Cheney, Addington Misrepresent Required Ministerial Duties As Discretionary, Unreviewable Power

The Iran-Contra Minority Report ("Report") was a perversion of American law. Addington and others selectively extracted key phrases, and wholly misrepresented the law. The 1987 perversions have continued well into 2006. One problem in the report was recasting mandatory ministerial duties and requirements as powers.

The change is important not only for FISA, but on issues of Presidential accountability. This note highlights how Addington and Cheney have shifted the President's duties, which could be prosecuted by any one of the fifty (50) State Attorney Generals, into someone vague, which the President hopes to be beyond oversight by either branch of government or the public.

* * *

Goal

This note outlines a sample problem in the 1997 Iran-Contra Minority Report. Then-Representative Cheney and then-RNC Staff Counsel David Addington, now the Vice President's chief of Staff, among others authored and published the minority report.

The issue is confusing ministerial requirements and power. The two are not the same. The confusion is at the heart of hear of Congressional malfeasance over the President's criminal violations of FISA.

Ministerial duties are requirements under FISA. There is no discretion, as Hamdan reminds us. Failure to perform mandatory ministerial duties is subject to court and Congressional review. Power is something else. However, in the President's universe with Addington and the Vice President, a broad claim of Presidential power is something this President says others cannot review. This too is incorrect.

The distinction has direct bearing on the ongoing privacy litigation between the States and the President over the illegal surveillance. It is incorrect for Asst Attorney General Keisler and Verizon Counsel to assert that the President and contractors have discretion whether to follow or not follow state privacy statues. There is no discretion on ministerial requirements and legal obligations. Contrary to the DOJ framing, the legal issue is not a separation of powers, but an issue of criminal law.

Approach

We dissect a subtle phrase to illustrate the Executive Branch legal maneuver and defense strategy. The approach has one objective: To protect the President and others from criminal prosecution. The ruse is understood. This discussion starts with the quote from the Iran-Contra Minority Report; outlines the citation error in the report; and discusses the implications of the misrepresentation.

The text of interest is just before Footnote 28, discussing the Minority's views on Presidential activities:

In all of the quotations above, the Federalist was not treating powers as if they were randomly distributed. “Separated powers are not separated arbitrarily,” writes one constitutional scholar.”²⁷ “They are divided on principle, and not according to the prudential considerations of the moment,” concludes another.²⁸

Iran-Contra Minority Report, Chapter 2, Page 460

* * *

Problems:

1. The Minority Report citation at footnote 28 is incorrect;

2. The actual quote was something else, had nothing to do with power, but with governmental functions. It appears the quote was not actually taken from the original text, but from another footnote, from another document; and

3. At best the quote, as used in the Minority Report, mixes the following discrete concepts into a single soup: Separation of power; governmental functions, and government power. At worst, the Republicans have consistently relied on this creative wordplay to thwart lawful oversight and prosecution of criminal activity.

* * *

Comparison: Citations

It appears there is a citation error because the original journal was never used, but a footnote was lifted from another source.

A. Here is the citation as it is listed in the Iran-Contra Report, for footnote 28: [ 7 Vanderbilt J. of Intl’l L. 71, 75 (1973) ]

B. Here is the correct citation for the Journal: [ 7 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 71 ]

Here is the problem: The title only relates to a journal before 1971:

Vanderbilt journal of international law NOW Vanderbilt journal of transnational law Holdings: vol 1, 1967-vol 4, 1971

Vanderbilt journal of transnational law Holdings: vol 5, 1971-

- -

Chart 1: 1987 Iran Contra Minority Report Citation Ignored Original Document

Reader Tip: Open a second browser; resize both browsers side-by side to fit vertically in your monitor; keep this chart below stationary in browser1; then read the points below in browser2. Move back and forth between the text and this chart using the [+1] numbers, which correspond to the event-years. Use your finger to point to the chart as you read the text. Notice your hand movements as you read.

           1970   1971    1973 . . .1983   1987
.
Original                  [+1] 
Article
.
Original    ------[+2]
Journal
Name
.
Changed           [+3]---------------------------
Journal
Name
.
Citation                           [+4]
.
Iran-Contra                               [+5]
Report
.
.
Legend
A. The events are on the left, vertical axis. 
B. The years are horizontal, x-axis.

Notation
[+1] Original article in 1973
[+2] Original journal name [1967-vol 4, 1971]
[+3] New Journal Name, [vol 5, 1971 - present]
[+4] Citation in 1983 article
[+5] Iran-Contra Minority Report [1987]; Text/Footnote 28
.

Points

1. The original article [+1] used the correct journal name [+3].

2. The Iran-Contra Minority Report citation in 1987 [+5] used a name [+2] changed in 1971 [+3]

3. The report [+5] changed the citation words [+4], creating false words and an invalid citation [+5], which didn't match (a) the original article [+1]; (b) the changed journal title [+3]; or (c) the subsequent citation [+4].

4. They [+5] changed the citation [+4] to the incorrect title [+2] because they didn't have the right title [+3] before them in the article [+1] to verify.

5. They never checked the original article [+1]; nor verified whether the citation was correct or incorrect [+4]. Rather, they knew [+5] that the Journal Title had previously been something else [+2]. Rather than admit they [+5] did not review the original article [+1], they [+5] changed the citation [+4] to what they thought was correct [+2], not what was true [+1] and [+3].

6. The only way they [+5] could have changed any text [+1] was if they relied only on the citation [+4], and not the original article [+1] which had the correct journal name [+3]. Rather, had they [+5] reviewed the original text [+1], they [+5] would have realized the journal name had changed [+3], was no longer the old name [+2], and the citation [+4] was correct.

7. They never examined the original text [+1]. The only way they could have found the original article [+1] was if they used the correct title [+3]; but they [+5] didn't know what the title was [+1, +3] because they never reviewed the text [+1], nor were they aware that the name change [+3] occurred [+2] before the article was written [+1]. However, their citation [+5] shows nobody verified (a) the correct title [+1, +3]; (b) that there had been a change in title [+3]; or (c) that the text in the report [+5] no longer fairly represented the original author's words [+1]. They [+5] twisted the words [+1] to support an agenda of excuses, not accountability for violations of the law and mandatory, clearly promulgated Congressional requirements in the Boland Amendment.

8. They assumed (a) nobody would check; (b) they didn't check [+5]; and (c) without confirming the assumed-error [+4], they [+5] assumed that the citation [+4] they had modified [+5] had incorrectly cited [+4] the original article [+1].

9. Knowing that they [+5] had misrepresented the original words [+1], they tried to make it look as though the words [+5] were from an original text [+1] (which they never reviewed) by changing the journal citation title [+4] to what they thought it would have been [+2], not what it actually was [+3].

10. They didn't realize [+5] that (a) the journal title of the article [+1] they used from the citation had changed [+3] before the article was published [+1]; and (b)that the citation was correct [+4], and did not need to be changed to the incorrect, original title [+2]. They would have known the correct title [+3], as reported in the citation [+4] was valid had they reviewed the article [+1], rather than only the citation [+4].

11. They knew [+5] the journal title had changed [+3], but they didn't have the original document [+1] to confirm the correct title [+3].

12. They changed [+5] the citation [+4] to the wrong one [+5, +2] to make it appear as though they [+5] had corrected an error in the citation [+4].

13. All they knew [+5] was that the journal title used to be different [+2]. Rather than check the original article [+1], they assumed the citation [+4] was wrong and changed it [+5] . Had they looked at the original article [+1], they would have known the citation [+4] was correct [+3], and would not have to be changed [+5] to the incorrect title [+2].

14. This is not a simple error. They got the quote wrong [+5]. They lifted the quote [+5] not from the article [+1], but from the 1984 citation [+4]. There is no reasonable way to get the quote partially wrong [+5], but match the wrong title [+2]. Had they used the original article [+1], they would not have made an error in the title [+2, +5]. Rather, they lifted the words from the citation [+4], changed the words [+5], modified the citation [+4] to match the original title [+2], not realizing (a) the title had changed [+3] before the original source publication [+1]; and (b) the citation was correct [+4]. They never looked at the original text [+1] to establish the correct journal title [+3]; and nobody verified whether the work product [+5] correctly or incorrectly reported the original work content, details, or source [+1]. Using their citation [+5], it is impossible to find the original work [+1]: The journal title listed in the report note [+5] (a) does not lead to the correct journal title [+1, +3], but to the previous journal in the wrong year [+2]. Also, the listed journal title [+5] does not match the publication date or journal name on the article [+1]; rather, the journal title listed in the report citation [+5] incorrectly matches a title [+2] which does not correspond to the article [+1] or the timeline associated with the new journal title [+3]. Both the report citation [+5] and the incorrect journal title [+2] are inconsistent with the different time window of the journal title [+3] and correct article [+1].

15. Their intentions are criminal obstruction of justice. If their words [+5] were true [+1], they [+5] cannot explain why the words changed from the original [+1] to how they have been misrepresented [+5]; if their legal research was valid, they [+5] cannot explain why the changed-title [+2] does not lead to the correct journal [+3, +1]; if the objective and goal of their representations were respectable and honorable [+5], they cannot explain why only some of the words [+5] match the original [+1], but the reported title in the note [+5] is wrong [+2], and does not match reality [+1, +3]: The words, title, and dates. Their citation's journal-title [+5] only matches a fictional journal, which did not exist in 1973; nor does the citation-title [+5] match the journal associated with the article which existed in 1973 [+1].

16. This was a deliberate, fraudulent misrepresentation and warrants an increase in audit scope per Statement on Accounting Standard 99 (SAS 99); an urgent, documented message from the Congress to the DoJ OPR and DoD Inspector Generals; and a notification to all fifty [50] of the State Attorney Generals: The criminal misconduct continues in 2006. There are too many errors in the report [+5] to believe they made a simple error. Rather, they deliberately changed the words [+5] to misrepresent the article; and excluded key words to change the article focus from an issue of specific governmental duties, to a broader theme of power, consistent with the Iran-Contra Minority Report mythology [+5] and the excuses not to enforce the ongoing FISA violations between 2001-2006. Those in the RNC who know of this problem have been silenced with arrogant Addington's verbal abuse. Addington, like Gonzalez never graduated from a service academy because he is reckless, incompetent, and stupid -- driven by an agenda [+5], not reality [+1]. Both are insecure with themselves, quick to unquestioningly assent to stupid authority, unwilling to face their internal defects: They prematurely left their respective service Academies because they were unable to complete their job. They cut and ran, are weak, and untrustworthy. They remain defiant of their oath, and they have assented to illegal policies which have supported war crimes. These are subsequent violations of Geneva, and may likely implicate them before a war crimes tribunal. They know full well their personal liberty and lives are at stake: The possible consequence for their criminal involvement in these war crimes and illegal policies is the death penalty. Gonzalez and Addington are willing to take the nation to new wars in order to distract attention from reality [+1]: They are weak, insecure, stupid war criminals.

* * *

[ Intermission]

A. Click on [ Download ]
B. Choose [ Manually Download ]
C. Choose [ Run ]

* * *

In 1987, the Republicans were thinking in terms of what was pre-1971, not what was or should have been physically before them in physical space: The 1973 Article with the new Journal Title. The article cited was from 1973, two years after the name change, but they didn't know that because they didn't compare:

A. The actual article [+1], with

B. The year of publication: 1973 [+3], with

C. The year of the name change: 1971.

This is a fatal error. It shows us they didn't check the actual document, nor could anyone prior to publication independently rely on the citation to verify the source, quotation, citation, and use was accurate. It is impossible to rely on the Iran-Contra minority report footnote to find the original. There was no Vanderbilt Journal of International Law in 1987, only 1971. There was in 1971 and 1987 a Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. If you search for the former, you'll find the error: Ref, with 3,800 hits; however, the title does not exist as a bonafide journal name in any legal law review index that includes publications only after 1971. Rather, the correct title is here, with 78,000 hits. The different numbers mean that the title is still not consistently cited correctly.

After noticing the error, one would have to know to change the reference name to the correct journal name. The Republicans made at least three errors: First, using the wrong journal name; second, failing to confirm the citation prior to publication; and third, not recognizing that the listed title does not match any other public journal, or the journal used, if used at all from the correct time period. Their textual misrepresentation might have escaped detection had they chosen the right journal title from the right time.

Given the text use in 1983 was only four years before the 1987 Minority Report, and the selective use of phrase, we judge they never looked at the original text of 1973, and simply relied on the citation, cropping the inconvenient text, and presenting it as if it were gleaned from the original. Conversely, had they looked at the original journal, they would have found the correct title. However, their citation would make that search impossible.

Their job is to explain how they knew to change the text to what they wanted, but they cannot rely on their sources to explain the change. It is more reasonable to conclude they lifted the citation, never checked the original, and incorrectly wrote down a title, never realizing that the copied title was incorrect because they never checked the original source.

* * *

Comparison: Governmental Duties v. Power

A. Original Text [+1] [As reported, original emphasis]

governmental functions be divided on principle, and not according to the prudential considerations of the moment

B. Minority Report [+5] [note 28]

They are divided on principle, and not according to the prudential considerations of the moment

- -

The key is to fuse the two quotes together into a composite quote, and you will see what has been altered:

governmental functions -- they are/be divided on principle, and not according to the prudential considerations of the moment

Recall, this was from a time before blogs, and a signed Congressional report. Notice at least five changes, which are not simply an error, but a deliberate change:

1. The phrase, "government functions", different from power, is removed without comment;

2. "They" is inserted;

3. "They" is quoted in the Iran-Contra report, but it not part of the actual text, and should not be included in the quotations;

4. The reader is asked to believe that "they" relates to power, when, if properly used as a replacement for what has been removed, is a replacement for something entirely different: Governmental function.

5. The verb tense changes from a plural "are" to a singular "be"

6. Although the verb in the sentence has been changed in a misleading way, the change is still quoted as if part of the original, which it was not.

7. Further, the way the verb is applied in the original, government functions are presently fused into a conclusion; however, the changed verb suggests a speculative, future fusion of power into a new result. One approach relates to a process that has already been defined in a historical context, in terms of what has already happened; the changed-version is a transformative process, which implies something new.

7A. This is an illegal change to the Constitution, outside the Amendment process.

7B. It is also an illegal exercise by the Republicans in the legislature of assenting to a non-judicial interpretation about the Executive. This violates the Separation of powers which only allows the court to make this determination.

DoJ's separation of powers argument has nothing to do with the States, but with the Executive finally being called on the carpet for doing what was well underway in 1987: Executive consolidation of power; Legislative assent to the Executive; and legislative assent to Executive interpretation of the statutes and Constitution.

This was crafted by lawyers, people, and individuals, trained to do otherwise: Preserve the Constitution. They have defied their oath. They are a threat to the Constitution. It is constitutional for the States to assert, through Article V, the requirement that the US government, not the Executive, protect the State's right to a republican form of government. One key aspect of a republican form of government is not only passing laws, but having a mechanism that enforces those laws. The Attorney Generals are well within their power and Constitutional mandate to prosecute not only the President, but the legal staff working in the Department of Justice.

- -

The confusion is terminology although subtle, it is important. The use of "They," as originally written, does not refer specifically to power, but to governmental duties. However, the Administration would have a hard time arguing that governmental functions are the same as power. OMB distinguishes between power and governmental functions, as something that cannot be delegated to the contractor. Also, when discussing governmental functions in Iraq, we think of delegating that function to the lowest level. Both OMB and Iraq examples demonstrate that the term "governmental function" has nothing to do with broad power, but a specific task, duty, or requirement governed by specific procedures, guidelines, and statutes.

The errors listed are not a simple error, but a consistent pattern of misrepresentations by the Republican legal community. When you study the Iran-Contra Minority Report, carefully cross-checking cited-text with actual-text in the original, the Republicans are in a different reality. You will see that the pattern is the same:

A. Selective cherry-picking of statutes;

B. Misapplying the court opinions;

C. Using phrases from case law contradicting the case rules;

D. Arriving at illegal legal outcomes and opinions.

These are important problems to note. The misconduct is the basis to bring criminal charges against the DOJ Staff for crafting illegal policies which violate Geneva.

These patterns, errors, and unreliable citations are not an isolated phenomena to 1987, but consistently applied by Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, Bybee, and the DOJ Staff well into 2006. The approach continues with the NSA litigation. In short, their work products are trash and unreliable.

Further, the work products, as crafted in their illegal form, are evidence that the DOJ Staff has produced illegal opinions. This is an important matter. Legal officials have been impeached for producing legal work products like this. This is very serious. Recall, the original objective of an impeachment was to give Parliament the power to remove an official that the King would not adequately supervise, or the court would not convict and remove from office.

This impeachment-objective is important to consider when reviewing the arguments over whether the impeachment process is or is not different than the criminal process; whether impeachment must precede prosecutions; or whether, in the absence of an impeachment, a criminal prosecution must be used. Arguably, when the Congress, despite having the power to remove a minister under the President, refuses to take action, just as the President refuses, then the only option to protect the Constitution is for the states to lawfully prosecute that minister or official.

* * *

Recall, the Iran-Contra Minority Report was written in 1987, meaning that all citations of the above Vanderbilt Journal after 1987 could not have been used. Rather, there are only two citations prior to 1987.

Citation 1 -- 1984

[Begin CITATION]n61 See, e.g., Thurow, Presidential Discretion in Foreign Affairs, 7 VAND, J. TRANSNAT'L L. 71 (1973) (citing the views of Locke, Montesquieu, and Hamilton).[END CITATION]

Peter E. QuintThe Separation of Powers Under Carter, February, 1984. [ 62 Tex. L. Rev. 785 ]

- -

Citation 2 -- 1983 [+4]

[BEGIN CITATION] n18 Thurow, Presidential Discretion in Foreign Affairs, 7 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 71, 75 (1973) (The separation of powers requires "that governmental functions be divided on principle, and not according to the prudential considerations of the moment.") (emphasis in original). [END CITATION ]

Erwin Chemerinksy, Controlling Inherent Presidential Power: Providing A Framework For Judicial Review, May, 1983. [56 S. Cal. L. Rev. 863]

- -

Subsequently, this sources was cited twice, once in 1994 [ 17 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 350 ], then in 2004 [ 82 Wash. U. L. Q. 1001 ] n198, which included Yoo in the footnote.

* * *

Discussion of Power

Keep in mind the thrust of the original quote [+5]:

In all of the quotations above, the Federalist was not treating powers as if they were randomly distributed. “Separated powers are not separated arbitrarily,” writes one constitutional scholar.”²⁷ “They are divided on principle, and not according to the prudential considerations of the moment,” concludes another.²⁸

Contrast this with a different citation [ 82 Wash. U. L. Q. 1001 ] from 1984:

Glen E. Thurow, Presidential Discretion in Foreign Affairs, 7 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 71, 86 (1973) ("The thrust of the Federalist Papers... . is that the great discretion required in foreign affairs can be made compatible with republican government not by dispersing the power to the greatest extent possible, but by concentrating it in the hands of the President.");

Taking the broad view, it appears they've taken the gist of this second passage, and melded into the undercurrent of the Iran-Contra minority report [+5]. Notice the following themes across both quotes:

Dispersion

Distributed

They've transformed the idea of foreign affairs power -- as an ideal, as it relates to the Executive -- into a general rule of domestic power, regardless the Constitutional requirements that separates that power from the other two branches. Yet, separate power does not mean unreviewable conduct, especially when there are ministerial requirements without discretion. This is what was done:

A. Exercised discretion overseas, and applied it illegally at home;

B. Expanded the idealized notion of Executive discretion abroad, and illegally applied that discretion at home;

C. Asserted that a concentration of foreign relations powers is the same as the concentration of domestic governmental duties. This is unconstitutional.

This is merely one of the lines of evidence showing how the executive discretion, which has been abused abroad, has been brought home. It was one thing for them to hide war crimes abroad where the videos might have been destroyed. The problem is when the war criminals wandering the streets of Baghdad return to wander the police station and community: They do not see a difference between Iraqi and American civilians. This government view its actions (and abuse of power and rights) as necessary to protect "freedom" -- their freedom to abuse and remain beyond accountability or review; not We the People’s freedom to enjoy our rights and privileges, free from abuse, intrusion, or violation.

* * *

Review

The original text [emphasis changed, +1] "governmental functions be divided on principle, and not according to the prudential considerations of the moment", is wholly misrepresented in the Iran Contra Minority Report [+5].

Relevance To 2006 Proposed FISA Changes

Recall what we've been told about FISA: That despite changes in technology, FISA is fine. We've heard this this year.

Put aside the fact that the Members of Congress have failed to enforce the law, and have conducted no meaningful oversight or fact finding on the violations of FISA. The entire basis for the proposed changes to FISA are based on a misreading of the Constitution, American law, and at odds with the 5 USC 3331 oath of office requirements: To ensure that ministerial duties are enforced as requirements, not given deference as a broad Presidential power.

Relevance to the Maine (MPUC) Litigation

The Verizon memoranda asserts a separation of powers issue divides a resolution. However, this misreads what separation of powers means, and is unrelated to ministerial duties. There is nothing Constitutionally in the way of the States enforcing state privacy statutes.

Relevance to the NJ Subpoena

The scale tips in favor of the NJ Plaintiffs in their assertions that the evidence they have, showing there was illegal conduct prior to 9-11, has nothing to do with a lawful objective, but with an abuse of power. Moreover, now that we know the abuse of power was orchestrated, the real issue becomes: Who will prosecute the known violations of the law, which are clear ministerial duties per 5 USC 3331 oath of office. DoJ OPR has been blocked.

* * *

At this juncture, it’s most likely that Addington and the others never read the original report or article. What is unmistakable, is that they’ve changed the meaning of the words from governmental functions to powers.

This is very important. By changing it from a function or ministerial duty, they’ve asked the world to believe that we have a generic power. Yet, under FISA and the oath of office, the specific requirement, and basis for finding liability, is if there is a problem or violation of a clear ministerial duty, as was done with the FISA violations.

It appears Addington, Keisler, Yoo, and Bybee, have asserted a false legal proposition on the basis of something that has nothing to do with (narrowly defined) power, but with a specific ministerial requirement.

* * *

Recommendations

1. State Prosecution of President

The State Attorney Generals should be contacted, and encouraged to prosecute the President. The President is not above the law. Congress has the power to impeach, but they refuse. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the State Attorney Generals from prosecuting the President.

Impeachment was originally designed as a tool to target the King's ministers when the King refused to remove them. Impeachment as it was designed was legislative action when the King and courts refused to act. Today's problem is the Congress, despite the impeachment, refuses to charge this President with a crime.

Presidential immunities and privileges need not be respected when they have been abused. DoJ has no credible basis to assert the President is immune to criminal prosecution by a State Attorney General.

2. Changing Duties To Power

The above information is another piece of evidence that the Congress and American voters have been manipulated to embrace legal fiction. It is important to take the broad view: To what extent has the country been given legal non-sense, and what does the law really say.

Prosecutors at the state level will have to decide how much work you want to spend rechecking each of the notes in the Iran-Contra Minority Report. As you review the information, you will have to determine how much time you want to spend finding each word, and how a specific ministerial duty has been changed into a generalized notion of power. The change is important. The issue is to what extent the President and others have knowingly lied about the law. DoJ Staff could be impeached for providing illegal opinions to the President, and prosecuted for war crimes in generating illegal policies which violate the Geneva Conventions.

State Prosecutors may wish to review the extent to which the current Congressional debate, and assent to Presidential versions of what did or didn’t happen in re FISA, is or is not connected to the clear muddying of the waters: Ministerial duties, as Hamdan states are clear requirements; they are nothing to do with power, but specific obligations and requirements which the President has under FISA.

3. Fraud Upon the Court

State prosecutors and the NSA plaintiffs are encouraged to consider to what extent the NSA litigation has been premised on a phony notion of what has or has not been in the record. We’ve already seen the Senators in Hamdan fabricate changes to the record. The Supreme Court discovered the Senators comments were inserted later, but not actually an interchange, as represented to the Court.

It remains to be understood to what extent the Senior Executive Service, White House, and DoJ Staff have relied on perverse notions of the Constitution; and to what extent contractors have failed to remove themselves from this widening FISA conspiracy.

* * *

Other Material

Ref Iran Contra Minority Report Analysis.

Ref Iran-Contra Minority Report, when examined, fatally undermines White House legal arguments and defenses in re 2001-6 NSA-FISA violations and the 1997 Iran-Contra Affair.

- -

Power vs. Ministerial Duties: Both Must Be Constitutionally Used

Ref Verizon's letter points to "Separation of power." This is a phony argument. FISA has nothing to do with unreviewable power, but with a ministerial requirement on the government and their agents/contractors to follow the law.

Ref Contrary to Verizon-DoJ assertions in re FISA, Guantanamo, rendition, and torture, contractors are subject to the law.

Also, OMB Policy Letter 92-1: Clearly outlines governmental functions. Recall, a governmental function, with specific requirements is not the same as a delegated power in the constitution. Functions are regulated by guidelines, policies, procedures, and specific tasks. Power is something vague, and has been only narrowly been delegated. The 10th Amendment reminds us that all non-delegated powers are reserved for the States and People.

- -

Precedent: Impeachment For Illegal Policies and Illegal Opinions

Not only is the legal advice supporting war crimes illegal, it's also impeachable. This Congress refuses to impeach; and the President blocks lawful investigations of violations of the law. Where the Federal government refuses to act through either impeachment or federal court, the States retain the power to protect the Constitution by lawfully prosecuting DoJ Staff, US Attorneys, and the President for a criminal conspiracy against clearly promulgated State Citizen Constitutional rights.

- -

[Note: Story, the author at the link, was cited in Jones v. Clinton, and well known to the Justices.]

Ref We the People are the Sovereign. Here is the DoJ Staff Counsel's problem, as it relates to FISA, Geneva, rendition, torture, and Iraq WMD: Some have been impeached for, inter alia,

. . .misleading their sovereign by unconstitutional opinions, and for attempts to subvert the fundamental laws, and introduce arbitrary power . . . for giving bad counsel to the king;. . . enticing the king to act against the advice of parliament . . .

- -

Ref Ref The objective of impeachment was to remove those protected by the King, and were otherwise not punishable in the courts. Today, the situation is the opposite: Congress refuses to impeach; and the President is blocking federal criminal convictions. In order to protect the Constitution, the states have the power to do what impeachment was supposed to do: Punish those who abuse power and violate rights. No one is above the law, not even a "call for impeachment first." It is not Constitutional for anyone in DoJ to thwart the States from enforcing state law; and it is a violation of the 10th Amendment to prohibit any state from exercising powers not delegated to the Federal government: The exclusive power of the State to enforce state law, and protect Constitutional rights, especially when all other political and legal options fail.

- -

The Constitution Is The Supreme Law of the Land

Ref This Constitutional guarantee, as applied in 2006, mandates the fifty [50] State Attorney Generals prosecute the President before a jury under the US Supreme Court for violating State criminal laws. It is illegal under all state Constitutions to engage in a conspiracy to violate the law, deprive rights, and deny the States a republican form of government.

Ref Failing to enforce state law, and federal actions to block the states from enforcing state law, violates the Article IV Constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government: A system that has an enforcement mechanism to prosecute violations of the state law.

The Supreme Court is the appropriate form for the State Attorney Generals to resolve this Constitutional issues. The President with others has illegally violated state law. The State Attorney Generals have no option but to protect the Constitution, the States right to a guaranteed republican form of government, and lawfully act to prevent further violations of state Constitutional guarantees. All other lawful options have failed, despite the actors having taken a federal oath 5 USC 3331 to do otherwise.

Ref DoJ's Supremacy Arguments fail. Neither Verizon nor DoJ have credibly demonstrated that "enforcing state law" would violate the Constitution or Federal law. Rather, it is because Verizon and DoJ-NSA have violated federal law, and illegally classified evidence, that the States must prosecute state crimes committed by federal officials and contractors. Supremacy, as DoJ uses, is the supremacy of nonaccountability, and the discretion to violate the Constitution. That is not appropriate or lawful. Only a court, not the Executive, can or cannot decide whether these Constitutional issues will be confronted. The case must be submitted to the US Supreme Court.

Read more . . .

NSA: Bush Subpoena

NSA plaintiff counsel knows full well there's evidence floating around. The question is whether DoJ realizes counsel already has the means to demonstrate to the court whether the President has or has not fully complied with the subpoena.

The President is stuck. He has no idea who is providing the information; or who remains in a position to disclose evidence fatally undermining White House assertions before the court. It's still two months until the election. Ooops.

* * *

Subpoena: PDF HTML

FISA: Ref

Pre 9-11

Counsel has information showing the discussions related to the illegal activity started prior to Sept 2001. They also have information which forms the reasonable basis to link all these firms. If the Government fails to comply with this subpoena, or deny that there is evidence, counsel has information that will show there has been fraud, and an illegal failure to comply with a lawful subpoena.

Counsel also has a reasonable basis to believe that the monitoring, because it was not supervised by the court, was not related to any bonafide national security objective. It remains to be explained what the true basis for target selection, and why the lawfully required NSA minimization procedures were not implemented as required.

It remains unclear what happens if, contrary to assumptions, the Bush-related direction to the NSA was linked with the transition team, before the 2001 inauguration.

We judge the Qwest attorney has substantially cooperated, and that Qwest has already worked with this firm to establish the details of the NSA-related communications. There is more data counsel has not provided, and DoJ Staff realize this and will be reluctant to immediately deny or admit anything. The problem for DoJ is that regardless their statements, the denials can be disproved; and anything that they admit can be used against them. In short, their story hasn’t added up; and the more we learn, the more it is obvious nothing is adding up. DoJ has painted itself into a corner.

The one challenge will be in getting information not located in the United States, and in the mind of DoJ, “outside” the subpoena. For example, an order directing Verizon to do or not do something that does not originate from the United States, but a third country like Israel, which is related to Amdocs, could feasibly fall outside this subpoena.

Illegal Administrative Warrants Prior to Sept 2001

Given the NSLs are not constitutional, it is appropriate to publicly discuss the scope of the NSL activity. It is an open question to what extent the non-court-authorized subpoenas, because they were illegal NSL-like requests for data would fall within or outside this request. In theory, the banking and funds transfer subpoenas would also fall within this definition.

* * *

Presidential Orders

The Executive Orders related to this relationship are included in the NSA budgeting documents. These explicitly state that the surveillance, and all other activity, when it is illegal may not be classified. Precedent also forbids claiming executive privilege when there is an issue of fraud, as is the case here.

The President’s memoranda related to the orders are also linked to the JROC, and the NSA decision not to use the available, lawful mechanisms to execute this and other activities.

National Security Council

The Vice President, through the National Security Counsel, has specifically been delegated by the President the authority to make specific decisions. The NSC connection to the orders is well established, and public. What is not known are the specific contents of those messages. A common theme in the public assertions of "authorization," without invoking legality or illegality. The distinction is important, and is merely an assertion, not something the Qwest CEO found credible.


Intermediaries

The issue will be for the government to explain why 19 Members of Congress have revealed/confirmed the details of this billing activity. Once the Executive discloses this material to Congress, through whatever, form it is not privileged. Congress is not a branch of the White House, but a third entity, destroying any bonafide claim of Executive Privilege.

There were intermediaries. Valuable information of interest to the court may not be captured by narrowly requesting data only related to direct transmissions between AT&T and the government. Rather, the other communications do include direct transmission of status reports, progress, and analysis from the intermediaries and media analysis companies. These firms, although indirectly related to AT&T, would not necessarily be captured within this subpoena.

The activities related to the intermediaries which provide the billing and subpoena support to the primary telecoms. AT&T lobbyists have already conformed there are ongoing messages, memoranda, and other communication that otherwise memorializes the relationship which the President has not denied. It remains to be understood how the intercepted information was analyzed then used for public consumption. The GSA contracts with the AT&T public relations firm formalize this process.

Of interest will be to review the operating procedures governing the billing-subpoena intermediaries: How were the instructions reviewed by counsel; what was the policy when issues of FISA were raised; when the non-involvement of FISA court was known, how were these resolved. There would have to be a summary reporting system to show that the contractor did receive the request; that the request was met within a specified time; and that the award fee related to the performance across various program objectives was or was not meeting requirements. This performance would have been reported, and part of the briefing provided to the NSA SES reviewing the activity prior to final fee award to AT&T, Verizon, or the intermediaries providing the billing-subpoena responses. The paying stations will, through the GSA contract numbers, be able to provide information on the award fees held, retained, or awarded. You can see the Congressional language with openly discusses this issue, thereby rejecting any reasonable grounds for the Executive to claim privilege on these award fees.

Telecom E-mails

The AT&T and Verizon have internal e-mail systems. Some of the publicly available Verizon e-mail has been withdrawn because of its damaging implications. The AT&T and Verizon e-mail systems include specific contractors, vendors, and other names which Verizon and the Government have already disclosed to third parties, thereby destroying any bonafide claim of executive privilege.

Verizon’s e-mail is interesting. It has known links with the intermediaries, and it is well known that Verizon counsel was well aware of the statutes and requirements. Verizon’s General Counsel is Mr. Barr who was a previous US Attorney, and publicly appeared with the AT&T-related entity providing the media messaging service to the government.

It is of interesting that the Verizon Counsel, when asked, did not rule out the possibility that the NSA had access to not only the information, but the Verizon facility. Of interest will be to learn the lessons of the Fitzgerald Grand jury as it relates to the adequacy of telephone notes. If these calls are logged, then the funds for reimbursement can be traced. However, if there are gaps, then the auditors can look at the time sheets, and contrast the original work reported, with the evidence provided:

Did the contractor submit information and work descriptions that are inconsistent with the documentation

Has the contractor reported in writing various work that is no longer supported by working notes, or papers substantially supporting that contention

Has the contractor requested reimbursement for work that was originally represented to be linked to telephone communications, and there should be notes related to those conversations; but there is no nothing to provide, and no summaries or e-mail follow-ups related to those discussions.

You’ll want to notice the gaps in the communications. An easy approach is to notice, at a macro-level the normal communication levels; look for spikes; and then when the communication/e-mail spikes look for appropriate spikes in internal e-mail, and documentation. It is likely that the two communication levels are not consistent, and this is evidence suggesting Verizon, the NSA procurement office, and AT&T have destroyed evidence they should have known should have been retained.

You’ll want to check the travel reimbursements through the paying stations. These relate to follow-up visits, and other program reviews. This will give you an idea of the preparation, and pre-meeting planning required. Again, if there is no pre-meeting activity, and no technical discussions related to interface issues, you know that you’re not being provided the summary notes from the engineers that are involved with the technical meetings. This would likely related to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, involved in the ground station interface and other technical meetings for that ground station support in the Continental United States.

It is well known in the law enforcement, intelligence, JTTF, and CALEA communities that there is an ongoing information transfer. The issue will be to what extent you want to review these follow-up actions and other direction provided to law enforcement; and how the local prosecutors were using this illegally gathered information. JTTF will have some explaining to do. Although they may not have in all cases electronically intercepted information, it is not unknown for government officials and law enforcement to manually review information. In their view, any call made on a public phone is considered reviewable, so long as one person – even them – has been ‘authorized” to access the information. The issue will be is how this illegally gathered information was subsequently presented to the court as an “anonymous tip” which the officer have illegally self-certified as being from a bonafide source, knowing full well the accuracy was assured because of illegal interception and monitoring.

GSA Contracts

The GSA contact reference includes the contract vehicles to support the data transfers between the contractor-intermediary, to other entities for analysis, and then final analysis before presentation to the public in the form of messages. The contract vehicles specifically request the fund cites, billing information, and other contract vehicles that physically route the funds from the US government, through the paying stations, to the final entity that supports NSA. Similar contracts have already been provided to the public through FOIAs.

When a contractor works with GSA, they are to comply with certain closeout requirements. These terms are part of the contract and are also available in other publicly available contracts related to NSA, AT&T, Verizon, and GSA. These contracts are positively linked with the intermediaries, NARUS, the billing companies, and CALEA.

The problem with the subpoena is that the request for information assumes that there were specific requests for information. Rather, the relationship was much looser, as evidenced by the Verizon Counsel comments, whereby the NSA was apparently granted wide access. Either way, it will be important to compare the terms of the contracts – as they relate to data transfer, and subpoena requirements – as to what was actually occurring; then contrasting this with the specific requirements in FISA. None of them match.

Misleading Program Description

It is incorrect to narrowly define the activity under a specific program. Rather, there are many efforts, not narrowly trailed to a specific name. Recall, the officially designated name is not the same as the actual surveillance starting before Sept 2001; and the subsequent names are not consistent with the advertised names available on the Securities and Exchange Commission website, as they relate to Telcordia, SAIC, or Verizon.

The networks in question are not isolated to a specific contract or acquisition process. Rather, the appropriate view is to consider the Intel Link system as the channel to both display content for DoJ, NSA, and others; and at the same time quickly disseminate information and policies. It is clear the programs, as executed, did not necessarily adhere to these modified requirements, much less the legal FISA requirements.

The physical infrastructure is different than the less formal contractual agreements between the telecoms and the intermediaries. One type of contract relates to a facility; the second type relates to data analysis. Although the same contract may have been used, it is not correct to assume that a single program name covered both phases of the effort. The correct approach is to take the wider view, and consider how the NSA was or was not implementing this activity through non-US entities located in Canada, and other locations. The current request for information fails to discuss the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian equivalent of the NSA.

RNC Demonstrations: Domestic Surveillance

Media organizations connected to the domestic messaging is well established. The AT&T-related entity has on contract many billions of dollars in media-related air time. It remains to be understood how messages which the media knew were false, were blocked; and to what extent the contractors provided this information to the government, which subsequently used this refusal as a basis to retaliate against the non-cooperating firm or entity.

It is likely that the RNC demonstrations are associated with the domestic surveillance. Be mindful of the publicly released RNC-staff cell phone numbers which can be subpoenaed, and help understand the communications, planning, and other coordination prior to the illegal detentions. It will be interesting to notice the spike in pre-RNC demonstrations communication, and how the NSA was used to monitor the war demonstrations. Then the question will be: Do you want to trace the money associated with those firms, and follow it back to Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Sibel Edmonds communication intercepts? Yes, it’s linked to drug shipments: Hello battalion 316 in Honduras, and Mr. Negroponte, the mastermind behind the UAE port deal.

Retaliation Against Non-Cooperative

When reviewing the claims against Qwest, it will be important to review the Verizon-SAIC related entities. Personnel on Verizon e-mail have been linked with specific entities which have litigated against Qwest. It will be important to review the timing of this litigation; and what support NSA and DoJ may have provided to these third parties. Here are the details on the dispute the entity had with Qwest: Ref

You’ll want to look for a name: Randal S. Milch. He was the General Counsel at the entity, and is also linked with Verizon, and is affirmatively linked on Verizon e-mail available to third parties. Milch gave a 2005 speech before the NY Bar, where has was due to register as of July 2006. You’ll want to compare the tone and tenor with Milch’s statements with those 4 Nov 1999 comments to NYPSC General Counsel Lawrence G. Malone, in re KMPG audit results and reporting.

Quantico, VA facilities are documented in GSA contracts and the IG reports. This is also where the Marine Intelligence units are located, and also MITRE OSIS system, part of the classified NSA communication system. MITRE is linked with many government contractors through its SETA contracts, and is a well known NSA technical advisor.

Read more . . .

NSA: AP Publishes Misleading Information On Verizon Inconsistent Statements

The Associated Press published misleading information on Verizon's statements related to the NSA illegal activities. Contrary to AP's assertions, Verizon has made out of court, inconsistent statements when responding to questions related to the Verizon relationship with the NSA. This AP error indirectly relates to the New Jersey counsel subpoena against the President, but the point is significant.

This AP statement is factually wrong, and inconsistent with Verizon General counsel statements [Emphasis added]:

Verizon has consistently denied that it provided the NSA with customer phone recordsRef

Rather, Verizon has not consistently denied anything. To the contrary, Verizon counsel initially publicly failed to deny the illegal activity. This failure to deny, in itself, is admissible evidence. Neither Verizon nor the Government can explain Verizon's out-of-court inconsistent statements. A small thing like this can prove to be the fatal kernel which tips the balance away from the White House, and convict the President of criminal conduct.

* * *

Verizon attorneys, when initially asked by Maine resident and lead plaintiff Mr. Cowie, whether Verizon was or was not providing NSA with material. AP would find that Verizon did not, as Caruso suggests "consistently deny" anything.

The opposite is true. Rather, the Verizon counsel did not, as the Associated Press reports, "consistently" deny anything, but left open the possibility that the terms of the relationship between Verizon and NSA may have included the possibility that Verizon had granted NSA unfettered access to the Verizon facilities. This hardly amounts to a denial, much less a consistent position on anything.

But the issue isn't simply what was or wasn't said, but who did or didn't say this. Verizon's Drew Arena isn't a clerk, but an experienced former DoJ Asst. Attorney General, having investigated and prosecuted in the early 1990s those who illegally transferred weapons to Iraq. An experienced Attorney would, if they were aware of the White House concern, would have refused to confirm or deny.

Arena's approach was different, and strangely similar to the contract terms in the AT&T subsidiary and the lobbyist assurances about the NSA letter for AT&T, referring to "authorization." Ref What Verizon would have us believe cannot be commented on, the AT&T lobbyist is otherwise publicly confirming:

There was a relationship;

The relationship has been memorialized in writing;

Someone reviewed, approved, coordinated on that letter;

Someone signed the letter;

Someone verified that the letter was transmitted, then received;

The DoJ and White House have not adequately or timely denied the existence of this letter;

That letter was arguably transferred through the US Mails;

Someone, rightly or wrongly, relied on that letter, without getting an assurance about warrants that the Qwest CEO was denied;

A reasonable fact finder and fiduciary at Qwest, upon examination and discussion with counsel, did not conclude that the request, letter, or authorization was a sufficient defense, nor lawful;

There is an admissible letter for the Grand Jury to review;

If the publicly-commented on letter is not available, then either the AT&T lobbyist is lying; or someone has illegally destroyed evidence they knew, or should know would be the target of a subpoena.

Someone at Verizon and AT&T appears to have made a conclusion about the legality of a program without looking at the full factors available to the Qwest CEO, and this is arguably reckless: Failing to examine facts or adequately review the contract, arrangement, and legality. Because of its arguable link with fraud, executive privilege is not recognized; and the activity is not protected by the "business judgment rule" or "business decision rule" which immunizes corporate officers from liability when there are matters of discretion. Arguably, in this case, there was no lawful discretion, and the defense fails. Rather, Verizon and AT&T should have been in a position, as was the Qwest CEO to gather facts, and appropriately conclude that the requested cooperation was not lawful, inconsistent with law, and beyond what either Verizon or AT&T could lawfully support. Qwest chose to remove itself, Verizon and AT&T chose to remain.

* * *

As you review the Verizon counsel statement, which mentions the word "authorization," consider also the language in this contract, which is common throughout the Executive Branch: Ref

Specifically, [ check para 7a and 7b, on page 17 of 41 Ref ] There is a full discussion here: [ Ref ]

* * *

Verizon E-mail: Evidence of Not Consistently Denying

Judge for yourself. You can check the E-mail sent internally through the Verizon VZNotes; and the public release of this information. The e-mail is publicly available, and has already been discussed at length. Ref

To read the e-mail, the Maine site does not permit direct linking to the PDF file. There is a workaround. [Warning: Large 5.07MB PDF file may take several minutes to load]:

1. Click this link: Ref;
2. Then, click on the Google link below the Google Search box;
3. You will be directed to the PDF file; and
4. Scroll to page 53 (interchange beween Cowie and Arena/Verizon)

Key Point: Drew C. Arena is the Verizon Counsel; the "authorization" comment is on page 57, where Verizon fails to deny anything, but leave open the possibilty of Verizon having given NSA access to the Verizon facilities. This is not a denial, and as you wlil see below is very important, and fatal to the litigation and defense objectives of both the White House and Verizon.

* * *

The AP misleading statement doesn't change facts. Rather, the more errors DoJ, AT&T, and Verizon make, the more it’s evident that the alleged FISA conspiracy is wide, and involves organizations and entities that have public, provable relationships with the White House and NSA.

The small errors point to a wider conspiracy. The problem for Verizon, AT&T, NSA, DoJ Staff, and the White House, is that the above information related to the billing issues, and NSA access to the Verizon facilities, also involves the same people connected to AT&T and NARUS.

The connection is easy to understand. It is possible to see how Mr. Arena and Mr. Barr at Verizon are related to, linked, and otherwise connected to the AT&T crowd. AT&T is linked through the CALEA billing and subpoena intermediaries to the White House, JTTF, and NSA. Despite FISA, AT&T has been admonished by both the Diggs and Vaughn rulings.

You can examine the details yourself at this draft indictment, and the well documented connection in the evidence area. ref ]

* * *

White House, Verizon and the New Jersey Subpoena

It's also important to take the AP misinformation in the context of the New Jersey subpoenas against the President. The nexus involves some inconsistent White House statements.

The New Jersey litigators have evidence that the NSA was engaged in the illegal wire tapping before Sept 2001. put aside the issue that the illegal activity failed to prevent 9-11. Focus on the narrow issue of:

Who knew about the monitoring prior to Sept 2001

What is the basis to keep this monitoring from the Court

Arguably, any and all conclusions in the now-discredited 9-11 report are dubious. Rather, the opposite, more insidious conclusion appears more credible:

A. The President was not, as he would have us believe, engaging in illegal activity to stop terrorism – it hadn’t started;

B. The President wasn’t concerned that the court would find out about illegal activity, argued to be related to national security – the event hadn’t occurred; rather

C. The President prior to Sept 2001, in the absence of any crisis, was engaged in domestic monitoring to target non-security related issues.

If we are to take the President at his word in 2006, that the illegal NSA activity was related to national security information and events, the problem is how the President will explain his use of that illegal activity, and its subsequent failure to detect the 9-11 events. The only reasonable answer is that the NSA did detect the pre 9-11 planning; and the goal of the NSA monitoring, contrary to the President and Vice President’s assertions, had nothing to do with anything that had not otherwise happened but with something else.

We are asked to believe that the President and others in DoJ didn’t trust the court to agree to the surveillance. Put aside the issue that the Congress had, in the wake of Sept 2001, already agreed to make changes to FISA. Once the President raises the issue of what the court may or may not have done, we have to ask: What could the court possibly have rejected prior to 9-11? Again, Sept 2001 events had no occurred; so the claim that the court would reject or not reject monitoring on the basis of connection or non-connection to national security is a red herring: 9-11 had not happened.

The only reasonable conclusion was that the White House believe that the pre Sept 2001 monitoring, which was not related to any event that had not happened, would have been found to be illegal for one reason: It was illegally engaged in non-national security related monitoring. This is at the heat of the current New Jersey subpoena against the President.

* * *

Let’s consider the Verizon failure to deny in the context of the Pre Sept 2001 monitoring, and what we know NSA was discussing with Qwest. NSA had already said to the Qwest CEO prior to Sept 2001 that other companies were cooperating; and that Qwest was holding out. The big scary events of 2001 had not yet happened, and Qwest still rejected the overture to cooperate because there was no warrant.

Consider the details of the contract, permitting the government access to the facility. Now consider the Verizon Counsel comments. We have the same theme: Contractors, without ensuring there were warrants, were providing access to private communications before Sept 2001, and without the legally required warrants. Put aside the issue of whether this is a basis to lawfully prosecute anyone in either the Department of Justice, White House, Verizon, AT&T, or the intermediaries.

The President has yet to explain what he knew prior to Sept 2001 that would warrant the monitoring, yet for him to know enough that the Court would not agree with the reviews. We can only conclude, as evidenced by Bolton's public statements, that the New Jersey subpoenas are linked with a credible concern: that the President's monitoring, despite the option to use lawful methods prior to Sept 2001, was aimed at a non-lawful objective: Political espionage, domestic harassment, and other efforts to monitor who may or may not be opposing the illegal activity itself.

In light of the discredited 9-11 Commission, it remains to be understood to what extent the illegal monitoring was linked with the government’s complicity with the pre 9-11 planning, and would reveal who in the United States government knew of the planned demolition of the WTC towers.

Arguably, those who know are associated with the Potomac Golf Association, the premiere social event for the United States intelligence community. The Grand Jury can check the IP information between the DoJ and PGA in the months prior to the Sept 2001 attacks. DoJ has yet to explain their connection in July 2001.

If we are to take the AP position, this would arguably mean that the Verizon and other NSA-related contractors were in a position to know, or do something, about information they had prior to Sept 2001, but failed to act on:

A. Knowledge of illegal surveillance

B. Knowledge of pre Sept 2001 planning

C. Subsequent illegal acts, and unlawful warfare

D. Their alleged involvement in a conspiracy against the Constitution, rule of law, and other criminal conduct.

It appears Verizon, as has the government, hopes to rewrite history for one simple reason: Verizon has a vested interest in pretending their initial responses were something other than what they are now doing. They changed their position for a reason. That reason appears to be related to the larger issue of who inside corporate America financially benefits by supporting an unlawful war against a bogus enemy, all the while knowing that the corporate Board of Verizon, AT&T, and NARUS have arguably been actively supporting illegal activity with one goal: To unlawfully deprive Americans of honest services; and illegally support what should be obvious – Illegal war crimes, and unlawful rendering of Americans to Eastern Europe for purposes of abuse, torture, and unlawful death. These are war crimes which Verizon appears to be linked to, and apparently behind the Verizon motivation to pretend their public statements have been consistent, when they have not.

Litigation is hard to predict. The public evidence is already damaging to the government, Verizon, AT&T, and the billing-subpoena intermediaries linked to NSA, the White House, and CALEA.

A single word from any subpoena will be sufficient to further shred the White House defenses. After these subpoenas are either quashed, or applied, will leave the White House will be in a worse position. As you can see from the Verizon slip-up, it only takes a minute revelation, and the larger connections can be publicly examined using open source information

The New Jersey subpoenas could find out which specific personnel inside the NSA and NSA contractors knew of the illegal monitoring, and have otherwise failed to prevent the continued support for illegal kidnapping and abuse of American citizens. It appears the illegal activity has nothing to do with any state secret, lawful objective, but merely with one goal: To abuse those who dare to stand up against what are war crimes and grave breaches of domestic law.

* * *

The Associated Press appears to take a deferential view to the government claims. AP has not fully reviewed the full record of Verizon's out of court statements which belie any contention that Verizon has consistently done anything. This single quote, combined with the faulty reporting on the Vermont 603 issue, is part of a pattern: Poor fact checking.

At best, Verizon has not consistently defended anything, but simply made out of court, inconsistent statements -- fully admissible. This forms a reasonable basis for a Grand Jury to impeach Verizon as a witness, and make an adverse judgment: Verizon did not follow the law; rather it failed to ensure the NSA only lawfully accessed Verizon facilities. This is an issue of governance, fiduciary duty, and due diligence. The Qwest CEO said no; Verizon wishes it had, but is stuck in this self-made mess called litigation.

It would be appropriate for the Associated Press to review the full record, and closely monitor the Maine Litigation against Verizon. AP should be in a position to closely examine the public record. AP appears to have failed to take a casual look at Mr. Cowie’s public statements and the Verizon counsel response, which amounts to a tacit admission.

DoJ Staff counsel has inappropriately injected themselves into a non-Federal matter. Especially troublesome in that as attorneys Mr. Haas and Mr. Keisler have apparently violate the attorney code of conduct prohibiting public comment on whether the case does or does not have merit; and not fully complied with the rules of procedure in re filing and notice.

* * *

These are grave matters. The outlook for the White House, DoJ Staff, AT&T, and Verizon is bleak. Where there are issues of fraud, government claims to executive privilege fail. Verizon made several mistakes in publicly commenting on, and failing to deny the original possibility.

DoJ’s legal position has already been discredited. The new assertions appear to be linked with an agenda, not with a sincere desire by AP to inform the public. Rather, the issue is how are Keiser and Hass in the DoJ Civil Division going to credibly argue this defense, while explaining away their non-court-filing which are not protected as a bar to prosecution or disbarment.

Verizon and AT&T well know they are attached to this illegal conduct. This oval office clerk belongs in jail. He remains a fugitive, and no American can lawfully justify continuing to support or provide any aid and comfort to someone who has violated the law and laws of war.

Make no mistake, this is far from resolution. The President, regardless Congressional inaction on impeachment, could be convicted of violating state criminal law. It remains to be seen which state governor is ultimately asked to pardon the President. Stay tuned.

* * *


Citation:
=======================
Associated Press Quote from:
Lawyers to seek White House documents on alleged phone spying program
By DAVID B. CARUSO
Associated Press Writer

August 29, 2006, 2:14 PM EDT

Read more . . .

Judge Advocate General

If you are a JAG, Prissy would like to talk to you Ref: Prissy's Nag the JAG program.

Ref Haynes of DoD has been renominated.

Tip line: Ref



Prissy would like to know:

What is your plan to enforce the law?

What is your plan to work with your JAG-peers to ensure the laws of war are effectively enforced against a President?

Have you looked at the precedents which shows us that the Commander in Chief, because he claims to be a military leader, is subject to the US Code, and UCMJ?

Have you considered the precedents that show us that a sitting President may be lawfully prosecuted without an impeachment?

Please write.

* * *

DoJ Staff Index

How to find DoJ Staff Counsel Bar Admissions: Ref

* * *

JAGs And Enforcing the Law Against the President

Ref Analysis of some of the changes to the POW trial procedures: Despite Hamdan, the White House still wants to hide evidence, violating Geneva.

Ref Ref Ref Despite Hamdan, White House refuses to work with JAGs to create POW trial procedures, violating Geneva. ( Recall, Article 82 compels the militarylawyes to ensure the laws of war are followed; they cannot lawfully be excluded from the process.) If the President will not allow evidence (which most likely doesn't exist) from being heard at trial [a war crime], then there's no basis for holding them, and they should be freed from POW status.

Ref DoJ General Counsel Haynes-name sent back to President; Senate refuses to confirm him to court. Will the President renominate Haynes during Senate recess, as he did with Bolton?

* * *

Finding Jags

Here is a useful organization to find JAGs: Ref; JAG-stuff: Ref; and here are non-JAGs, who know JAGs: Ref

DLSA: NSA

Hmmm. . .Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref

DLSA: Ref Ref

* * *

State Prosecutions of President

Ref NYT Analysis map of elections: Deciding which State you want, and ensuring the Governor might not pardon the DoJ Staff for violations of the law.

Ref There's no excuse not to prosecute a fugitive in the White House. All precedents before all jurisdictions firmly establish that Federal Officials, like Judges, may be lawfully prosecuted, regardless whether Congress does or does not impeach. [See the notes.]

Ref There is clear precedent to prosecute federal officials, even the President, without impeachment. Even heads of state, while they are jailed, can still retain title to their office. Prosecuting and jailing the President temporarily, would not amount to a removal from office, merely lawful punishment. Even Kings and Queens were jailed for violations, but they still retained title.

Ref There is no credible excuse not to prosecute the President. All state attorney generals have the power to prosecute the President. The State Governors, working as a commander in chief of their state militias, have the power to compel Judge Advocate Generals working with their state militias to enforce the law. The State Governors and Attorney Generals should work with the JAGs to see that the president is timely prosecuted.

Ref Individual Members of Congress upset at DoJ for thwarting state investigation and enforcement of Maine law.

Isreal Illegal War in Lebanon Reminds Us Of War Crimes Liability

Ref Ref Legal experts are subject of inquiry in Israel, similar to review done on German lawyers and prosecutors after WWII. . . or maybe not.

- -

Other

Ref Criteria to evaluate whether Congress is or is not doing its job.

Ref Entertainment: Ask for permission before violating the law.

* * *

What You Can Do

Ref Demand a hearing -- Why are the States required to enforce the Constitution by prosecuting the President, and when does Congress plan to review these matters?

Ref Contact the ACLU and other Constitutional lawyers involved in the NSA litigation. Let them know there is something the State Attorney Generals and JAGs can do: Prosecute the President for violating the law. The US Attorneys and DoJ Staff may not lawfully prevent the State Attorney Generals or JAGs from prosecuting the President.

Contacting State Attorney Generals About DoJ Staffers

Ref Focus attention on the States that are DNC controlled: Identify those states with DNC control, and find which DOJ Staffers are assigned to that state.

Ref Discuss this with the state-level power regulatory boards reviewing the NSA-Verizon-AT&T litigation. Bring the precedents to their attention, and show the state level officials that the President and others may lawfully be prosecuted for violating state laws.

Ref Contact your State Attorney Generals and Governors. Remind them that those DoJ Staff attorneys that are licensed to do business in your state can be disbarred for failing to take action against this President's crimes.

Ref Remind your state officials and legislators that your state may lawfully work with your State Judge Advocate Generals, assigned to your state militias, to bring charges against the President, and lawfully prosecute him, without going through Congress or following the impeachment process.

Ref Sample letter. Use your own words based on what you have learned above.

Ref Another sample letter. Tell your elected officials that you want your State Attorney General and JAGs to work together to prosecute the President, and disbar DoJ Staff attorneys for thwarting the Constitution.

Ref Let your Member of Congress know that you have learned about precedents which says the President can be prosecuted for crimes. Ask them when Congress plans to make public statements on these judicial proceedings. Remind your Members of Congress that these precedents make it illegal for Members of Congress individually, or Congress has a group, to pass any law that might interfere with the State Attorney Generals or Judge Advocate Generals from enforcing the law, and lawfully prosecuting the President outside Congress.

Ref Contact the JAGs individually and ask them if they are aware that they, as Constitutional officers, have the power and duty to Prosecute the Commander in Chief when he violates the law. Congressional inaction on impeachment is no bar to, inter alia, the JAGs :
- Prosecuting the President for war crimes;
- Working with State militias to gather evidence of Presidential crimes; or
- Gathering lists for the State Militias, Attorney Generals, and other state officials to lawfully disbar those state-licensed DoJ Staff Counsel and US Attorneys who refuse to enforce the law, and otherwise should be disbarred from their respective state attorney bars.

Ref Share this post with your state officials and ask them: What is their plan to investigate at the state level the DoJ Staff assigned to their State Bars, and disbar them so they can never become a judge?

Ref Modify these posters to tell your blog readers that you want your state attorney general to prosecute the President in the Supreme Court; and you want your State AG to investigate the DOJ Staff assigned to your state attorney bar, and disbar them for refusing to enforce the law. There is no reason your State AG has to do the work of the DoJ Staff. It is a waste of your state's resources.

Ref Contact your local mayors, and encourage them to monitor these Mayors' actions: That local officials in your town should learn from their example, and take action to enforce local laws against the President. Encourage your city and municipal officials to discuss prosecuting the President, and encourage them to speak out about the need to enforce State Law, especially when the Congress refuses to protect the Constitution.

Ref Review this guide for ideas of what you and your friends can do.

Ref Get in touch with this organization. Learn what you can do.

- -

Identifying Which State The DoJ Staffers Are Assigned

A. Goal: Find out which State the DoJ Staff attorneys are originally licensed to practice law; then notify the State Attorney Generals that you want the specific named DoJ Staff and US Attorneys assigned to that State's attorney bar investigated for failing to investigate and prosecute the President for crimes.

B. Here's how to spread the work among your friends in other states:

Encourage each of two states to take a single letter of the alphabet; then review all names on the DoJ Staff list starting with that letter. For example Rhode Islanders and Mainers could take the letter A; and Floridians and Texans could take the letter B. [The rest of the states are assigned below.]

C. Consolidate the results to a single list, then have the citizens from those states forward the names of those DoJ Staffers assigned to their state to the State Attorney General for review, and possible investigation, then disbarment for malfeasance.

* * *

Phase I: Finding DoJ Staff Names, and States Where They Are Licensed

Step 1: Find the names of the US Attorneys and DoJ Staff. Ref

Note: The Attorney List in Martin - Dale only shows 1000 names; the entire DoJ Staff listing is over 2000; we'll have to break the lists into their divisions. They're all subject to investigation as they all have peer-reporting requirements to the DOJ OPR for severe violations of the law.

[List below: Highest to lowest priority]

US Attorneys Ref

Attorney General Office Ref

Criminal Division Ref

FBI Ref

OLP Ref

OLC Ref

Solicitor General Ref This is the DoJ Litigating Team. The State Attorney Generals will end up having to litigate against -- the primary litigators for the President.

EOUSA Ref -- This division is the one that conducts the video training for all US Attorneys [ Justice Legal Education Institute, and Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute]. The key question: Why was DoJ training incapable of getting the DoJ Staff counsel to learn about the Constitution, and importance of protecting it from the clerk in the oval office?

OPR Ref -- These are the good guys, the ones the President has blocked from doing their job. They have files and detailed records of which DoJ Staffers and US Attorneys have or have not reported peer misconduct/malfeasance, as required.

Justice Management Ref

Legislative Liaison Ref

DoJ Civil Division Ref Ref

Tax Division Ref

Anti-Trust Ref

Step 2: Find which letter of the DOJ Staff list your state has been assigned. (See state-DoJ Staff Attorney Charts below0

Step 3: Decide which end of the list (top or bottom) you are going to start working for each letter.

Draw and Imaginary line horizontally, half-way beween the north and south of your state. If you are above that line, then work from top to bottom in the list for each letter; if you are below the line, move from bottom to top in the following list for each letter: Ref

Check the State Where they went to law school, this may be where they have decided to practice law. Here is the list of US Attorneys and DoJ Staff: Ref

[ Other names: Ref Ref ]

Step 4: Find which State Attorney Bar that specific DoJ Staffer is licensed to practice law. It is either a state, or the District of Columbia.

Step 5: Share your results: DoJ Staff/Attorney Name; which State they are licensed to practice law. Link back to this URL: This one.

Phase II: Contacting the States with Attorney Names

Step 6: Find the names from the consolidated list that are assigned to your state, and contact your State Attorney General, and state officials to have them start reviewing the names of those attorneys.

* * *

Finding Which State Your Have Been Assigned To Review

Ref [Click on: "Which Party has Control"-button, at bottom of US Map] Focus attention on the States that are DNC controlled: Identify those states with DNC control, and find which DOJ Staffers are assigned to that state.

If your state is assigned to a letter that has no DoJ Staff, then pick another state. Here are the assignments:

DoJ                          
Staff   Where you live:      Direct Link
Letter  State Assigned       [Click the Letter]

A       Rhode Island, Maine Letter A
B       Florida, Texas Letter B
C       Oregon, Georgia Letter C
D       Kentucky, California Letter D
E       Wyoming, Vermont Letter E
F       Connecticut, Nevada Letter F
G       Idaho, Tennessee Letter G
H       North Carolina, North Dakota Letter H
I       South Dakota, South Carolina Letter I
J       Illinois, Utah Letter J
K       Ohio, Mississippi
L       New Mexico, Nebraska
M       Delaware, Oklahoma
N       Hawaii, Indiana
O       Massachusetts, Minnesota
P       Missouri, Virginia
Q       Montana, West Virginia
R       Colorado, New York
S       Alabama, Arizona
U       Michigan, New Hampshire
V       Arkansas, Alaska
W       Maryland, Iowa
X       Washington, Nebraska
Y
Z

Reverse Assignments

Your Job: Look up DoJ Staff/US Attorneys With this Last Letter

DoJ      
Staff
Atty
Last 
Name    
        Your State

S       Alabama,
V       Alaska
S       Arizona
V       Arkansas,

D       California
R       Colorado,
F       Connecticut, 
M       Delaware, 

B       Florida
C       Georgia
N       Hawaii,
G       Idaho, 
J       Illinois, 
N       Indiana
W       Iowa

D       Kentucky
A       Maine
W       Maryland, 
O       Massachusetts
U       Michigan,
O       Minnesota
K       Mississippi
P       Missouri,  
Q       Montana, 

X       Nebraska
L       Nebraska
F       Nevada
L       New Mexico, 
U       New Hampshire
R       New York
H       North Carolina, 
H       North Dakota

K       Ohio, 
M       Oklahoma
C       Oregon

A       Rhode Island, 

I       South Dakota, 
I       South Carolina

G       Tennessee
B       Texas
J       Utah
E       Vermont
P       Virginia

X       Washington,
Q       West Virginia 
E       Wyoming

3. Post Your Results

4. Link Back Here

5. Share with Your Friends.

* * *

Current, Former DoJ Staff Atty Names Assigned To States

[Names of Current, Former DoJ Staff, known to be assigned to a specific state]

CA Haas Ref
CA Kenneth W. Starr [Former Prosecutor]

DC ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Ref DC Bar

DE LISA A. OLSON ?

MD RENEE S. ORLEANS

MI Todd Aagaard Ref

NC Wendy Ke fer

NY DENNIS L. PHILLIPS Ref NY Procurement: Need an explanation on the NSA subcontractors: How explain deployment of a system that violates the Constitution, but no internal controls to detect and ensure compliance; what failed in the reporting to Congress, contract language, and ongoing DPRO reviews at the NSA primes and subcontractors?

Eliz beth Api son- C rmen

PA Yoo
Dennis L. Phillipps PA [See also NY]

TX Gonzalez [ Alberto R. Gonzales ]

VA Adddington
VA M. Casey Mattox, [DoJ?]

* * *

DoJ Staff: Names Not Assigned To States

[DoJ Staff names available, not yet determined which State they are licensed to practice law]

[Some names below may not be in the DOJ Staff, nor ever assigned]

Steven H. Aden, Esq
Tracey Ambeau
Elizabeth App isson Ref
Tiiothy K. Armstrong
LTCOL DAVID A. ANDERSON, USMC

Ashley N. Bailey
Daniel A. Ball
Jason R. Baron
R. Joseph Barton
Robert S. Bennett
Michael S. Becker
ALICIA J. BENTLEY
Peter J. Biersteker
CRAIG M. BLACKWELL
STEPHEN D. BRODY
Benjamin D. Brown

Jill Canfield
ERWIN CHEMERINSKY
Christopher A. Cole
David K. Colapinto

Gregory M. Cork
Howard M. Crystal
Paul D. Cullen, Sr.

Lisa J. Danetz.
Kenneth M. Davidson
Rendell A. Davis, Jr.
CHARLES W. DAY, JR.
Nicholas J. DiMichael
Jennifer Di Toro
WILLIAM A. DOBROVIR
James W. Draughn,
Thomas H. Dupree

Ethan Carson Eddy
Edward J. Elder
Marion EM Erickson, Esq

SHARON Y. EUBANKS [ DC Bar No. 420147, DOJ Tobacco Litigation ] Resigned from DoJ: DoJ Sr. Management, Keisler, refuse to support her, reducing the financial settlement. As with the litigation against the New Jersey Attorney General in attempting to enforce state law, Keisler has a habit of targeting the wrong party and abusing his authority in court. [ Ref Sealed court documents available to multiple parties; Keisler fails to prove who leaked the material.]

Alec W. Farr
Robert Faulkner
Alan J. Favish, Esq.
CAROL FEDERIGHI
HERBERT E. FORREST
Lawrence M. Frankel
Gony Frieder
CHARLES J. FROMM

Paul B. Gaffney.
VINCENT M. GARVEY
Richard E. Gardiner
Allan Gerson, Esq.
David M. Glass
Eric Glitzenstein
Michael L. Goldberg (
S. Jay Govindan
MICHAEL D. GRANSTON
Theodore S. Greenberg
Joel M. Gross
L. Marie Guillory

John H. Harwood II
Judith L. Harris
Michael D. Hausfeld
Gene Healy
TERRY M. HENRY
T. Christian Herren, Jr.
MICHAEL F. HERTZ
THEODORE C. HIRT
Paul R. Hitchcock
Joan Hogan
ERIC G. HOSTETLER
Joseph E. Hunsader
JOSEPH H. HUNT


Samir C. Jain
D. JOHNSON


Neai Katyai
PETER D. KEISLER
Larry Klayman
James R. Klimaski
Stephen M. Kohn
Daniel B. Kohrman
J. Robert Kramer

Eliot Lauer
Mary Lou Leary
William J. Lehrfeld
James H. Lesar, Esq.
ORI LEV
Lee Levine
Michael D. Lieder
JOSEPH W. LOBUE
Abbe David Lowell
George Lyon

Marcia T. Maack
Christopher D. Man
Robert A. Matthews
JAMES A. MAYSONETT
JOEL McELVAIN
Paul J. McNulty
Andrea J. Meneker.
Manish K. Mital
ALAN S. MODLINGER.
James A. Moody
Alan B. Morrison

Scott L. Nelson,
TIM H. NUSRATY

LISA A. OLSON [Delaware]
Paul J. Orfanedes
CALLIE R. OWEN

R. Hewitt Pate.
Charles A. Patrizia
NICHOLAS J. PATTERSON
Robert S. Peck.
Thomas J. Perrelli,

Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.
Saul M. Pilchen
John W. Poole,
Trevor Potter.
David A. Price

John R. Read
Jonathan M. Redgrave
R. ANTHONY ROGERS
James E. Rooks, Jr.
Jeffrey A. Rosen
MARC ROTENBERG
Jonathan L. Rubin

ROBERT E. SANDERS
Claude F. Scott, Jr.
ELIZABETH J. SHAP1RO
Giovanna Shay
Timothy Simeone
DAVID L. SOBEL
MARCIA K. SOWLES
Arthur B. Spitzer
Mary Gabrielle Sprague
Paul C. Sprenger
Steven M. Sprenger
Peter J. Shudtz
Bruce L. Stern
DANIEL W. SUTHERLAND

Michael E. Tankersley
Kathryn E. Taylor
George J. Terwilliger III
Jennifer Toole.

Alan Untereiner

Martina E. Vandenberg.
Daniel R. Vice
David C. Vladeck

ANDREW I. WARDEN
EDWARD H. WHITE.
Ronald J. Wiltsie, II
Christopher Wolf

* * *

Removed From List

DC Lawrence J. Joseph Ref: Private Practice, not related to DoJ. DC Bar No. 464777; [NY Bar only has Lawrence A. and Lawrence M.] Ref

Read more . . .