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:
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:
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.
Allegations:
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
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:
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:
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
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.
Either:
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:
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:
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:
Background
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:
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 http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/leventhaltalk.pdf (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
FISA
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 ]
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)
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).
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
Ref:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=128&wit_id=78
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.
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.
Hamdan, Hamdii, and Padilla: Did we hear the whole story about the abuses?
Consider: Padilla, which was a lengthy court battle
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1027.ZO.html
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 thatevery 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?
Facts:
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)
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
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: http://tinyurl.com/kfpvu [Phone number matches Bancroft]
Molly Geissenhainer is Manager and Executive Assistant to Viet Dinh
mgeiss@bancroftassociates.net.
Lizette D. Benedi served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs
lbenedi@bancroftassociates.net.
Saritha Komatireddy
Research Assistant to Bancroft Associates PLLC; previously attended Harvard College [didn’t graduate?]
skomatireddy@bancroftassociates.net
Indian Sanscrit Review: [ Ref ]
Saritha Komatireddy '05, government: Research tsunami reconstruction efforts and create documentary; intern at Harvard Foundation
Image:
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/05.26/17-asian.html
Please review : saritha@post.harvard.eduThe 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
Ha!
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
FOIA
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:
SWIFT: Bancroft knows full well what SWIFT is, and openly discusses the tracking procdures.
Ref Ref
posted by Constant @ 2:43 PM
<< Home