US is or is not at war, further demonstrating the Attorney General has made inconsistent statements to Congress, suggesting that his motivation is to avoid war crimes indictments Ref
Copies of the FISA reports to Congress that, in light of the revelations of the illegal activity, show the Executive Branch has failed to comply with Title 50 of the US code requiring disclosures of illegal activity, which the DoJ Staff attorneys knew or should have known was part of the larger alleged war crimes conspiracy Ref
Copies of the Goldsmith and Bybee memos showing the ABA that the risks of a war crimes indictment wasn't merely a speculative notion, but something actively discussed as a real possibility, raising substantial doubts in the public's mind whether the ABA has taken timely action against those in the DOJ and DOD who knew, or should have known, the scope of the illegal war crimes activity.
Information about the secure Intel Link system which provides classified guidance, procedures, and other information to individuals within the DoJ Staff, DoD General Counsel’s office, Joint Staff, and others who need to be apprised of the ABA prosecution-support plans; provided information to the DoJ and DoD Staff Counsel on the laws of war program 5100.77 and Geneva Convention requirements, which the DoJ and DoD Staff attorneys knew or should have known were not being followed. Ref
ABA IP number: Showing the ABA staff has "enough time" to make updates to Groucho, Gummo, and Harpo Marx and other non-legal related websites; surely they could find it within their non-busy schedule time to review the Constitution and ensure the DoJ Staff attorneys had competent peer reviews Ref
Data available in DoJ OPR: Ref [See page 15 of 15 to review DoJ OPR procedures in re attorney referrals] [9of15 are the DoJ OPR Policies and Procedures] [5 of 15: Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has been briefed on the NSA activity.
posted by Constant @ 8:10 AM
<< Home