Constant's pations

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

Monday, July 10, 2006

Constellation: Viet D. Dinh Wiki Updates Traced to Bancroft

Việc này không thuộc thẩm quyền của toà. [ Ref ]

Those who are naturalized, under the Patriot Act, if they are convicted of a felony, could have their citizenship revoked and forced to return to their country of origin. War crimes amounts to a felony.

Hi, Wendy.

Viet D. Dinh DC Bar Number: 456608

Ask the new DC Bar President, Melvin White hat his plan is to handle the DC Bar attorneys who have been implicated in planning executive Branch war crimes, inter alia:

  • Alleged violation of Article 82 of the Geneva conventions for failing to ensure the laws of war program was fully enacted, and adhered to [ Ref ]

  • Alleged perjury before Congress in failing to truthfully report that there had been violations of the US Constitution; incorrectly testifying without clarification that the laws were fully complied with, when he knew or should have known as director of DoJ Office of Legal Policy that the conduct was not activity was not lawful nor consistent with the FISA or Geneva. Ref

  • Alleged misrepresentations over whether citizens and prisoners of war were or were not being treated appropriately; whether US citizens did or did not have their rights violated with the NSA warrantless surveillance activities Ref

  • Alleged violation of senior partner obligation to ensure laws of war and Geneva Article 82 followed [ Ref ]

  • Alleged omission of an important fact: That the information is not independent, but is actually from Bancroft Associates: [ Ref ]

  • Alleged dishonesty in not truthfully disclosing the source of the Wiki information was from Bancroft Associates [ Ref ]

    * * *

    Viet D. Dinh wiki updates have been traced to the firm he works: Bancroft Associates, where Keefer works as an apparent student of AT&T's Baker Bott's White.

    It appears as though Dinh is the one who is floating the rumors of his "potential" selection as a Supreme Court nominee. Look at the wiki:

    Future SCOTUS nominee?

    Dinh has been mentioned as a potential nominee to The Supreme Court of the United States in a Republican administration, possibly as soon as late in Bush's second term if there is another vacancy

    Sounds rather uncertain:

  • Possibly: What is the basis to say this

  • As soon as: Why then?

  • Late in: What if Bush is impeached?

  • Mentioned: By whom, specifically?

  • Leadership: What is the basis to assert you command respect or confidence as a leader in the federal Bench; what you do you offer; how does what you provide contrast with what is in the Torture Memos, and illegal conduct struck down in Hamdan? [Ref]

    * * *

    This comes in the wake of the Hamdan ruling which affirmed the rule of law, and said that things must follow the law, not circumvent the law.

    It's one thing to talk about "fleeing oppression"; quite another to ignore the rule of law and create oppression in the United States which supports Watergate-era-like abuses in 2006. [ Ref ]

    * * *

    You stated in 2003, "˜Ideals without technique are a mess. But technique without ideals is a menace" [ Ref ] In light of Hamdan and the unconstitutional Patriot Act, please discuss why anyone should believe you offer anything but a menace and a mess to the Supreme Court and US Constitution.

    You gave quite a speech to the DC bar. In 2006, we know about the NSA violations, and the DoJ efforts to circumvent the FISA court. But it doesn't end there. There are more abuses: Illegal transfer of personal information, data used without warrants, and using illegally obtained information as the basis to engage in warrantless surveillance. Yet before your peers at the DC bar you stated, "These revisions, therefore, will not only enhance terrorist investigations but also reaffirm the freedom of law-abiding citizens from unnecessary intrusion." Ref Based on a plain reading of the President's fatal admissions to the contrary -- that he engaged in illegal activity without securing a warrant -- he's put you in quite a box.


  • False statement to your peers at the DC bar;

  • Materially false and misleading statements to the public and your peers about what was going on; and Congress, as your counterpart of the DoJ Legislative Policy, was mislead by your public statements; and

  • Not only did the revisions circumvent the law, but you failed to ensure that the Congress was given the correct information.

    How do you explain your assert that the FISA violations were lawful, or that the Constitution has been protected much less respected or read? Do you define a violation of the 4th Amendment as "necessary"; if so, why should the public have any respect for your personal rights, or asserted privileges as an attorney?

    Your conduct, comments, and apparent gross misrepresentations raise substantial questions about your integrity, fitness for public office, and standing before the DC bar, not to mention the dubious claim that you may or may not desire to have a seat on the Supreme Court.

    How do you in your own mind reconcile the disconnect between what you said, and what we now know about the illegal activity which DoJ OPR is not allowed to review; yet, at the same time, you claim to have a superior claim on the Supreme Court seat because you are the "first" Asian? [Ref ]

    We need people on the Supreme Court who are going to assert the rule of law, especially when it is difficult. By the track record of DoJ after 9-11, you've demonstrated the opposite: You have little spine to assert the rule of law; rather, you appear to have rolled over, assented to war crimes, and then had the audacity to feed your peers in the DC bar with a load of legal non-sense, which they relied upon, and then you used that baseless reliance as further "proof" that you're qualified. You're using circular logic. That's not sound legal reasoning. [ Ref]

    You noted, "On the walls of the Department of Justice are inscribed the following words: “Where law ends tyranny begins" Ref. After you took the time to recite those words, did you have a chance to review the Geneva conventions? How do you explain the clear words on the wall, but your apparent love of violating the laws of war, Constitution, and US Statutes through abuse, violations of the 4th Amendment, and illegal NSA surveillance.

    You stated before the DC Bar, "ordered liberty" was something to pay attention to. [Ref] Please discuss how your views on liberty have changed after the Hamdan decision; do you believe that liberty is something that is achieved through abusive treatment which violates Geneva; are we "more free" when we defy the treaty obligations we have with other nations?

    You also stated Ref we are fighting, in your words, "A war criminal who recognizes no boundaries and who reaches all corners of the world". Please discuss your view of "war criminal" as it relates to Geneva, Hamdan, and the implicit power of the courts and judicial system to put American war criminals to death for their violations of the law. Please discuss the legal consequences imposed on the German lawyers who planned the illegal activities which violated the treaties.

    You stated in 2005, "there is a place for the consideration of foreign judgments, and that place is in the interpretation of treaties with those foreign nations." [Ref Ref] Please discuss your consideration, if any, of the Geneva Conventions prior to the coordination DoJ and DoD made on Guantanamo. Did you consider Geneva before drafting DoD memos or reviewing memoranda; what concerns about Geneva did you raise prior to the final procedures being approved; and once Spike Bowman provided DoJ and DoD with feedback on the conditions at Guantanamo, what effort if any did you make to review Geneva then?

    Attorney General Ashcroft stated after 9-11, if you so much as spit we'll arrest you. Your words were a little different: "Robert F. Kennedy’s Justice Department, it was said, would arrest a mobster for spitting on the sidewalk, and Elliott Ness brought down Al Capone for tax evasion." Ref Hamdan affirms that there have been Geneva violations, yet we also know there has been more abuse, illegal activity, yet DoJ OPR is not allowed to review this illegal conduct. How do you think the Grand Jury and Justice System should deal with ABA attorneys who plan to violate the laws of war, circumvent the FISA, and otherwise work with commercial firms to evade the Constitutional requirements?

    Article 82 of the 1929 Geneva Convention imposes a legal duty on the American leadership to ensure the laws of war program is fully implemented. This translates to a lawful duty on the Attorneys to ensure the Geneva contentions are followed. When it comes to Hamdan and the laws of war, we're talking serious issues: DoJ employees who knew about illegal conduct, violations of Geneva, but failed to remove themselves. In your words, "Any infraction, however minor, will be prosecuted. . ." That was a standard the US proposed to apply to suspected terrorists. Please, share with the world what standard of discipline you think should be applied to the US DoJ attorneys who assented to egregious violations of the laws of war. [ Ref ]

    You recited Webster's quote, “To the law. It has honored us; may we honor it.” In light of your contribution to the torture memos, and disregard for the FISA statutes, and apparent failure to coordinate this illegal activity with Congress, why should we believe you have any interest in the law, much less preserving it? [Ref ] [ Ref ]

    Before your peers at the DC bar you stated the Attorney General had told DoJ, "Think outside the box, but never outside of the Constitution." Yet, in light of Hamdan, illegal NSA activity, and warrantless DoJ FISA violations, which Gonzalez said, "We're too busy to get warrants," how do you explain the disconnect between what your Attorney General ordered, and what you and your peers in DoJ have assented to: Did you ignore the Attorney General's order; or were you simply reckless in not asserting your oath despite your clear comprehension of what the law was? How did you report your concerns to the DoJ OPR, and when did you make your concerns known; do you still have copies of your peer comments you have provided to the DoJ OPR? [ Nghe theo lẽ phải. Ref ]

    In light of Hamdan individuals have been detained without any evidence in Guantanamo, never give a chance to see evidence, and there was no bonafide showing that they were related to any illegal activity. Yet you stated, "each and every person detained arising from our investigation into 9/11 has been detained with an individualized predicate – a criminal charge, an immigration violation, or a judicially issued material witness warrant." [ Ref] It's as if you're living in a fantasy world. Are you saying that the people detained at Guantanamo are unrelated to 9-11, and that you stand by your statement as being correct; or must you admit that your public statement -- which your DC Bar peers relied on -- amounted to a material misrepresentation, something you knew was false, and totally at odds with the standards of professional conduct expected of an attorney? However, if your statement is correct, how do you explain the 2004 RNC detentions of demonstrators wholly at odds with the governing law: Are you saying that 9-11-related defendants are given more rights than Americans who lawfully petition for grievances; or are you misleading your legal peers on the DC as to the seriousness DoJ was enforcing and respecting the clearly established, and promulgated statutes and constitutional rights?

    A professional association does many things, most of all ensure the public is not harmed by dangerous menaces. The American Bar Association’s leadership problem is not an issue we deal with here today. In your words, "Finally, we have employed a deliberate strategy to remove from our streets those who would seek to do us harm." It is appropriate to assert emphatically that you are not only a threat to the Constitution, but you are someone that has done this nation harm.

    * * *

    Arguably, based on the above, we can make several adverse inferences and form several conclusions about what is going on. It appears Viet Dinh and other pesonnel assigned to the DoJ Office of Legal Policy [OLP] have between 2000-2006 allegedly, inter alia

  • Materially supported illegal activity;

  • Assented to war crimes and violations of Geneva;

  • Been part of the planning effort to craft unconstitutional legislation;

  • Lied repeatedly to your peers about what you knew, or should have known, were major violations of the Constitution, treaties, and clearly established rights; and

  • Engaged in a conspiracy to achieve the above.

    Benefit For the Dubious Doubt

    But let's be fair on not state that they have committed any crime, but let's pretend, for the sake of argument that you "didn't know." If that is true, how can you possibly take credit for any leadership or results? You can't have it both ways. You were either involved in the planning and responsible for the results, but good and bad; or you were so clueless, that you were wandering around, oblivious to reality, all the while making statements that were wholly disconnected from things you knew, or should have known, were violations of the law. Your story doesn't add up.

    You have a major integrity problem. If we are to believe your story -- that you didn't know, or had no idea -- then you clearly have failed in your oath and your legal responsibility to find out, make sure your statements were true, and then ensure that the natural consequences of your misconduct, inaction, or otherwise reckless disregard for reality were accounted for. Yet, let's give you the benefit of the doubt: That you are innocent, and that you have committed no violation. Where is your public rebuke for the statements you've made above, and your assertion under penalty of perjury that you had no idea, and you relied on people who have betrayed you? Again, we have nothing.

    The only reasonable conclusion is that you made statements that you intended others to rely on; yet in 2006, you have failed to distance yourself from this fiction, and you would have us believe you have provided the public with reasonable statements. Again, you can't have it both ways. Either you have lied to the public and your peers in the DC bar, and made misrepresentations that warrant an investigation; or you were wholly devoid of fact, and still despite the errors you have failed to make a timely correction to things that you knew people relied upon, but are absurd.

    Your problem is that you've attached yourself to the idea of liberty and the law; but the results of this government, and your DoJ is wholly at odds with the rosy picture you’ve painted. Hamdan is only the tip of the iceberg.

    Let us suppose that someone "gave you" the information -- that you relied on, and has been proven false. Do you plan to share with the Committee, DC Bar, or the Grand Jury the names of the people who you spoke to that provided you with this incorrect information? The only reasonable conclusion is that you have either lied; or you're covering up for others who also knew there were major violations of the law, and you've still (apparently) done nothing to correct the public record. It is 2006, many years after your DC bar comments, and reality is not quite consistent with what you've stated.

    Your integrity isn't simply on the line. It hangs in the balance, and is something you have to remedy and correct. Your peers have been let down; Congress has been misled; and the public now knows that you have made statements that have not been adequately updated, corrected, or explained.

    But the issue isn't simply with the public, but with the Georgetown University Community, and the Board of Trustees. It remains to be understood whether the rosy images you pained before the DC bar were material in their selection of you; or whether there were other explainable reasons why an institution of higher learning would hire someone like you who has (apparently) let the incorrect record go uncorrected.

    We're talking war crimes here. US Attorneys, DoJ staffers, and ABA certified people have planned, orchestrated, and engaged in war crimes in Guantanamo; and the FISA NSA violations are wholly at odds with our constitution. Yet, your words above sound quite nice. It's only when we explore the facts and other evidence in light of Hamdan that we wonder: Did you actually go to law school and read anything; and how did you pass the bar exam? [ Ref ]

    * * *

    To be clear, I'm not accusing you of a crime. I'm stating emphatically:

  • You were present during the period when you said things were just fine;

  • The public records in Hamdan is wholly at odds with what you've stated above

  • A reasonable person, after reading your DC Bar comments would want to review the matter and consider whether you or others in the DC Bar have engaged in a course of conduct that materially undermines public confidence in the US legal profession, and your trustworthiness as an attorney.

    It's one thing to make political speeches. Quite another to, despite an ABA professional certification, to wait this long after Hamdan to consider the legal implications of what appears to be specific planning by you, your peers, and others in DoJ to violate the laws of war, not ensure the laws were followed; yet at the same time provide a wholly unsupportable public story that defies any evidence.

    These are issues not simply of disbarment, but of criminal law and international war crimes.

    These are serious issues.

    * * *

    Let's take a broader view of Executive Power, privilege, and war crimes. ORCON specifically states that information may not be classified to hide illegal activity. The NSA-FISA violations are known.

    Your problem is that with the Jefferson FBI raid, which Wendy commented on, is that if we rely on the Court's opinion -- that nobody is above the law, and that no office can be a safe haven of criminal activity -- we need to explore whether that finding applies to your office at Bancroft Associates.

    Put another way, if you desire to celebrate the abuse of Executive power, and illegal raid into Congress -- and the self-adjudication/assertion by the same court which issued the warrant that the conduct was "Constitutional" -- then we have to apply that rule to your office: Namely, if there is an allegation of illegal activity, unlawful conduct, or evidence that there is something within your office related to illegal activity, then that's fair game.

    Again, we can only go off what the DC Court has affirmed on the FBI raid: That no office can be a safe haven for criminal activity. In your caser, the record is rather clear:

  • DoJ OPR has been thwarted from reviewing the NSA information;

  • The Patriot Act has been struck down as unconstitutional, and the NSL's are not lawful;

  • Your above comments are wholly at odds with the public record

  • The President of the United States has left you out to dray, and asserted that there were no warrants obtained, despite the law requiring so.

    From a cursory glance at your mess, it appears as though you are in the center of a criminal enterprise, you continue to get access to DoJ information, and despite leaving DoJ you appear to engage in discussions with DoJ to assert what appears to be an ongoing effort to abuse Executive Power.

    Please explain to the public, if as you and Wendy and the court say, that it is "just fine" to violate privilege, that your Bancroft Offices are immune to a similar raid, and a revocation of any of your clients' reasonable expectation that your private papers are not also going to be reviewed by a Grand Jury, or War crimes tribunal when it comes to matters related to inter alia

  • Hamdan and your knowledge of Spike Bowman’s' reports to DoJ-DoD that there was a problem; but no apparent effort on your part to correct the report to the DC Bar on issues of statutory compliance:

  • FISA-NSA violations, which contrary to your assertions, violated the law, engaged in conduct that did intrude upon civilians; and was done in a manner that violated clearly established rights, contrary to what your DoJ Attorney General Ashcroft explicitly instructed you to do so.

  • Rendition, torture, and other illegal activity committed against Americans in violation of the Constitution, Geneva, and clearly established rights.

    Again, on all counts, you were there with Wendy directly communicating with Congress, and the record turns out that there are major violations of the law.


  • A. You knew what was going on, and failed to stop it -- as you had a legal duty to do so under Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions; or

  • B. You were reckless in your performance of your duties, taking credit for things that were fiction, all the while failing to ensure your public comments were factual, and you made misrepresentations; or

  • C. You can't make up your mind, you're covering up for someone else, and you're still not quite sure what happened; raising reasonable questions in the mind of any comatose Senator whether you are serious about being on the Supreme Court.

    * * *

    These are my expectations:

    You immediately self report to the DC Bar and your peers the problems with your statements, and correct the record;

    YOU freely, without any expectation of favor or benefit, assent to subjecting your office and Wendy's papers to a review by the US Attorney and Grand Jury related to your alleged involvement with the War crimes committed at Guantanamo, as recognized in Hamdan;

    Your make a public statement on your website for Bancroft Associates that you are going to correct the record, and will provide in a timely manner to the US Attorney any information you have that may shed light on the DoJ OPR blocked investigation;

    You report immediately to the Georgetown Board of Trustees your apparent integrity issues and ask them to re-evaluate your initial hiring decision in light of what is now known;

    You discuss in recognizable English the issues of integrity , ethics, and other ABA related standards of conduct with your students at Georgetown, and explain what you should have done had you acted on what the public now knows about the Geneva violations, NSA-FISA violations, and the DOJ OPR blocked explanations;

    You provide a straight story to Congressman Hoekstra on the range of other programs which you in DoJ knew were going on, or what you suspect was going on; and you outline exactly who in your office "coordinated" with personnel in DoD and NSA to conduct the 45 day reviews; and the specific legal language you relied on to assert that this "non-FISA review" met the statutory intent, despite what Hamdan finding that the requirements of the law must be followed.

    You are to explain to the public the clear basis for any discussion and believe that they should have that you should be taken seriously; outline the entire speech that you have to the DC bar; and discuss at length the problems with your speech; and formally apologize to your peers in the DC bar for failing to timely correct the record to which they relied upon;

    You are to review your testimony before the House and Senate and declare, again, under penalty of perjury that you do or do not stand by those statements; and

    You are to outline for the DC bar the steps you plan to independently take to cooperate with a full investigation of these matters, and ensure that you fully implement the finding of the DC court that no office can be a safe haven for criminal activity.

    You are also to report to the US Attorney any travel plans you may have; and discuss where appropriate with private counsel your plans to avoid or discuss issues with members of the EU on matters related to the rendition, and cooperate fully with any inquiry The Hague may have.

    You are to explain at length your knowledge of the NSA intercepts which Bolton acquired; and discuss your knowledge of how the NSA provides "training missions" so that the American citizens are targeted for illegal surveillance;

    You are to review all 14 volumes of the Watergate Report, the Ervin Report, and the Iran-Contra Affair Minority Report and outline what specific solutions you have to the apparent reckless disregard you and your peers in the ABA have shown to the clearly established Constitution; and formulate a solution to your apparent inability to comply with the statutes.

    Until you do this, the planning for a New Constitution continues:

  • Provisions to impose pre-emptive litigation against Attorneys for possible future violations of the law;

  • Robust methods to deny the Executive power to enforce the laws; and leaving him only with the clerical duty of following the law;

  • Establishing a 4th Branch of Government beyond the Executive reach which has the exclusive power to conduct investigations, enforce the law, and gather evidence to President to the Judiciary, Grand Jury, and Members of Congress;

  • Establishment of an NSA-like capability within Congress to target Members of the Executive Branch;

  • Clearly established public rights of any citizens to bring suit on behalf of the Constitution against any domestic enemy whether they be in the ABA, Congress, Executive, or Judicial Branch;

  • Meaningful, timely sanctions on Members of Congress for them failing to assert their 5 USC 3331 obligations, and lawfully imposing on them timely penalties for fraud.

    Either way, this non-sense since 2000 is the residual menace and mess from Watergate and Iran-Contra, and has been strike three. This is going to end.

    Either you cooperate, or you're going to lawfully have the DC court ruling related to "loss of privilege" and "It's OK to violate the privilege of safe havens of criminals" lawfully rammed down your throat with indictments, subpoenas, discovery, and broad expansive visits into the very things you say others are not entitled: Privacy, privilege, and respect for their boundaries.

    You, in my personal opinion, and this may or may not be widely held, have brought discredit upon the US legal profession, you remain a threat to the US Constitution, and you should resign your bar membership pending review, then reinstatement after an appropriate ban from practicing law anywhere in the United States, free world, or other nations which supposedly "love the law."

    * * *

    không có đủ khả năng làm việc gì

    * * *

    Recall, as Dinh appears to endorse on his wiki, that he planned the Patriot Act. Yet, also recall from Nuremburg it was the planners of the illegal activity who were indicted. [ Ref ]

    The EU is investigating the rendition program, and is aware of the Hamdan case as it relates to Geneva violations.

    The Supreme Court in Hamdan has struck down Viet Dinh's notion of the "rule of law." Dinh, Yoo, Addington, and the crew at DoJ should be investigated for possible disbarment for failing to preserve the US Constitution.

    Questions for Dinh:

  • DoD's Hayes is currently under Senate Judiciary review for potential appointment to the federal bench. Hamdan affirmed that Geneva applied, yet DoJ and DoD staff personnel were intimately coordinating abuse at Guantanamo. You are reported to have had discussions with Baybee, Addington, Gonzalez, and others inside DoD to help orchestrate abuses under the Patriot Act. You are also reported to have been in coordination with the various torture related memos which Baybee, Gonzalez, Addington, Yoo, Hayes, and others well understood violated Geneva. Please discuss your discussions with other attorneys over matters related to rendition, torture, abuse, and other illegal conduct which The Supreme Court recognized violated Geneva.

  • NSA prior to 9-11 was engaging in illegal activity, yet we're asked to believe that it was only Sept 2001 events which prompted the changes. Also, we learn that NSA wasn't the only agency that, before 9-11, was engaging in illegal conduct. Prior to Sept 2001, DoJ under your guidance was drafting the Patriot Act. Could you comment on what information you had prior to 9-11 that suggested you would need to have this plan ready; and how was your plan coordinated with the NSA for purposes of targeting (with various "training missions") selected US-based targets under the UnPatriotic Act?

  • In Sept 2003, well after you left DoJ, you were able to provide the Judiciary Committee current information on DoJ intelligence-related data. Please discuss your own going access to classified DoJ information while at Georgetown.

  • How much money are you getting directly, or indirectly, from the RNC and or DoJ to make updates to your wiki entry?

  • When clients engage with Bancroft, some of them may have the desire to review the various time cards. This tends to assist them with understanding to what extent, if any, there are adequate internal controls. Are the clients you service satisfied that you are spending time making updates to your wiki; and to what extent, if any, have they been afforded an explanation as to which of their billable hours you charged to which account to make updates to your personal wiki?

  • When evaluating the prospects of a potential nominee in their leadership position for suitability to provide leadership from the Supreme Court to the judicial branch, it is appropriate to evaluate to what extent the various DoJ personnel who worked for you did or did not choose to continue their professional association after they had you as their supervisor. Could you comment on the apparent scant number of employees you currently supervise; and provide an explanation for the apparent drop in personnel you oversee from what you were involved within in DoJ to what you are currently doing with Bancroft.

  • What consideration did Dinh, while at DoJ, give to the commercial aspects of the law, when reviewing the Patriot Act, rendition, Guantanamo, or other activities that required commercial contract support: Did the precedents of Nuremburg, and indictments against commercial firms and industry leaders, enter into his mind while he was allegedly planning the unlawful activity which violated the US Constitution and Geneva Conventions? [ Ref Hat tip--Feline #15]

  • Let's consider the issue of EU policy. You well know, stating: "[T]he European Convention on Human Rights allows states to subject a person to preventive detention “when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence." Ref What is Dinhs view on preventive detention of US Attorneys, or those in the ABA who might, at some speculative time in the future, assent to illegal violations of Geneva: Should they be detained today so that they cannot possibly do what would amount to illegal war crimes planning? Is Dinh concerned about traveling to the EU where he might possibly be detained, questioned, or indicted for his alleged involvement in the war crimes planning?

  • How many complaints about Keefer did Dinh file with the DOJ OPR?

  • Which specific person is “suggesting” Dinh could be on the Supreme Court?

    * * *

    Let's consider the broader DoJ management issues. At the time that Dinh was a supervisor in DoJ< personnel within DoJ were using the wiki and making updates when DoJ Gonzalez said that DoJ was "too busy" to go to the FISA court to get warrants.

    Traditionally, when someone is a leader in DoJ, they either continue with what exists, make improvements, or they permit things to degrade. If we are to believe that Dinh, at some point, could be a leader on the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate to examine the legacy of DoJ after Dinh left.

    If there were adequate internal controls in place, we would expect to see some continuity and discipline maintained. However, we see the opposite. The DoJ employee wiki updates continue well after Dinh left suggesting that his leadership legacy was not only transitory, but failed to send a signal to the DoJ that on-duty conduct was something to be concerned with. It's as if Dinh and Gonzalez are working in a vacuum: Asserting things about what may or may not be challenges; yet the employee conduct is at odds with Gonzalez representations.

    Consider also after the 2000 election, Vice President Cheney led an effort to oversee the transition, and ensure that the various agencies, including DoJ, had adequate goals and benchmarks in place. The GAO and IG reports since 2000 suggest the DoJ performance, at best, has been illegal.

    During Dinh's tenure at DoJ, he fatally admits he was in the planning role for the now-unconstitutional patriot Act. It's curious that despite the "big contribution" Dinh provided, it required the PA US Attorney to speak on the issues.

    * * *

    Wiki: What you can do

    Feel free to visit the wiki and make appropriate changes:

  • Are the comments free of editorial content?

  • Is the information balanced?

  • Should commentary on Hamdan be included?

  • Are the risks that Dinh could be indicted for war crimes (related to his alleged support of illegal violations of Geneva) adequately included in the discussion in re Hamdan?

  • Why is there no discussion on the DoJ OPR blocks into the NSA issues?

  • What role did Dinh have in formulating policies related to the Gitmo, Rendition, and NSA-FISA issues which Hamdan struck down?

  • What is Dinh's relationship with Addington?

  • Does the information appear to be factual or self-promotional?

  • Does the information amount to advertising, and a possible violation of the ABA standards related to attorney advertising?

  • Is the information provided with adequate disclosures that the information is from the firm which has an interest in the information, and is not from a neutral party?

    * * *


    Other information showing Viet D. Dinh was well positioned and keenly aware of Geneva, but provided ample written evidence showing his disdain for the clear Geneva requiremetns related to the laws of war, imminence, and other FISA-NSA impolicatins of Hamdan

    Viet Connected To Hamdan Issues

    From: Jonathan Turley. 70 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 649. Tribunals and Tribulations: The Antithetical Elements of Military Governance in a Madisonian Democracy.

    Note the following points rejected in Hamdan as they violate Geneva:
  • Refusal to disclose information to defendant on grounds of “national security”, the dubious claims of Nixon during the Watergate era
  • Use of evidence which violates the rules of evidence, as otherwise required under the UCMJ and District Courts

    Note closely that Dinh cited “Article III” clearly indicating he was aware of Geneva.

    Note 610: Viet Dinh has offered the common defense of the tribunals on the basis of practicalities:

    Dinh, as quoted by Turley: “Trying terrorists before military commissions offers a number of practical advantages over ordinary civilian trials. First, commissions enable the government to protect classified and other sensitive national-security information that would have to be disclosed publicly before an Article III court. Second, ordinary criminal trials would subject court personnel, jurors, and other civilians to the threat of terrorist reprisals; the military is better suited to coping with these dangers. And third, military commissions can operate with more flexible rules of evidence, which would allow the introduction [of] all relevant evidence regardless of whether, for example, it has been properly authenticated.”

    * * *

    Public statements at odds with actual DoJ practices: Viet D. Dinh. Ordered Liberty in the Age of International Terrorism, Harold Leventhal Talk (June 7, 2002), at (last viewed Mar. 23, 2005), quoting Edmund Burke, Speech at His Arrival at Bristol Before the Election in that City (1774), quoted in ROBERT H. BORK, SLOUCHING TOWARDS GOMORRAH: MODERN LIBERALISM AND AMERICAN DECLINE 64 (1996).

    3 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 13. The Genius of the Constitution: The Preamble and the War on Terror, C. DEAN MCGRATH, JR, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center

    * * *


    Viet D. Dinh.
    Loosing Liberties: Applying a Foreign Intelligence Model to Domestic Law Enforcement
    51 UCLA Law Review 1619 (2004),

    * * *

    What we know: NSA and warrantless interrogations with SWIFT and FISA violations

    Contrast this with what we were told:

    Second, in cooperation with our colleagues in state and local law enforcement, the Department's Anti-Terrorism Task Forces have conducted voluntary interviews of individuals who may have information relating to our investigation. [25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 399 ]

  • How can this be called “voluntary interview” when Americans are actually detained without warrant, denied access to counsel, and asked information that is not obtained through a warrant?

    * * *

    Are Wendy and Dinh an item?

    From: 113 Harv. L. Rev. 1131 – Note 36. “For social aspects of interracial dating, see Viet D. Dinh, Single White Female, 2 Reconstruction 19, 19-20 (1994).”

    Who’s playing the race card?

    Viet D. Dinh, Multiracial Affirmative Action, in Debating Affirmative Action: Race, Gender, Ethnicity, and the Politics of Inclusion 280-89 (Nicolaus Mills ed., 1994)

  • Dinh, if you deny someone their Geneva rights, does that mean you’re including them or excluding them from the rule of law?

    * * *

    NSA: Qwest Corporate Governance refuses to cooperate with illegal DOJ warrantless FISA requests

    Who knows about corporate governance:

    Viet D. Dinh,
    Codetermination and Corporate Governance in a Multinational Business Enterprise,
    24 J. Corp. L. 975, 980 (1999).

  • Are we only concerned with corporate governance when it comes to making money overseas after illegally invading them; and we don’t care if the firms violate the domestic law and US Constitution? If that’s true, why the resistance to conduct audits. Oh, we don’t want to think about that. Can’t have facts, can we?

    * * *

    NSA and FISA violations:

    Viet D. Dinh: DoJ has pursued “an aggressive and systematic campaign that utilizes all information available, all authorized investigative techniques, and all the legal authorities at our disposal” Viet D. Dinh Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy
    U.S. Department of Justice December 4, 2001


    Allegations of Perjury against Viet D. Dinh

    Here’s more non-sense which has proven false in light of the NSA and FISA violations:

    And we have respected civil liberties by detaining, on an individualized basis, only those persons for whom we have legal authority to do so. Those whom we suspect of terrorist activities and who are in violation of the law will be prosecuted to the fullest extent with every resource at the Justice Department’s disposal.

    Oregon Attorney: Evidence NSA violated what Viet D. Dinh Promised

    First and foremost, the attorney and client will be notified in writing that their communication will be monitored pursuant to the regulation.

  • Did you get the memo that DoD-NSA was monitoring us?

  • Here’s what happened to that memo:Ref:,Lost,-1,0,0,.html

    Second, the regulation erects a "firewall" between the team monitoring the communications and the outside world, including persons involved with any ongoing prosecution of the client.

    NSA: Viet D. Dinh Presents information to the Senate on known FISA requirements, which the Committee relied upon, but has been proven false in light of the NSA

    Third, absent imminent violence or terrorism, the government will have to obtain court approval before any information from monitored communications is used for any purpose, including for investigative purposes.

  • You may assert you “have” to do something’s but what you “have” to do, and what you actually do is not the same.

    * * *

    Hamdan, Hamdii, and Padilla: Did we hear the whole story about the abuses?

    Consider: Padilla, which was a lengthy court battle

    Let’s look at the initial Claims: Everything is wonderful
    [From: 81 N.C.L. Rev. 2157, note 32, Rachel V. Stevens, in re post 9-11 detentions] See Hearing, supra note 22, at 206 (statement of Viet D. Dinh, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice). Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh assured the public that

    every one of these detentions is fully consistent with established constitutional and statutory authority... . Every one of these individuals has a right to access to counsel... . Every person detained, whether on criminal or immigration charges or as a material witness, has the right to make phone calls to family members and attorneys. No one is being denied their right to talk to their attorneys.

    Look at what the US did to the detainees in Guantanamo. There were also abuses in the RNC demonstrations. What other abuses are we not hearing?


  • DoJ IG found violations of policies

  • Detentions not consistent with Geneva or the US Statutes

  • Right to counsel is different than ability to freely discuss information with counsel

  • No answer on who has been given access to the transcripts of their attorney-client conversations

  • This is not legal: “You can speak to your attorney, so long as we record what you say and use it against you”

    * * *

    2006 Election: How serious are they about voting?

    See this testimony:

    Right of Ex-Prisoners To Vote in Federal Elections: Hearings on H.R. 906 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. (1999) (testimony of Viet D. Dinh, Assistant Professor of Law and Deputy Director of Asian Law and Policy Studies Program, Georgetown University Law Center).

    * * *

    WMD, Imminent Threat, and Geneva: Wondering who said not to worry about the lack of evidence?

    Paul D. Clement & Viet D. Dinh,
    Constitution Provides No Support for Opponents of Preemption,
    14 LEGAL BACKGROUNDER 42 (Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, D.C.), Nov. 12, 1999

    This is irrelevant: The law is not based on a “lack of support” but affirmative allowance for what is lawful. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any document or clause which permits the UN requirements.

    * * *

    Hamdan affirms Geneva: They are requirements to be followed, not explained away.

    Viet D. Dinh,

    Whose Call is it? Supreme Court Should Rethink Pre-emption Law,
    22 Legal Times Vol. 29 (Dec. 6, 1999)

    * * *

    Viet D. Dinh, Foreword: Freedom and Security After September 11, 25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 399, 405 (2002).

    * * *

    Pre-emptive Doctrine: Who says he doesn’t know anything about the laws of war?

    Viet D. Dinh, Reassessing the Law of Preemption, 88 Geo. L.J. 2085, 2088 (2000)

  • How was this article crafted, yet there are violations at Geneva?
  • Was there no consideration for Geneva?
  • When the 2002 Iraq planning started, how was this notion of pre-emption incorporated and reviewed within DoD?

    * * *

    Viet D. Dinh, Freedom and Security After September 11,
    25 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL'Y 399 (2002);

    * * *

    Viet D. Dinh,
    Nationalism in the Age of Terror, 56 Fla. L. Rev. 867, 871-72 (2004)

    Viet D. Dinh,
    Executive Privilege: The Dilemma of Secrecy and Democratic Accountability,
    13 Const. Comment 346, 352-55 (1996)

    Viet D. Dinh,
    What is the Law in Law & Development, 3 Green Bag 19, 27 (1999)

    Viet D. Dinh
    Races, Crime, and the Law, 111 HARV. L. REV. 1289, 1303 (1998)

    * * *

    Bancroft Associates LLPC.
    2121 Bancroft Place, NW
    Washington, DC 20008
    Tel: (202) 234-0090
    Fax: (202) 234-2806

    Bancroft Client:
    Recording Industry Association of America

    * * *

    One of the ideas of leadership is to set the example. Putting aside the failed American governance system, let’s focus on individual choices. The Supreme Court needs continued judicial excellence, leadership, and competence. We cannot afford mediocrity, nor a menace to the Constitution.

    Let’s review Dinh’s post-DoJ track record. There’s not a lot of evidence he’s lead many people. Students are students, not peers in the legal community.

    Let’s consider the broad authority he had to review, get information, and ensure that his public statements were credible: “In carrying out his responsibilities under this section, the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, shall have the right to call upon the relevant [stet] Departmental units for personnel and other assistance." Ref

  • He had no restrictions:

  • If he had a question, he had the power to get staff resources

  • Despite great power and latitude, he chose to issue statements between 2001 and 2003 that were frankly at odds with what is believable:

  • Contrary to assertions that the laws were important, the President said that the FISA requirements were ignored – something Viet should have been intimately aware while assigned to DoJ 2001-2003.

    * * *

    Viet: Neither of us represents any entity in this hearing, and neither receives any grant or contract from the Federal government. Ref

    Viet: Board of directors for 501c: [Phone number matches Bancroft]

    Molly Geissenhainer is Manager and Executive Assistant to Viet Dinh

    Lizette D. Benedi served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs

    Saritha Komatireddy

    Research Assistant to Bancroft Associates PLLC; previously attended Harvard College [didn’t graduate?]

    Indian Sanscrit Review: [ Ref ]

    Saritha Komatireddy '05, government: Research tsunami reconstruction efforts and create documentary; intern at Harvard Foundation


    Please review :

    The South Asia Initiative (SAI) at the Asia Center has announced its first completed cycle of Das and Menezes Travel Grants to the Indian Subcontinent. Grants were awarded for research travel to Harvard faculty and graduate students from across all the Schools, and to undergraduates at the College.

    * * *

    Does not appear related:
    Proposed director: Michael Baker, president and CEO of Bancroft Associates
    Patriot Bank in the Trinity area of Pasco County, Florida

    * * *

    Edwin Joseph, Cheryl Lockwood,
    Bancroft Associates LP,
    Great Atlantic Management Co. Inc. Ref

    * * *


    Establishing the President's Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties.
    Ex. Or. No. 13353 of August 27, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 53585 Ref

    Legacy: Failure

    * * *

    History: OLP is the product of a 1978 merger Ref

    ABA Policy: Ref

    Rather than enhance citizen access to justice, DoJ did the opposite in destroying the Constitution. Nice job, ABA – glad you could be a menace.

    Where’s the after action report to review the ABA’s disaster at DoJ?

    * * *

    Viet's problem is that was located in the central planning office which knew, or should have known, the programs were not lawful.

    Mission: Ref

    The very section where Viet used to work is the office responsible for screening judicial candidates: DoJ Office of Legal Policy “evaluates potential nominees for Federal judicial and United States Attorney appointment, and assists in preparation of nominees for Senate confirmation”

    Detailed duties of office: Ref

    * * *


    Wondering why you can’t get FOIA information unrelated to ORCON violations or other illegal things occurring? Office of Legal policy is the POC for FOIAs Ref

    * * *

    OLP is on the Department Review Committee, chaired by Office of Intelligence Policy and Review: Ref

    Requirement: “(2) Provide staff support to the Department Review Committee, established by §17.148 of this chapter.” Ref

    * * *

    Wondering why DoJ staff attorneys have a training problem using information technology, and are using wikis when DoJ AG says, (boo hoo) we’re too busy to follow FISA : « (5) Undertake, arrange, or support training and informational programs concerning both acts for the executive agencies and the Department.”Ref

    * * *

    Coordinating DoJ-White House motions related to NSA and Hamdan related reviews:

  • Intervene in re NSA litigation: “Determining whether a brief amicus curiae will be filed by the Government, or whether the Government will intervene, in any appellate court.” Ref

  • Supreme Court in re Hamdan: “Conducting, or assigning and supervising, all Supreme Court cases, including appeals, petitions for and in opposition to certiorari, briefs and arguments, and, in accordance with §0.163, settlement thereof.” Ref

    * * *

    SWIFT: Bancroft knows full well what SWIFT is, and openly discusses the tracking procdures.

    Ref Ref