Constant's pations

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

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Action Alert: Encourage Your State Atty Disciplinary Board To Monitor DoJ Staff Counsel

DoJ Staff counsel, if they are not exclusively regulated by the DC Bar, are monitored by your state's attorney bar disciplinary board.

Encourage your friends to work with state officials to

  • A. Identify which DOJ Staff Counsel are regulated by your State Bar Disciplinary Board;
  • B. Direct the disciplinary board to review the Diggs case; and
  • C. Target those DoJ Counsel that have allegedly violated the Atty Standards of Conduct for supporting, thwarting investigation of, or not cooperating wtih the DoJ OPR related to the llegal NSA activity.

    * * *

    American Governance Issues

    We discuss the failure of American governance in the legislative and executive branches. Both Congress and the Executive share joint power and responsibility for waging illegal war.

    The American public has options. We may lawfully work with state officials to review DoJ Staff attorney conduct. The DOJ Staff Counsel is regulated by State Officials acting through the State Bar Disciplinary Boards.

    Encourage your friends to work with the state officials to compel the state disciplinary boards to review the DoJ Staff Counsels regulated by their respective States.

    * * *

    Israeli War Crimes

    Israel was unlawfully inside Lebanon when Hezbollah detained two Israeli troops. In response to Hezbollah catching Israel doing something wrong, Israel illegally waged war against civilians. Yet rather than admit to wrong doing, Israel has waged a broader illegal war.

    Failed, Unlawful American Governance

    One essentially priority for leadership is to ensure their employees are sufficiently trained, supervised, motivated, and managed. It’s one thing to blame others; it’s quite another to accept responsibility for ones failed leadership.

    This American leadership is incompetent. The clerk in the oval office has a demonstrated capacity for blaming others for his weaknesses. Rather than correct his flaws, he compels the world to keep silent. Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Iraqis have spoken: They do not agree.

    The oval office clerk does not wield a sword of justice. His fork of tyranny has two prongs, offering these options, neither consistent with the rule of law or Constitution:

  • A. Join the Americans in committing war crimes and violating the law; OR

  • B. Be the Americans opponent on the battlefield.

    One argument the clerk in the oval office offered was that we could not negotiate with others. Having been defeated on both the military and legal forums, the United States now has no option. Although it must negotiate, the United States refuses.

    Rather than accept that it neither has the moral or legal authority to win others to its side; nor does it have the military force to compel others to engage in war crimes, the clerk in the oval office would have Americans believe are in a no-win situation. This, as always, is absurd. We the People may lawfully do anything to remind the government that it [a] shall assent to our will; and [b] recognize and respect to our inherent power to compel assent.

    American citizens are being asked to continue sacrificing for something that is not winnable:

  • A. There is no prospect of legal victory;

  • B. The American government has well demonstrated that it cannot adequately organize, supervise, or equip combat forces to successfully wing battle.

    The clerk in the oval office offers nothing.

    * * *

    It is disingenuous for the Americans to suggest they are serious about negotiations or discussions. Their idea of a discussion is to yell at their opponent until they grovel on the ground.

    A sign of a leadership problem is when those who are poorly led are denied competent support, training, or oversight to ensure their success. America’s fundamental problem is that it has reckless leaders. They know the laws, and ignore them. They know their regulatory, statute, and legal obligations and pretend they do not apply.

    The same attitude is what the American leadership takes toward employee training. Take the Office of Personnel Management. Their primary job is to do just that: Manage Personnel that work for the President. We see the results: Personnel are hired who meet certain qualifications; but when those standards of conduct are applied, the employees are berated for applying their experience. It is no wonder that the Senior Executive Service is defective. Those who dare to face reality – that the clerk in the White House is incompetent – are berated.

    Rather than address the training, management, oversight, auditing, and incompetence problems, the Americans choose to export their problems. When confronted with the results, the leadership points to the “generic problem” of international relations; they fail to comprehend that the problem is in the mirror.

    * * *

    Some in America believe that the legal community will provide leadership. We’ve seen the results. The American Bar Association has shown its colors. For five [5] some odd years since Sept 2001, the Americans have continued to slide into tyranny.

    America points to the olive branches won after WWII, not realizing the branches have crumbled, exposing large holes in its crown.

    * * *

    American Citizens Learn From Iraq

    Recall the lesson of Iraq. Each time an insurgent is struck down, there are more to replace each slot. The insurgency is growing. The resistance is a formidable opposition.

    The same applies to American civilians. Each time the Administration strikes at a single American, there are others rising to the challenge. The clerk in the oval office fails to comprehend that the insurgency he is losing in Iraq has spread into America’s heartland.

    * * *

    The Congress must decide whether it is serious about its oath of office. Its sole objective is to protect the Constitution.

    The Judicial Branch has well done its job. Rather than blindly turn over all the NSA-AT&T-Verizon cases to a single court with a single MDL transfer order, the court has left some cases for the clerk in the White House to confront right now. There is more bad news on the way.

    Congress refuses to cooperate with the rule of law. There is a plan in place to transfer the NSA cases to the FISA court. Yet, this isn’t working out, much to Gonzalez distress. Despite Republican absolute control over both branches of government, Senator Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter says that someone else is obstructing he efforts. In truth, the will of the republican party proves fleeting.

    The Republicans are unable to prevail. Curiously, despite complete control over all branches of government, they cannot organize the resources to prevail. It is one thing to grab power, quite another to effectively use power. The republicans have proven adept at being bullies to acquire and abuse power; but little ability to defend or justify that abuse of power. They continue to lose in court and on the battlefield.

    Despite a losing hand, they pretend they are winners. Americans believe if they cannot actually win, it is possible to yell louder and convince others you are a winner. Winners don’t need to yell; they’ve already won.

    Americans are yelling. They’re losing. You can point to the clerk in the oval office. He’s so stupid, that he doesn’t comprehend it is he who is the problem.

    The longer Americans permit the clerk in the office to offer unwinnable options, the worse the situation will be for America. The easy answer is to investigate the misconduct. The solution is to prosecute those who have recklessly violated the law, and failed to comply with their freely chosen professional standards. The plan for America is the Constitution. Nothing new needs to be created; rather, something new is now required.

    * * *

    Disingenuous Congress

    America’s problem is that it is not serious about listening, or governance. Democracy is about solving problems in a specific kind of way: Openly discussing problems, then voting on the best approach.

    The practice has been the opposite: To secretly impose a flawed solution on a problem that lies with American management: Incompetence. It is one thing for American managers to claim that they have certifications, and command a specific salary for their experience. Quite another to learn that they are incapable of translating that experience and certification into a result.

    In theory, when their employees violate the law, prove to be reckless, or incapable of simple things, American managers provide training, increase oversight, and follow-up to ensure the employees are doing what they are being paid to do.

    This government, as do all incompetent business leaders, likes to pretend that there is no problem. Rather than address the training problem, managers blame the public, accusing them of “not being happy.” American leaders enjoy blaming others: It’s easy, and they have no inclination to take responsibility and adjust. To change would be an admission that they are incompetent.

    It is disingenuous for American leaders to offer American civilians the “chance” to provide inputs; or the “opportunity” to raise grievances. In practice, American leaders are not interested in reality; they are interested in one thing: Power. The public has every right to be dissatisfied:

  • Taxpayers have provided grants, educational opportunities, and other support so that people are trained, accredited, and educated;

  • In exchange for the public providing this support, Americans hare given reckless leadership;

  • Rather than comply with the law, the reckless leadership blames those who dare to notice reality: The clerk in the oval office is incompetent; and

  • Rather than listen to the marriage counselor, the clerk in the oval office continues to blame others, yelling at them for remaining him of his incompetence.

    * * *

    Oval Office Clerk: The Recurring Pattern of Incompetence

    The clerk in the oval office is not able to do his job. When faced with public knowledge of his incompetence, and illegal activity, he initially draft memos, send out Ambassadors, and hope to make things right. His problem was that he penned his signature to an oath that said he would follow the law.

    In return, the public relied on that promise, and took him at his word: That he was serious about leading, taking information, listening to feedback, and solving the problem. In practice, we’ve been given something entirely different: Continued excuses.

  • Rather than honor his agreement to do his job, he’s failing to do his job;

  • Rather than do his job as he promised, he’s offered excuses and blamed others for his stupidity;

  • Rather than listen to feedback that he needs to change, he blames those who dare to point out the obvious;

  • Rather than listen to his therapist, he continues to go on tirades, blaming those who openly discuss his apparent mental problems;

  • Rather than ask for help, seek training, or engage in dialog, the clerk in the oval office is sneaking around, making up stories, spreading rumors, and trying to create a crisis out of something that is not real;

  • Rather than silently do his job without fanfare, the clear in the oval office enjoys running around the neighborhood, making noise, and otherwise not doing what he said he would do;

  • Rather honor his written statement that he really wants to know what the problems are and solve them, he blames those – who rely on that (disingenuous) statement – when they actually take him at his word and provide the invited commentary and feedback; and

  • Rather than the clerk in the oval office honoring his agreement and meet his obligations, he’s told everyone else how to live, killing those who do not cooperate with his warped sense of justice and morality.

    * * *

    Inaction: Not A Lawful Precedent

    The problem is that America has permitted this clerk in the oval office to escape consequences. Rather than correct his behavior, he’s used the fact that he’s had no oversight or consequences as the excuse to continue his abuse. Again, the point is simple, he wants it both ways:

  • A. If he is given feedback, he blames those who communicate the problem;

  • B. If he is not given feedback, he continues with his abuse.

    Either way, the problem is not the public; rather the problem is with the failed oversight.

    This is where America finds itself:

  • 1. We have a clerk in the oval office that suffers from performance problems;

  • 2. He is currently undergoing marriage counseling

  • 3. The clear in the oval office is not willing to freely change his behavior unless there are actual, or likely imminent consequences to his inappropriate conduct;

  • 4. Even when confronted with his problems, he’s not willing to listen unless the consequences are so grave and real that he realizes he truly has no option.

  • 5. This Congress refuses to engage in oversight, nor is it serious about providing that management, training, oversight, feedback, and supervision which this Clerk in the Oval office is unwilling, incapable, or not interested in providing.

    The solution to this problem isn’t to let things continue. The solution and way forward is to put the responsibility on the legal community:

  • A. What’s your plan to protect this Constitution;

  • B. Why do you demonstrate incompetence, and unwillingness to provide leadership;

  • C. Why should we believe you are serious about your oath?

    * * *

    The courts have spoken: The cases have been, partially transferred to a single court. The other NSA-AT&T cases are still being litigated, and discovery continues. At the same time, the State level cases continue to wind their way through the utility commission.

    At each turn, the clerk in the oval office finds that the Iraqi insurgents have been excellent teachers:

  • A. When you opponent is well positioned, continue attacking him from many directions;

  • B. When your opponent is stupid, continue attacking him from many directions.

  • C. When your opponent is weak, continue attacking him from many directions.

  • D. When you opponent is defeated, continue attacking him from many directions.

  • E. When your opponent has run out of options, continue attacking him from many directions.

  • F. When your opponent points to God, continue attacking him from many directions.

  • G. When your opponent makes stupid comments, continue attacking him from many directions.

  • H. When your opponent deceives you, continue attacking him from many directions.

  • I. When your opponent tries to hide behind the laws that he has otherwise failed to enforce and has violated, continue attacking him from many directions.

  • J. When your opponent is defeated, continue attacking him from many directions.

  • K. When your opponent commits war crimes, continue attacking him from many directions.

  • L. When your opponent is supported by incompetent members of the State Bar and the DOJ Staff proves to be poodles and buffoons, continue attacking him from many directions.

    * * *

    Americans have learned well from the Iraqi insurgency: When we are hit, we will continue attacking from many directions.

    This clerk in the oval office has committed war crimes. Nothing Congress says or does can immunize him. Nothing any President in the future does can pardon him or protect him. He remains vulnerable.

    Any nation on this planet may lawfully prosecute him for war crimes. Those who continue to cooperate with him are also complicit in the illegal activity.

    * * *

    The American legal community has failed. Rather than assert the rule of law, or organize prosecutors to protect the Constitution, this legal community has whined, “I have a private practice to run.” Soon they too may by on the run. They’ve proven themselves to be fully knowledgeable of the problem, but wholly disinterested in standing up and fighting for their Constitution in the court of justice: If not now, when?

    The court finds that these are widespread crimes. The American legal community is not interested in finding facts. It is interested in being comfortable.

    The clerk in the oval office has already demonstrated that he is not willing to let the American legal community remain comfortable. Rather, he is willing to, inter alia [a] disregard their clients’ rights; [b] invade their private offices; [c] intrude upon your business; and [d] affect your livelihood.

    Curiously, despite the court finding that the illegal activity shall end, the Department of Justice wants to debate the Constitution. The legal community claims it may have something else to do. How many more intrusions do you want before you get off your rear end?

    Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency are not willing to assent to abuse, yet the American legal community is. Why are the “big” lawyers, with their wealth pretending that they are safe in their livelihoods? They have a fiduciary duty and have freely taken an oath to protect the Constitution.

    Yet, like the clerk in the oval office, they are unwilling to accept that they need more legal education [CLE], and pretend that the problem rests with the client. Let’s review.

  • Your client’s problem is your problem;

  • Your clients’ communication is your feedback;

  • Your clients requirements are your requirements;

  • Your professional standards of conduct are to be met, not explained away; and

  • Your salaries are commensurate with what you are willing to induce others to believe, not what you are willing to provide.

    It is time you listen to your ultimate client: The Constitution. It calls. Now is the time.

    * * *

    American leaders well knew their options in 2001: Either prosecute or wage war. They chose a middle option: Wage illegal war, illegally targeting American civilians. Rather than respond to internal concerns, they widened the war to include unrelated opponents. They lost that battle as well.

    Despite all power and no restraints, the American leadership has failed to win the hearts and minds of the world community and the American citizen.

    Lost in the discussion has been the permanent Constitution. As the fog of war subsides, the smoke reveals the Constitution. It is the turn of the Constitution to impose justice, and inflict fatal damage on the clerk in the oval office. The Constitution has given the clerk two options:

  • 1. Assent to its supremacy;

  • 2. Be destroyed.

    By refusing to accept the former, the Constitution permits the court of justice and the political actors on the world stage to do the latter.

    The preferred route is to lawfully impose justice through the courts, and use the legal system to protect the Constitution. However, this leadership shows a preference for waging war. The Constitution is fully capable of organizing forces to come to its defense. Yet, Congress refuses to raise that militia to defend the Constitution from the clerk in the White House.

    Arguably, these are severe, imminent, and grave circumstances. Article 1 Provides provisions whereby the states may request foreign assistance when the Congress refuses to timely respond to the abuses.

    Those who are lawfully inspired by a love of freedom, are friends of the American Constitution;

    Those who lawfully enter court, and get lawful warrants to lawfully enforce the law and prosecute criminals are friends of the Constitution;

    Those who lawfully challenge abusive, stupid, and arrogant FBI supervisory agents are friends of the Constitution;

    Those who lawfully report to the DoJ OPR and report peer misconduct are friends of the Construction;

    Those who lawfully gather evidence about Member of Congress malfeasance, are friends of the Constitution;

    Those who lawfully report the truth and openly discuss illegal activity, are friends of the Constitution;

    Those who lawfully work to solve problems through dialog are friends of the Constitution;

    Those who lawfully work with other nations to support international war crimes tribunals, are friends of the Constitution;

    Those who lawfully challenge the war criminal currently sitting in the oval office, are friends of the Constitution;

    Those who lawfully oppose to the clerk in the white house and refuse to assent to his bullying, are friends of the Constitution.

    Those who lawfully defy illegal orders of the clerk in the White House, are friends of the Constitution;

    Those who lawfully support forces which choose to lawfully defy the incompetent clerk in the White House, are friends of the Constitution.

    Those who lawfully exercise their free choice to stand up to the clerk in the oval office, and tell him what he his – incompetent – are friends of the Constitution.

    Those who lawfully undermine, thwart, and oppose American interests around the globe in lawful response to American abuse of power around the globe, are friends of the Constitution.

    Those who lawfully oppose illegal deployment of illegal weapons of war, are friends of the Constitution.

    Those who lawfully gather evidence, and lawfully raid the homes of American soldiers as they invade your lands, are friends of the American Constitution.

    Those who lawfully take up arms, defend their homes, and dare to lawfully engage illegally deployed American soldiers who wage unlawful war and commit war crimes, are friends of the American Constitution.

    Those who lawfully inflict grave damage on America’s interests around the globe for lawful retaliation against the clerk in the White House, are friends of the Constitution.

    Those who lawfully destroy illegally deployed American combat forces waging illegal war, are friends of the Constitution.

    Those who lawfully recognize that Hamas and Hezbollah have successfully shown the Israeli weaknesses, are friends of the Constitution.

    * * *

    The American leadership must decide whether it is a friend or foe of the Constitution. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqis have well inspired American to believe that it is possible to stand up to the arrogant clerk in the oval office. He is not all powerful. Americans have learned well from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency.

    The courts have also sent a clear message: The courts are friends of the Constitution. Americans know who is with the Constitution.

    Now Members of Congress must decide: Which side of the Constitution are you on. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency are prepared to lawfully wage war against you should you choose the incorrect answer. Now the American people wage war against you on two other fronts: In the courts, and in the voting booth.

    * * *

    Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Iraqi insurgency may soon be joined by Syria and Iran in an effort to strike back at the clerk in the White House. Not simply because he is arrogant, but because he refuses to respect the rule of law.

    The clerk no longer has moral authority. Nor does have any credible combat power at his disposal. Indeed, even the courts have recognized his defenses are illusory.

    Rather than voluntarily remove himself, he continues to bully others to believe what is not true.

    The clerk in the White House has a long row to hoe. He has to endure the continued onslaught from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency. He chose these opponents. It was a war of choice. His opponents have been excellent teachers for American civilians.

    The clerk in the oval office will have to endure his choices until the final third week of January 2009. He has a major problem. The Congress – two election cycles from now – in both Houses will be different.

    The Senate will have had the chance to have 66 of its Senators voted on. There will be more bad news between now and then. Even if the Congress between 2006 and 2008 chooses to do nothing about the incompetent clerk, the election of 2008 will be the election to decide whether Congress is going to finally wake up, or suffer more defeat in the court room and on the battlefield.

    Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqis have been elected to office. They have freely chosen to wage war against those who defy the law. America is power less to stop them from exercising their right to practice democracy. America’s only power rests with an illusion of power which the courts have struck down, once again.

    The Constitution is not going way. Nor will it have fewer friends. The longer the clerk into the oval office refuses to face reality, the worse it will get for him and his peers.

    It is time to remind the clerk in the oval office that continued progress down his current path will incite the forces he most fears: The force of the Constitution’s accountability.

    * * *

    Congress must choose which form and court it prefers. The voters are going to make a choice. But then the legal battles will continue.

    If Congress refuses to protect the Constitution, and defies the rule of law, and otherwise refuses to honor the Courts, then what does the Congress hope the public do: Assent to Congressional-Executive tyranny?

    The Constitution has already spoken. The Constitution existed as a document long before it created this President. This President promised to enforce the words of the Constitution, not twist the law to something else; nor twist the Constitution into a sword of tyranny.

    That is not an option. Rather, the way forward is simple: Congress is on notice: You must rely on the judgment of the court – the Executive has violated not just the law and Constitution his solemn oath to respect and enforce. Congress has the duty to do the same.

    Congress shall move from your current position of inertia, and move with all due speed to enforce the law, protect the Constitution, and discover what apparent problem is preventing the clerk in the Oval office from comprehending his problem.

    Hamas, the Iraq insurgency, and Hezbollah have taken power from the clerk in the oval office. It is not appropriate for the clerk to hope to refill his empty soul by draining the hope from American citizens.

    Rather, we remain fully prepared to continue learning the lessons of the Iraqi insurgency, recognizing Hamas and Hezbollah as lawfully elected representatives, and that the clerk in the oval office is something which has chosen the wrong side of the Constitution.

    * * *

    The court has spoken. Congress must choose. The rule of law and the Constitution are the only things which matter.

    Just as the Constitution is a permanent fixture – so too are Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency not going away. American cannot defeat that which is strong; American cannot ignore that which is powerful; Americans cannot hope to prevail over that which is legitimate.

    It is illegal to wage war in Iraq; and it is not lawful for America to wage war against those who have been elected to office. However, it is legal for the Constitution to lawfully wage war against the clerk in the oval office.

    Congress must choose whether it is for or against the rule of law. If Congress chooses the law, then it must investigate and find facts. It is not relevant that the election is near; or that the voters might be affected. The purpose of having frequent elections was so there was accountability; the prospect of an election is nothing new. Rather the prospect of an election is the means to ensure the Constitution is protected.

    It is a phony argument for the prosecutors to say that the voters might be affected by the outcome of a prosecution. Once the 2006 election passes, then the argument will be that the “next” election will be affected.

    It is also a phony argument to suggest that the country “cannot endure” an investigation or an impeachment; or that it would prove to be “difficult” for the country to endure. This asks that we endure certain difficulty – that of having an incompetent clerk in the oval office defying the law and abusing power – as opposed to the possibility that there might be a solution and an improvement.


  • [ ] A. Certain difficulty with inaction;

  • [ ] B. Possibility of improvement with investigations.

    * * *

    There is no excuse for the prosecutors not to act on the basis of an upcoming election. There will always be elections. Nor is the “upcoming election” something that was not foreseeable. Rather, they are in the Constitution, well promulgated, and part of the arrangement ["facts of life"] the prosecutors well understood when they freely chose, volunteered to be attorneys and prosecutors. Their signature on their oath of office is one that is linked with free will. They provide no evidence that they were under duress when they signed their oath of office. Your investigations, prosecutions, and cases do not fit conveniently within a window beyond, between, or outside the narrow, well known elections. We have open courts so that the voters may a review your conduct, and take appropriate action to remove those who are not capable of doing your job.

    There will always be the difficulty of finding facts. There is no excuse not to find facts, and avoid finding out what is wrong. At worst we’ll know more about what needs to be fixed; at best we’ll have the information needed to outline a solution, and the catalyst to implement the needed adjustments.


  • [ ] A. Certain difficulty with inaction;

  • [ ] B. Possibility of improvement with investigations.

    * * *

    Those changes are not simply ones that can be asserted in a policy memo, then forgotten. Rather, real leadership means enforcing your polices, providing guidance, issuing standards, ensuring your employees are meeting those standards, then providing feedback, and special supervision to those who have a difficult time comprehending what needs to be done.

    The responsibility of the Senior Executive Service [SES] in the Office Of Personnel Management [OPM] and Executive Branch means doing what you are not used to doing: Providing feedback, providing close supervision, and ensuring your personnel are trained to do what is within their lawful power to do.

    Your job as a manager is to ensure the laws are followed, and that you lawfully achieve your objectives. You only have discretion on how you lawfully move within the confines of the law; your discretion is at its lowest ebb when you choose to cross the line.

    America needs leaders. It also needs a slap in the face. And it also needs a war crimes trial for those in the NSA, DoD, and DoJ who have assented to, failed to prevent, and otherwise fully supported illegal activity in conjunction with combat operations. Congress must choose whether it is going to voluntarily support these war crimes tribunal at home, or whether it is going to unlawfully interfere with other courts around the globe hoping to prosecute the same.

    If America chooses to defy the law, ignore the requirements, or pretend that the reason for America’s problem is “because of someone else”, American must remember that free people have freely chosen to elect Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency. America chooses to wave the flag of freedom, without the serious intention of letting people freely choose who they want to be their leaders.

    Americans have chosen incompetent leaders, and for that they have been rightfully punished on the battlefield and in the court room.

    Congress has a job. The court has spoken. The NSA activity is not lawful. It is time for Congress to choose whether it is going to be part of the solution, or is part of the problem. Either door and either option will not be easy. One door leads to difficult evidence; the second door leads to a ruder awakening. No matter what door you choose, you’re going to face something that you refused to face: You have a dictator.

    * * *

    The Court has finds there have been serious violations of the Constitution. The Executive Branch has chosen to pretend the law is something else. Their excuse is something that is unbelievable.

    Each time the Congress and Executive choose to unlawfully support a policy or illegal course of conduct that defies the Constitution, the more they incite the allies of the Constitution to stand up, assert the rule of law, and continue waging lawful opposition in the courts, on the streets, and on the battlefield.

    Congress must decide whether it is for or against the Constitution. If Congress does not put the Constitution first, then the States may lawfully work with other nations, develop alliances, and take necessary action to protect their state citizens against continued abuses.

    The way forward is to follow the Constitution. If Congress chooses not to adhere to that clearly promulgated requirement, then Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iraqi insurgency will have every reason to be emboldened, and silently rest assured that they have greater power, moral authority, and legitimacy.

    On the other hand, each time Congress chooses to assent to illegal violations of the law, Congressional legitimacy, moral authority, and power further subsides. The sea of legitimacy is not filled with abuses. No celestial or divine force will renew the seas of legitimacy where there is no stabile respect for the law.

    Congress has no power to refuse to honor its oath, or note enforce the Constitution. Any Member of Congress that chooses to refuse to enforce the Constitution, or block lawful inquiry into these matters is an alleged war criminal.

    The States have the power, authority, and legal obligation to seek foreign assistance when the Members of Congress refuse to ensure the States right to a republican form of government is protected. The Constitution is a requirement on the States; it is also an agreement between the States and the People that we may lawfully seek any assistance when the Members of Congress have individually chosen to threaten, undermine, and destroy the Constitutional system.

    No state attorney general need to fear seeking foreign assistance to protect the Constitution. This Congress has for too long known the law, not enforced it, turned a blind eye to the abuses, and despite the court ruling to the contrary, continues to refuse to take action to enforce the law of the land.

    It will only be a matter of time before Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency is seen as more legitimate and responsive to the needs of the Constitution than the Congress.

    Who was there, willing to stand up to abuse of power? Not the Congress, Hamas and Hezbollah and the Iraqi insurgency;

    Who was willing to demand the abuse of power answer to a war crimes inquiry? Not Congress, but Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency;

    Who was willing to listen to the people, and ensure they were protected from abuse of power? Not Congress, but Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency;

    Who was willing to see a wrong, find a solution, and see the result to the end? Not the Congress, but Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency;

    Who was willing to review the facts, make a decision, and lawfully implement a solution to abuses? Not Congress, but Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency.

    * * *

    Congress must choose. The court has spoken. Here are Congress’ options:

  • A. Enforce the law and conduct investigations; or

  • B. Continue suffering defeats on the political, military, and legal battlefields.

    The only way the Congress can survive, as a legitimate institution, is if it chooses the former. Yet, despite no resources and a proven track record of incompetent oversight, it chooses the latter. This is not just imprudent, but an unlawful waste of resources on illegal activity. Rather than learn the lessons of what failed [ in re fact finding, oversight], this Congress blindly assents to a second wave absurd allegations when it comes to other issues.

    The solution is the Constitution, rule of law, fact finding, and accountability. The incorrect approach is what Congress and the Executive have unlawfully conspired to do: To not enforce the law, and do nothing about abuse of power and violations of rights.

    * * *

    Iraq isn’t about a military win or defeat; it’s about whether the American Constitution, system of checks and balances, and rule of law – otherwise ignored, and the reason Americans are there – wins or loses.

    Iraq is a symptom. Because the American system of checks and balances failed, Americans freely chose to wage illegal war; and despite learning the war was not legal, failed to remove themselves. Rather than end what was not legal, then failed to provision sufficient troops to ensure their Geneva obligations – that of providing security – were met.

    One Congressional-Executive error led to another. The first mistake was to wage illegal war. The second error was to fail to use overwhelming force. The third error was to not adjust. The fourth error was to explain away the Geneva obligations. The fifth error was to fail to plan for and deploy what was then required to lawfully secure the occupied land. The sixth error was to leave the civilian population in a worse position than when they were before the illegal invasion. The seventh error was to not accept defeat. The eighth error was to refuse to investigate the actions and provide the needed supervision to fully comply with all domestic and international legal obligations. The ninth error was to ignore the court reminder that the Geneva Conventions were requirements. The tenth error was to ignore the proof that the leadership had failed to meet its legal obligations. The eleventh error was to refuse to take action to provide the needed oversight, training, supervision, and support to ensure the problem was lawfully solved. The twelfth error was to continue ignoring feedback that there were problems; and ignoring the needed solutions to correctly solve the problem within the confines of the law. The thirteenth error was to fabricate evidence that you were succeeding, despite failure. The fourteenth error was to pretend your failure was the fault of those who correctly reported your incompetent, reckless disregard for your freely chosen professional standards and Constitutional obligations.

    This November, your choice is simply between which candidate you believe will be the one that will best preserve your Constitution. Once you choose the rule of law, then you are saying yes to accountability, fact finding, and prudent solutions.

    If you choose the wrong candidate, then you are saying that you want more of the same:

  • No accountability

  • More oval office incompetence

  • More excuses for incompetent management

  • More excuses to blame others for the problem in the oval office

  • More reckless wars of choice which are insufficiently provisioned, illegal, and devoid of legal foundation.

  • More contempt for the American system of governance, which proves it is incapable of effectively solving problems in a lawful manner.

    * * *

    The clerk in the oval office has well demonstrated his recklessness. Despite amassing blind deference of the American Bar Association, Congress, and the contracting community, he failed to prevail in a war he chose.

    War was not imposed on him in Iraq. He had the time, had the planners, and had the (illegal) all-powerful position to (illegally) do whatever he wanted. Despite no recognized restraints, he still failed. Despite ignoring every constraint known to man, even the law, he still was incapable of:

  • Understanding a problem

  • Organizing resources

  • Addressing that issue

  • Ensuring he had the support, training, and resources to prevail

  • Adequately overseeing

  • Making timing adjustments

  • Solving the problem

  • Seeing the situation to the end

    * * *

    Americans have a system of separation of power. This means that the president is not all powerful; he is answerable to the Constitution, law, courts, the Congress, and We the People. When he ignores all things, the only restrain on his power is the battlefield.

    This clerk in the oval office has freely chosen to wage illegal war abroad, then wage illegal war against American civilians. The clerk in the oval office is not a serious leader.

    Congress is not serious about providing leadership and refuses to act. We the People may lawfully work with other nations, form alliances, and do things so long as Congress remains an ongoing threat to this Constitution.

    What is Congress going to do when Hamas, Hezbollah, or members of the Iraq insurgency are elected to Congress? Congress will suddenly have a new appreciation for the rule of law, self-discipline, and peer reviews. You can blame one person: Your incompetent clerk in the oval office.

    * * *

    Let’s consider the needed house cleaning.

  • American Bar Association

  • Attorney General

  • Department of Justice Staff Counsel

  • Department of Defense General Counsel

  • Vice President’s Chief of Staff

    See the common problem? They’re all members of the American Bar Association, all attorneys, all well trained on the law, but unwilling to assert the rule of law.

    They are weak. They are lazy. They are stupid. They are reckless. They are known war criminals. They openly refuse to prevent violations of the law by their peers.

    A swamp and a cess pool are appropriate analogies. A swamp is place that attracts thirsty animals, but they sometimes get sick and die. The vultures then land and feast. The cess pool attracts the animals; the foreign fighters dine. The American Bar Association is arguably a cess pool or a swamp. The American lawyers have quenched their thirst on what is toxic soup. The attorneys-turned-zombies stroll the halls of the American Government, creating flawed, illegal, and reckless policies. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency find nourishment by feasting on those in the American legal community.

    The American Bar Association is a cancer that is spreading with these zombies. You need only ride the metro with Addington to understand the ease to which the attorney-zombies have made their way through the District and Northern Virginia. The attorney-zombies like Viet Dinh, Yoo, Gonzalez, Addington, and Haynes have spilled their toxic sludge along Pennsylvania Avenue, from the Office of Legislative Liaision near the Capitol, through the White House, then across the Potomac into Arlington and the Pentagon.

    The American Bar Association wants American to believe it is a self-policing organizing. It is clear they are neither self-policing, nor lawfully organized for a lawful purpose: Their results are reckless, and their peer reviews have failed to provide the needed oversight, training, assistance, staff support, guidance, and screening to ensure the Constitution is protected.

    These zombies have abused of our rights because there was no barrier to abuse and illegal conduct. The American Bart Association and State Attorney Disciplinary Boards through reckless negligence permitted the abuse of power to continue not just at home, but on foreign shores. The ABA has rewarded the attorney-zombies; and failed to discipline them and remove them from the legal landscape.

    Because the American Bar Association has failed to prevent abuse of power and has failed stop war crimes, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency have been emboldened to go where the American Bar Association has no power: The battlefield.

    We see no evidence the ABA has raised and supported any competent army. At best, the ABA lobbying activity has funned money to Members of Congress who enjoy funding illegal combat operations. ABA money in, illegal combat operations out.

  • Input: Defective governance of the attorney profession;

  • Output: War crimes, violations of the Constitution.

    If you were to ask a random ABA attorney about the threat to the Constitution, most of then would whine that they have too many “other things” on their mind to bother. “Hay, I’ve got a practice to run. I can’t be bothered to spend time looking at the Constitution, can’t be bothered working with my prosecutor-peers to empanel Grand Juries.”

    Each time the ABA says no to the rule of law and Constitution, is another vote for tyranny. The ABA might as well admit what their malfeasance and reckless disregard for the rule of law has done for America: It has emboldened other peoples to vote for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency. What is the ABA going to do when Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency take over the ABA? We might have the following:

  • A confrontation over reality;

  • A requirement that there be consequences for failing to enforce the law;

  • A mandate that the consequences for failing to honor ones oath mean something of consequence;

  • Requirements that the elected officials meet, demonstrate, and are willing to take up arms to defend the law, not simply send others to do the fighting for dubious causes.

    Hamas and Hezbollah stood their ground. When faced with a challenge Congress ran and is still hiding from the Constitution.

    If you have a problem, who you going to call? If you want a zombie, call Congress, the American Bar Association, State Disciplinary Boards, or the Department of Justice.

    * * *

    Members of Congress have voted for unlawful war. It’s time Americans impose requirements in a New Constitution that the leaders who vote for war be required to wage that war.

  • If they will not fight, then why will they send others to do what they refuse to do?

  • If they claim they are not experts, then why are they not listening to the experts who tell them the war is not legal?

    The JAGs have been long ignored. They did not get to vote for an illegal war. It is not appropriate for the Members of Congress to have it both ways:

  • A. On one hand they say they are above the law when it comes to accountability for reckless acts, and illegal funding for unlawful wars;

  • B. Yet, when confronted that they are waging an illegal war, they point to those who are waging it;

  • C. When told they are responsible for leading that illegal war, they point to others to do their bidding, but cannot explain why they have ignored the cautions of those they’ve otherwise ignored.

    How does the Congress explain this:

  • 1. It freely funds illegal wars;

  • 2. It refuses to gather facts about the illegal conduct;

  • 3. Despite overwhelming losses on the battlefield, it continues to pay for war;

  • 4. Despite no progress, and court finding that the Executive is acting outside the law, they blindly assent to paying for that which the court says is illegal.

    These Members of Congress are buffoons. They cannot do their jobs. They are poorly led. They have no comprehension of leadership. They do not know how to audit. They will not listen. They will not adjust.

    Despite having absolute power over all things, this Congress still can’t get it right. There’s nothing else left to go wrong. Even when the Court orders the Congress to ensure the Executive follow the law, the Congress refuses to do what the Court has ordered: Ensure the law is followed.

    * * *

    Congress has no choice and it has run out of time. There is no excuse of any prosecutor to sit on their rear end and whine about your “other obligations.” Rather, you have an imminent problem: Your national leadership in the ABA has recklessly ignored the Constitutional obligations it has through its oath of office; but wants to remain silent as the Executive-Legislature illegally export more abuse.

    The problem isn’t “over there.” It’s in the oval office, inside the ABA, and within the staff counsel of the Department of Justice. The question is who is going to be first to move:

  • A. Will OPM have to do more line of duty determinations, or are you going to blindly follow the President’s order to “not review” that evidence of misconduct;

  • B. Will the FBI and DoJ Staff report their evidence of peer complicity with war crimes to the DOJ OPR; or are you going to blindly follow illegal President orders to keep silent about illegal activity;

  • C. Will Members of the Armed Services speak out about the illegal war crimes; or will they continue to follow illegal orders?

  • D. Will members of the American Bar Association direct the state disciplinary boards review their peers for complicity with war crimes; or will you say, “I can’t be bothered, I have something else I’d rather do.”

  • E. Will the voters realize that there are clear standards of conduct, industry relations, and other written guidance that even the most stupid of bloggers can read and implement; or will the voters blindly believe that the clear in the oval office – who is incompetent – is the fountain of all knowledge?

  • F. Will the US Attorneys, who have an oath to the US Constitution, enforce the law as they are required and bring evidence to a Grand Jury about the FISA violations, and openly discuss these facts before the election; or will they assent to illegal pressure from their buffoon-peers in DoJ to remain silent about matters even the most stupid blogger can figure out?

    * * *

    There have been serious crimes. These are reportable matters to the DOJ OPR. The US Prosecutors have a job to do. If you fail, you may lawfully be indicted for being complicit with war crimes, and otherwise refusing to prevent what you had the power to do.

    Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency have well educated American citizens: Abuse of power will not end unless you stand up to it.

    This Congress and Executive refuse to assent to the law. Despite repeated warnings by the courts, and well crafted arguments and opinions, this American leadership has chosen to not enforce the law as they have taken an oath to do. Although the court finds there have been violations of the law, Congress refuses to enforce the law. Congress has run out of time and has no excuse for inaction.

    Congress is loyal to the clerk in the White House; it refuses togather facts, and not enforce the law. They have made a poor choice in refusing to assent to the rule of law. If Members of Congress defy the courts and ignore the Constitution, the only option they have left is the battlefield. Yet, we see defeat in Iraq and against Hezbollah.

    Despite ignoring all legal and planning constraints, Congress and this President have jointly failed to successfully wage this illegal war: Unable to support offensive combat operations; and unable to find non-zombie lawyers to defend their failures and illegal activity. This is the definition of powerlessness in the face of justice.

    We face another milestone. The voters will see whether Congress understands its responsibility: To enforce the law. If Congress ignores the Constitution and does not enforce the law, then under that Constitution We the People may work with our states to form alliances with other nations to compel Members of Congress and the DOJ Staff to assent to war crimes tribunals.

    It would be preferable if the American courts and rule of law were used as a means to compel individual members of Congress to do their job. Yet, despite the glaring threat of prosecution and actual losses on the battlefield, this joint Congressional-Executive illegal war proves one thing: Congress and the Executive are incapable of effectively raising, organizing, overseeing, managing, training, and otherwise providing for even a motley crew of incompetent people called an “army.” Call it what it is: A rag tag group of incompetent people who are incapable of planning a leisurely walk to, much less through, a Louisiana swamp.

    It is time for Congress and the clerk in the oval office to admit: You have been defeated; you have not done your jobs; and that you have no prospect of winning. Even the most stupid blogger can figure this out. Imagine what might happen when someone with slightly more intelligence, sitting in the Lebanese Parliament – who just happens to be a member of Hezbollah – imagine what they might decide must be done in order to remind the Congress and Executive – it is the rule of law is what put Hezbollah into office.

    Free people voted to stand up to abuse of power. The American voters are fully capable of making adverse inferences and doing the same in 2006. With time, and more evidence of war crimes, we can only imagine what will happen between now and the November 2008 elections. No matter who wins the Presidency, there are three weeks in January 2009 when this President will face a new Congress; 2/3 of the Senate will have faced a referendum between 2006 and 2008. Imagine what new information we will learn between 2006 and 2008 to further inflame the passions of the voters. It’s only going to get worse.

    Keep it up. The continued arrogance this Congress has shown to the rule of law is transparent. It does not matter what Congress may pretend. The world knows that the leadership problem isn’t simply with the incompetent buffoon in the oval office. It is because Congress is incompetent in its management of wars, and unwilling to ensure that the Constitution and rules of law prevails.

    The American Congress has no legitimacy. It reuses to enforce the law. It cannot work with the Executive to wage war, support troops, or otherwise ensure that American combat forces are successfully organized and supported to do something very simple. We can only imagine the complexities Congress will face when the number of opponents increases and the rage behind the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Iraqi insurgency descend on the District of Columbia. They’re already there. They’re called American voters. They see that Congress is unwilling to assert the rule of law, exercise leadership, and otherwise do what is to be expected of a competent leader.

    It’s not that hard. The issue is what has induced the Members of Congress to remain silent about abuse of power and violations of the law at home; but fabricate information and provide false evidence about illusory violations and threats abroad.

  • Domestic: Real threats – ignore that.

  • Foreign: Fabricated threats – violate the law.

    They either ignore the violations, or they commit the violations.

    * * *

    Yes, you too could be qualified to be an Assistant US Attorney General.

    DoJ Senior Executive Service Bi-Weekly Schedule

  • A. Day 1: Commit violations.

  • B. Day 2: Ignore violations

  • C. Day 3: See Day 1, repeat Day 2.

  • D. Day 4: See Day 3.

  • E. Day 5: Blame someone else.

  • F. Day 6: See day 1.

  • G. Day 7: Pretend voters are stupid. Threaten public official for enforcing law. Use these words: “Supremacy, ” “injunction, ” and “marmalade.”

  • H. Day 8: Create non-sense distraction. Wave hands before window. Yes, the air conditioning is working. Issue a memo. Retract it. Test shredder. [Find bandaid; use paper next time.]

  • I. Day 9: Issue guidance which is absurd. Discuss with spouse where to take children on Metro. Complain about news.

  • J. Day 10: Do nothing about DoJ Staffers who are surfing internet looking at non-official websites, and making updates to information unrelated to non-government related content. Prepare for trip. Leave early, your usual time.

  • K. Day 11: Fly to Geneva, make excuses for war crimes, blame the world. Call Geneva a scrap of paper. Drink vodka with State Department goons.

  • L. Day 12: Write trip report, submit travel voucher, See Day 10.

  • M. Day 13: Practice zombie-like skills while jogging along Pennsylvania Avenue. Wave to FOX reporter. Give zombie-smile, but remain serious. Ignore DoJ Procurement Guidance related to bans on gratuities. Nobody will know. Not even bloggers.

  • N. Day 14: Complain the public has no respect for how hard you are working, and that the just don’t understand how difficult it is to read case law, the US Attorney Manual, and still fit in all these meetings. High tech, but lost in the I-Drive. Huff a lot. Pant. Drool. Think about getting suit pressed. Maybe not. A wrinkled suit means you’re working. Maybe. Rewrite jury instructions to confuse them more. Ignore spelling errors in Constitution; ignore the whole Constitution. Just make up your own rules. Nobody at the war crimes tribunal will ever see this memo. Ooops.

    * * *

    If American was truly concerned about violations of the law – as it says may or may not have occurred in Iraq – the fact that this “concern” did not translate into a similar concern against the President tells us many things:

  • A. Congress isn’t serous about the rule of law anywhere

  • B. Congress is willing to believe non-sense to impose power

  • C. Congress does not care about facts, laws, or violations of the law

  • D. It is not reasonable for anyone to believe that Congress is serious about gathering facts, enforcing the law, or ensuring that the laws of war are respected

  • E. Congress does not care whether the excuse to support illegal activity is or is not related to real or fabricated evidence

  • F> Despite Congress knowing the rules of evidence, and getting repeated reminders from the courts on the rule of law, the Congress is not serous about ensuring these standards of evidence apply to the information related to progress, risks, or other things

  • G. We cannot believe that the Congress is serious about real violations of the law at home

  • H. There is no prospect, no matter how much time Congress says it needs, that fact finding will occur.

    Where there is no law enforcement, there is no law. Where there is no law, there is no restraint on the abuse of power. Where there is no restraint, then there is no need to wait to wonder what might happen.

    Rather, this Congress has already decided that it will do nothing while US Combat forces are illegally used against American civilians at home; there is no reason to believe they will do anything when the abuses mount.

    There is every reason to believe that this Congress will recklessly assent to more abuses of power, no matter what the Court says.

    This Congress has well demonstrated that it is not serious about its oath of office. The prosecutors do nothing.

    Will Congress stand silently as the Executive lashes out against American civilians?

    What is stopping American civilians from standing against the Congress that has permitted military force is illegally used against civilians?

    * * *

    The planned use of force against Americans will backfire. As we have seen in Iraq, those who are attacked will not cower.

    Once it is understood that the Congress-Executive have refused to lawfully restrain themselves, the outburst and abuse of power will likely prove to be the catalyst to mobilize Americans.

    This is why Congress is weak, incapable, and unwilling to do anything. But because Congress has for this long done nothing, it has (incorrectly, illegally) pretended that this is a precedent for more assent to illegal activity.

    The court finds that the conduct is not lawful. The way forward is to compel the Congress to state whether are or are not serious about enforcing the law. This seriousness shall be in the form of a public call for investigations. To be aired publicly immediately, well before the Elections.

    Nothing is in the way of Congress. The annual budget cycle is not something that is new. Rather, the government can go to Constituting resolutions.

    The “important” work of the Congress is the Constitution, which Judge Kennelly well reminded in his decision that did not dismiss the claims against AT&T.

    How about the ongoing litigation against AT&T and the government. More opportunities for the DoJ Staffers to throw around more dubious defenses of what is not lawful. Your arguments are frivolous; and you also know that under the Model Rules frivolous arguments can be something that warrants increased disciplinary board review. Not this lazy ABA, but the states.

    * * *

    DoJ OPR have not been permitted the access to accomplish the reviews of the misconduct related to the NSA violations; and of the DoJ Staff counsel complicity in those violations of the law. However, there is nothing stopping the State Attorney Bar Disciplinary Boards from reviewing the matters.

    The State Attorney Generals claim to be serious about protecting state rights. Perhaps the same interest the State Utility Commission showed, has sprouted roots in the Chief Law Enforcement Officers of the States: The Governors, and the State Attorney Generals – jointly calling on the State Disciplinary Board to review the conduct of the DoJ Staffers assigned to their state bars.

    What You Can Do

    Contact the ACLU and encourage them to review this information. Maybe the ACLU would like to send out another action alert

  • A. Encourage the citizens of the United States to start a discussion with their state level candidates on the rule of law;
  • B. Draft letters to the State legislators calling for discussions over the effectiveness of state-level regulation in restraining DoJ Staffers in abusing power, and not stopping war crimes; and
  • C. Encourage state level citizens to work with the State legislators, governors, and the state attorney generals, to call for the state attorney disciplinary boards to review the matters which the DoJ OPR has not been permitted to review.

    The court finds the NSA activity is not legal. It is a subsequent violation of the law to hide evidence of illegal activity by classifying the information. Therefore, it is illegal for the President to have blocked the review; DoJ OPR cannot be denied access to illegal activity; there is no “clearance” required to review evidence of crimes. Nobody needs any “security clearance” to review information that is not lawfully classified; the information is not classified, but evidence of criminal activity.

    The court finds there has been illegal conduct and these violations of have been severe. The model rules require peers to report severe violations of the law. The DoJ Staff Attorneys have not reported this illegal activity; and the DoJ OPR has been thwarted from reviewing the illegal conduct.

    Those in the Department of Justice who do not cooperate with State-level bar disciplinary investigations may be disbarred. Perhaps this might be some incentive for the attorneys to discuss the evidence of illegal activity. Remind the State level officials about ORCON, and the Executive Orders which prohibit classification of illegal activity.

    The court finds the NSA activity is illegal. The fact that the illegal conduct has been classified means that there is no bonafide claim of privilege. Rather the privilege has been invoked to hide illegal conduct. This means that the court ruling that there has been illegal conduct trumps state secrets claims. It is not lawful for the Executive to force anyone to be silent about illegal violations of the law; nor may the Executive lawfully enforce any secrecy agreement when that activity is illegal, and the agency inspector general have refused to take timely action on the matter. The situation here is far more serious in that even the Congress refuses to enforce the law. The only option the members of the Executive Branch have, in reporting this illegal activity, is to go to the media. Any threat by the DoJ to prosecute anyone for reporting violation of the law is against public policy.

    Openly discussing illegal activity does not mean that the state secret claim goes away; it merely means that the court does not recognize that claim of privilege. There is no absolute right or power to hide evidence of illegal activity, especially when the objective of that suppression is to hide evidence the Constitution itself is being ignored, violated, and not enforced.

    It is a subsequent violation of federal law to [a] classify evidence of illegal conduct; and [b] hide behind a claim of privilege where the only aim, in asserting that privilege, is to hide evidence of illegal activity. On that basis, when the evidence of illegal conduct is shielded only by a dubious claim of privilege to hide evidence of illegal activity, no attorney may reasonably refuse to cooperate with lawful inquiry at the state level; nor may the attorney refuse to fully cooperate with the state level bar disciplinary board. Even if the states do not, in the end, finally secure evidence of illegal conduct, they can still disbar attorneys who refuse to cooperate with the inquiry.

    They wished this.