DoJ Staff Counsel Implicated In 42 USC 1983 Civil Rights Violations

The Department of Justice Staff Counsel and the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, have been implicated in serious civil rights violations. The pattern of conduct falls under the umbrella of 42 USC 1983-related offenses.

Action: Send letter of support to Maine's lead plaintiff: Douglas Cowie [ jdcowie AT qwi DOT net ]Ref

* * *

42 USC 1983 violations are serious. This misconduct and violations of civil rights may potentially result in the impeachment of the Attorney General. The Attorney General has already been the subject of a discussion within the House Judiciary Committee of impeachment proceedings.

The DoJ Staff, by providing RNC donations, though they would be immune to investigation. However, as Dr. Rice says, not everyone gets what they want.

* * *

Other investigations continue. The States are not fully cooperating with the illegal activity. The Attorney Generals in New Jersey, Rhode Island, Illinois, Maine Ref and Missouri have attempted to investigate the violation of the privacy statutes.

AT&T: Government motion denied. Ref

Illinois: AT&T denied motion to dismiss; plaintiffs granted leave to refile. Ref

Maine: Contact Enter [ 2006274 ] for Case ID Ref Ref Verizon response Ref.

Massachusetts: Verizon response allegedly changes subject from [a] illegal classification of illegal activity to [b] an unlawful assertion that illegal activity can be protected by classification. This is an alleged misstatement of the law; the Verizon General Counsel Donald W. Boecke should know is in contravention to the law. Past inaction and failure to enforce the law is not precedent to continue violating the law. It is not lawful for anyone to classify evidence related to illegal activity. Ref These are out of courts, written statements that are not protected under the US Code; and are not protected statements before any Grand Jury or federal or state government body or entity.. Ref This is a matter Boecke knows, or should know allegedly violates the standards of conduct applicable to an attorney practicing in the State of Massachusetts. [ Ref ]

Missouri Rules Not Waived Ref Ref Intercept facility. Subpoenas

New Jersey Verizon Oversight Ref Ref

Vermont Standards Ltr to AT&T; Ltr to Verizon. Verizon response. Alexander W. Moore allegedly makes false statement of law in non-court filing. It is an alleged incorrect statement of the law, and Moore knows or should know that it is illegal to classify something that is related to illegal activity. It is not lawful to provide information to the government without the required warrants. Moore allegedly knows, or should know, that there have been no required warrants; and that the illegal activity cannot be lawfully classified or protected. This alleged misconduct is something that Moore should know violates the model rules of professional conduct, and is a matter for the Vermont State Attorney Bar Disciplinary Board to review. Ref

Cell phone tacking: Government arguments truck down Ref

* * *

DoJ Staff counsel has lied in writing asserting that the activity is classified. The activity is not lawfully classified. Rather, the activity is illegal; and it is illegal for the illegal activity to be classified by anyone.

DoJ Staff counsel knows that the laws prohibit classification of illegal activity. DoJ Staff counsel written statements are outside the court protection, and not part of official legal proceedings.

The laws only provide protection to attorneys for their court related documents. When DoJ Staff counsel issue written statements that are false, misleading, misstatements of the law, these are not protected by the false statements act. Rather, public officials who rely on these statements can demonstrate the materiality element required to prove fraud: That the false statement from the DoJ Staffer was instrumental in their decision to do or not do an official act.

The DOJ Staff counsel memoranda amounts to an inducement to commit illegal activity; and induce public officials to engage in malfeasance. This is a subsequent violation of federal statute.

* * *

DoJ Staff Counsel are prohibited from engaging in any activity while working with the Department of Justice that seeks to advance commercial interests of one firm over another.

DoJ Staff are prohibited from providing inside information to firms about upcoming DoJ actions that would shut down investigations into illegal activity.

DoJ Staff counsel are prohibited from providing non-public information to select firms with the hope of providing an advantage on bidding for federal or state contracts.

DoJ Staff Counsel once indicted and convicted of illegal activity, will have problems working on NYSE-related entities. Felons do not have full access to classified information needed to perform work on Securities and Exchange Commission-related entities in the open markets.

* * *

Civil rights violations are not a simple matter of civil litigation. These are issues of criminal law.

The State Attorney Bar Disciplinary board have jurisdiction non DoJ Staff counsel who are otherwise not registered with the DC Bar.

It is a felony to violate civil rights when acting in an official capacity; and can be the subject of subsequent private action. Credit reports and hiring decisions do include whether staff counsel in the Department of Justice have or have not been involved in illegal activity. The DoJ Staff misconduct while on duty can affect their ability to secure loans, increase their lending fees, and otherwise interfere with their private, personal commercial interests outside the government.

It remains to be understood how the DoJ Staff have supported illegal activity, blocked investigations with the promise that they will be financially rewarded or offered jobs with firms they have protected and blocked investigation.

Sanctions on attorneys in the Department of Justice for civil rights violations can include disbarment.

* * *

The state level action and concern is spreading. The State Governors have refused to cooperate with the President. The President has requested, and the State Governors have refused to provide, state level resources.

It remains to be understood how the President hopes to bypass the State Governors.

* * *

The 42 USC 1983 claims are by US citizens against government officials and other contractors who have jointly agreed to engage in government-supported violations of civil rights.

The evidence of civil rights violations is wide and pervasive:

Violations of the US Constitution

Failure of the Department of Justice to secure required warrants

Illegally classifying illegal conduct

Witness tampering

Inducement to commit felonies and illegal acts

Unlawful obstruction of justice to thwart inquiry into illegal activity

Failure to report, as required, peer misconduct to appropriate investigation authority

Dubious, false, and knowingly misleading Agency Head written assertions of state secrets or executive privilege

Illegal threats against civilians to remain silent about illegal activity

Unlawful extortion against civilian contractors in threatening to deny them something of value if they report illegal conduct

Misstatements to Congress over whether there were or were not bonafide reasons for the classification of illegal activity

Presidential failure to report, as required in writing under Title 50, the known illegal conduct and violations of civil rights.

* * *

It is not lawful for the DoJ Staff to have supported civil rights violations by blocking investigations of the illegal conduct. By blocking investigations, the DOJ Staff and Attorney General have failed to prevent illegal activity, thereby permitting additional violations.

DoJ Staff counsel knew the law and ignored it.

DoJ Staff counsel and the Attorney General have a 5 USC 3331 obligation to perform ministerial duties and assert their oath of office. The evidence of 5 USC 3331 violations and DoJ Staff malfeasance is widespread:

Violating procurement standards

Failing to stop known payments of illegal things, violating Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution

Ignoring FISA requirements to secure warrants

Misstatements to Congress

Failing in duty to report, stop, and otherwise prevent illegal conduct while acting as a supervisor and/or while acting in capacity as a DoJ OPR-regulated attorney

Conspiracy

* * *

DoJ Staff counsel are complicit in the 42 USC 1983 violations. The attorneys knew of the illegal conduct, and failed to report, as required. This failure is a violation of the DC Bar rules and DOJ OPR guidelines mandating report of illegal peer conduct.

It is also not lawful to classify evidence of illegal activity. It is a violation of the law to issue misleading statements through the media with the objective of inducing public officials to not investigate or stop illegal activity.

It is false and a knowing misstatement of the law for the DoJ Staff to directly state or leave the impression with anyone that the states may not investigate illegal activity. It is lawful and within the power of the states to ask questions about allegations of criminal activity. The states are fully within their protected rights and powers to gather evidence related to Federal Government and contractor violations of the law. The Government has provided no case law nor cited any authority which permits the illegal classification of unlawful conduct.

It is illegal for the DoJ Staff to threaten prosecution to dissuade state officials from investigating evidence of illegal activity. DoJ Staff may not lawfully take any action against state officials for engaging in free speech, discussion of illegal activity, or for lawfully exercising their power as investigating officials to gather evidence of DoJ Staff illegal activity.

When it comes to reviewing government statements related to the NSA and billing issues, DoJ Staff cannot be viewed as a disinterested party. They have a personal interest in thwarting state-level discovery of violations of the law. If the DoJ Staff counsel is prosecuted for crimes and illegally classifying evidence of criminal conduct, the DOJ Staff counsel could be disbarred, subject to prison, and otherwise sanctioned in the open markets for their illegal conduct. DoJ Staff counsel cannot credibly be believed.

* * *

It remains to be understood how the states target DoJ Staff counsel for violations of State law. One state law related to anti-SLAPP, or "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation."

Free speech means engaging in public discourse of illegal activity. It is not lawful to classify something which is illegal. It is a violation of some state law for the DoJ Staff counsel to prosecute anyone for engaging in protected speech.

DoJ Staff counsel may not lawfully threaten to take any legal action against any state official who is exercising their 5 USC 3331 obligations to protect the US Constitution, or otherwise enforced state law.

State officials have the power, right, and ministerial duty to investigate, review, and inquire into matters related to violations of the law. It would be a 5 USC 3331 violation for the sate officials to shirk from their responsibility to protect the US Constitution, or see that their State citizens are afforded equal protection under the 14th Amendment to have all federal laws uniformly applied and enforced.

* * *

There is ample evidence supporting 42 USC 1983 claims against the DoJ Staff counsel. Briefly, here is what is known: DoJ Staff Counsel have, inter alia :

Failed to comply with the Constitution and FISA requirements mandating warrants;

Invoked dubious claims for executive private on matters they knew, or should know, are not bonafide executive privilege matters;

Used systems that ignored procedures that were required under FISA;

Did not comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulation [FAR] guidelines that mandate lawful use of government resources

Engaged in non-official and personal business when the Attorney Gonzalez said the DoJ Staff was "too busy" to get FISA warrants;

Illegally used "training" as the pretext to do what was not lawful

Used illegal procedures that were illegally classified, violating Executive Orders and clearly promulgated ministerial duties

Permitted, did not stop, and encouraged federal funds expenditure for illegal things;

Failed to prevent contracting officers, procurement officials, and payment centers from spending money on, issuing checks for, and making reimbursements for illegal activity and unlawful things

Failed to stop illegal activity, when they had the ministerial duty to prevent, stop, investigate, and report peer misconduct to the appropriate federal authorities

* * *

There is other publicly available information which indicates there is ample evidence of the DoJ Staff Attorney unlawful civil rights violations:

Working through DoJ Legislative Liaison and the Attorney General, DoJ Staff counsel have hoped to change the laws related to admitted violations of the law. This amounts to a decision to not enforce the law for known violations, as was the case with the "Barbarossa Jurisdiction Decree"

Holding meetings with Members of Congress to get immunity for war crimes, fatally admits that there is known DoJ Staff Attorney involvement in war crimes and other violations of Geneva;

The Bybee memo showing the DoJ Staff knew, or should have known, that the illegal Geneva violations did violate Geneva, but they failed to report this misconduct to the DOJ OPR and appropriate authorities for investigation, as the 9-11 Commission also failed to do;

Violating Article 3 of Geneva which prohibits outrage against American civilians, which the widespread civil rights violations 42 USC 1983 are

The Hepting [EFF, Judge Walker] opinion finding that the scope of the affected civilians and American public is wide, and that the people who have been the targets of 42 USC 1983 is substantial.

DoJ OPR has been blocked from doing their job

DC Bar imposes a ministerial duty on DOJ Staff to report misconduct

Seeking changes to FISA is evidence that the DoJ Staff and Attorney General know there have been unlawful violations of FISA. Congress and The DoJ Staff have agreed to not investigate illegal activity, and change the existing laws rather than enforce them. The panicked, haphazard requested changes to the law is sufficient evidence to conclude the objective of the Attorney General and DoJ is to unlawfully avoid enforcing the law; that there have been violations of the law; these violations are known to the Attorney General; and the Attorney General and US attorneys have failed to and blocked investigations of this illegal activity.

Cheney and Specter have exchanged public memos showing there is concern there have been violations of the law; but the Vice President has been targeting specific Members of Congress to not investigate these matters. Cheney has contradicted his Iran-Contra investigation contending that the issues must be investigated.

DoJ Gonzalez wants amnesty for War crimes. This can only mean that there have been violations of the Geneva Conventions. The only reason the Attorney General would seek amnesty was if he knew, or should have known, that there was illegal conduct. Attorney General Gonzalez was the White House counsel when the illegal activity started, but failed to take reasonable efforts to stop what he knew, or should have known was contrary to statute and treaty requirement. The effort to work with Congress to change the law is not evidence of a desire to enforce the law, but to immunize himself, his staff, and others who have a known war crimes liability.

DoJ Staff have in memoranda to the states and telephone companies offered dubious arguments which are wholly misstatements of the law, and contrary to the requirement that only legal activity can be classified.

Executive Orders prohibit the classification of illegal activity. ORCON procedures have been ignored, and evidence of illegal activity has been illegally classified.

DoJ Staff have attempted to dissuade the states from lawful inquiry. The claims are frivolous. DoJ Has made dubious assertions of "classification" on things they know, or should know, are illegal and cannot be classified.

DC Bar has a mandatory reporting requirement, which the DOJ Staff has not followed;

DoJ OPR has a mandatory reporting requirement for DOJ Staff, which the DoJ Staff has not followed

IP numbers in DoJ have been linked to non-official conduct when Gonzalez said staff were too busy: this shows that the Attorney General knew the FISA requirements were real; but that the excuses for not complying with that requirement was known to be false, dubious, and contrary to open information.

DoJ Staff counsel has attempted to change the law with Congress, but this illegally usurps Article III Judicial Powers, and unlawfully targets ongoing litigation. The only reason DOJ and Congress would hope to illegally change the law was if there had been violations of the law; and individual DoJ Staff counsel were concerned with 42 USC 1983 liabilities.

The public information shows DoJ Staff counsel, contrary to Gonzalez' statements to Congress, were not busy on official business, did have time to secure warrants, were aware of the federal rules of evidence, did know the Intel Link information, and did have access to the FISA policies imposing a warrant requirement.

DoJ Staff counsel are known to engage in, support, not stop, and have failed to report evidence of peer misconduct to the DOJ OPR.

The illegal activity warrants State review and 42 USC 1983 investigation. This DOJ OPR has been blocked. The only option the state officials have to enforce these rights, comply with their 5 USC 3331 obligations is to litigate against the phone companies, compel discovery, and issue subpoenas. All other efforts to secure evidence of known, admitted illegal activity has been thwarted.

There are precedents at the state level

* * *

There is a reasonable line of questioning State officials, Grand Juries and others can review: Ref

DoJ also has several LANs, Intel Link, and known internal blogs. it is possible for DoJ Staffers to simultaneously [a] talk on their desk phones; [b] review information on the internet; [c] send private messages outside DoJ; and [d] have online and phone conversations with spouses who are working in non-government fatalities; [e] discuss information gleaned from work done while on duty, with personnel who are not cleared to receive this information; and [f] use non-classified and non-secure means to communicate with personnel outside the DoJ faculties.

These conversations have been detected, monitored, are known, and can be proven to have occurred. The evidence is available for the Grand Jury and State Officials to review. Not only have specific IP numbers been linked with specific DoJ resources; we can also show that there were ongoing conversation about non-official business at the time that Gonzalez otherwise said the staff was involved in official matters, and not able to support the mandatory FISA requirement.

You can find the specifics of the DoJ LAN names here: Ref This LAN data, and Intel Link capability can be compared with open source discussion of the CIA and NSA Intel Link capabilities.

Intel Link is the classified system which the intelligence community uses to share classified policies, memoranda, and other information such as regulations, requirements, and other internal working documents.

The IP numbers for those with access to the Intel Link have been determined, and we can prove that despite access to Intel Link, DoJ personnel have been working on non-classified and non-official work products. The Intel Link system clearly outlines what is or is not lawful; and the DOJ General Counsel has access to this system, but has not ensured that he adequately coordinated his work products with the Judge Advocate Generals.

The Intel Link system outlines the policies, rules, and other treaty requirements. The DOJ Staff and DoD General counsel knew, or should have known, how to access these lawful requirements and ensure their plans, policies, and memoranda were consistent with statute. Public information shows the DoJ Staff and DoD General counsel ignored the Intel Link information; did not use resources at their disposal; and otherwise engaged in illegal violations of civil rights.

* * *

The legal implications of these civil rights is serious. Nuremburg and Ludgwigsburg were the locations where war criminals were indicted. Well into the 1990s, over 100,000 Germans were indicted for WWII war crimes.

Unlike post WWII Germany, the Untied States is not consumed with an imminent emergency that would warrant any action to not prosecute the DoJ Staff for civil rights violations. There are many private attorneys who can take their place. There is no economic crisis requiring American resources be marshaled, regardless their link to criminal activity.

* * *

42 USC 1983: Lawful remedy -- Demand for Court Injunction

Where there is criminal activity and a right to be free of those violations of those rights, there must be a remedy. DoJ OPR has been blocked and illegally thwarted in performing its legal obligation. This illegal obstruction has unlawfully permitted civil rights violations to continue.

DoJ Staff counsel and the Attorney General know, or should know, that the direction to obstruct justice is an illegal order.

The Nuremberg Sanctions against the legal community for crimes is relevant. Civil rights when not protected or defended create a foreseeable risk that those civil rights violations will continue.

The matter is urgent. The government has illegally classified evidence of illegal activity. This permits additional civil rights violations to continue. The illegal classification is known, or should be known, to permit subsequent violations of the law; and amounts to a failure by DoJ Staff Counsel to comply with their DOJ OPR reporting requirements.

By failing to stop what they have the power to stop; and not reporting what they have the ministerial duty to report illegal conduct, the DOJ Staff counsel have violated their 5 USC 3331 oath to the Constitution, and have illegally engaged in a conspiracy to permit and illegally encourage and solicit additional violations of the law.

* * *

It is lawful for the States to compel truthful answers from the phone companies. DoJ Staff Counsel claims that this activity is "classified" are false -- illegal activity may not be classified under any Executive Order. The DoJ Staff counsel know, or should know, that it is not lawful to classify evidence of illegal activity.



* * *

What You Can Do

Encourage the states to challenge DoJ claims that the evidence of illegal activity is secret. It is not lawful under any executive order for illegal activity to be classified. The DoJ Staff counsel know, or should know, this.

Encourage the Members of Congress like Senator Kennedy, who oppose DoJ Counsel for their involvement in the NSA illegal activity Ref, to oppose Kiesler.

Take the broad view of the state-level action against the NSA. Encourage your state officials and your fiends to contact state officials in Missouri, Maine, Rhode Island, and Illinois. Gather lessons learned.

Encourage the ACLU, EFF, and Center for Constitutional Rights to continue exchanging information related to the ongoing litigation.

Encourage others to understand that DoJ Staff counsel claims about classification are dubious. It is not lawful to classify illegal activity. Collecting private information gathered without a warrant and giving it to others without permission is a violation of the law.

DoJ is attempting to change the attention from whether there has or has not been illegal activity (three has), to whether or not the activity is classified (it is not lawfully classified).