Constant's pations

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

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Executive Branch Opens Door To Discovery

This is actually a good thing.

Warning: Information below is just the tip of the iceberg. The more one pulls on the info, the more questions there are. This is a warning sign. Beware.

Ref: Refusal to testify.

Ref: Refusal to keep things secret. Ref

* * *

By starting civil litigation, Congressman Murtha may lawfully (in his own defense) engage in discovery.

FYI: In order for the Marine to establish standing, he has to show that he was identified by Murtha, which he was not -- thus, the Marine cannot show that Mrutha's statement caused damages to the specific Marine. [ Ref ]

Murtha's comments do not appear to specifically name the Marine. Ref

* * *

I suspect this is part of the defense-counsel litigation strategy: The problem is here:

Pentagon officials "who have briefed or leaked information to Mr. Murtha deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information" and that the congressman subsequently "has made repeated statements .... that are defamatory" to Wuterich and his fellow Marines. Ref

It appears as though the "defense strategy is to find out who in the Pentagon provided the information to Murtha. This is a way to suggest that the investigation was somehow tainted, or that there was an improper investigation. Perhaps counsel hopes to find out, by suing Murtha, who in DoD provided Murtha the information.

If that is the case, the information given to a Member of Congress -- through whatever means -- would be privileged (as the Executive well knows).


Has DoJ-DoD hoped to get the marine to sue;

What has the attorney been told to induce them to assert a claim that has no legal basis?

Any money sent from RNC to the Marine's lawyer?

* * *

Neal A. Puckett is the criminal attorney. Ref

Pucket is a Retired LTCol (Creighton Law) and has also defended

  • 2LT Anderson, Platoon Leader

  • Lieutenant Colonel West

  • Gen. Janis Karpinski [Abu Ghraib]

    Unclear if Pucket is doing the civil litigation against Murtha.

    Mark S. Zaid is the other attorney Ref with LNL.

    Zaid is interesting Ref: He has appeared before Congress on Able Danger, mentioning he represents members of the intelligence community. Ref -- How does the NSA fit in with him?

    Zaid went after the CIA. Does he want Murtha to counter-sue to reveal something else? Zaid knows FOIAs well. [ Ref ]

    Something seems strange with this: FOIA-expert related to intelligence is allegedly going after a Member of Congress about defamation, with the hopes of finding the leak of his clients info on alleged ar crimes that appear to be actual war crimes . . . ?

    This may explain the motivation: Look at this address here -- it matches the Madison Project. Is this an effort by the RNC to appear one thing (as is going on with backing teh Greens, but they're doing soething else?)

    Recall, the CIA rendition aircraft have been linked with attorneys with stange addresses. Is this what's going on?

    Here's some funding issues: Ref this phone number: Notice they're expanding operations in the same areas where rendition has allegedly been occurring: Armenia.

    Short version: Counsels' address linked to an Energy Firm. Ref

    Are the addresses the same, but the organizations unrelated? The only link back beween teh names, phone numbers, and Zaid is here: [Journal Articles Click ]

    Zaid knows a little too much about legal issues, foreign policy, and itelligence: Ref Zaid's represented CIA agents. 9-11 related info on Australia's ABC.

    No comment: Ref

    * * *

    Put the above aside for the moment, and let's consider the opportunity . . .

    Encourage the DNC leadership to use this lawsuit as a basis to:

  • Compel discovery into DoD;

  • Broadly apply discovery along any possible line of evidence that could remotely prove the Congressman's statements are true;

  • Compel discovery in other related areas.

    As Murtha's discovery broadens, do what DoJ does: "Hay, we'd really like to hear all the evidence in one spot. Why don't we consolidate all the Executive suits against Members of Congress . . .then start doing this: Ref

    * * *

    If the Executive wants to invoke privilege (as it likely will), then the Court will have to dismiss the civil suit because it cannot be litigated.

    The problem is: The military records and NCIS findings of fact, available in court, substantially prove what Murtha Stated: That Marines were (allegedly) linked to war crimes.

  • The issue for counsel is likely that they want to show that the statement Murtha made somehow prejudiced the trial.


    (1) Murtha didn't mention names

    (2) Murtha as a Member of Congress has a duty to speak about illegal conduct, and ensure there are investigations

    (3) Plaintiff (NCIS defendant) cannot easily show damages should the allegations of criminal conduct be proven true


    If you're going to be a soldier, you better suck it up if you're engaged in alleged war crimes, or other alleged misconduct. If you want to screw with the Geneva Conventions and allegedly lie or allegedly mislead investigators or allegedly do things you're not supposed to do: Your conduct is a matter of public interest, and you as a public figure lose a claim of privilege or privacy.

    Rather, your conduct is a matter for Members of Congress to comment on in their official capacity, when they ensure that the laws of war are followed.

    * * *

    Take the broad view: Do not look at a subpoena of lawsuit as a problem. Rather, as soon as Members of Congress are targeted, this opens the door of the Executive Branch to discovery by the full Congress.

    Translation: Murtha should use the Conyers Report as the starting ground to compel discovery on any fact that may prove Murtha's statement were true:

  • Whether there have or have not been Geneva Violations, thereby invoking DoJ Concerns that there will be Bybee-related memo reviews;

  • Whether DoJ Staffers failed to adequately comply with Geneva 82;

  • Whether DoJ Staffers and DoD Counsel failed to ensure the 5100.77 laws of war program was implemented;

  • Then compel discovery on the Members of Congress who may have been aware of the war crimes through NSA-DoD IG reports, but did not report in public or investigate;

  • Then, after collecting the information, Murtha can (as the 9-11 Commission did not) make recommendations on who he believe did or did not cooperate with tehse questions which need to be answered to defend himself.

  • Then, the issue will be: Who in DoD might pressure the Marine to withdraw the suit, and is this for an improper purpose? (ABA Rules of Professional Conduct might get invoked) . . .

    * * *

    The same could be said of the DOJ Lawsuits against the states: There's nothing stopping the states from personally litigating against the individual DoJ Staff attorneys for (arguably) abusing the legal process. Individual citizens in the states have been targeted with litigation; they have the right to lawfully counter-sue against the specific DoJ Staff attorneys and US Attorney for alleged abuse of prosecutorial discretion and other alleged violations in using prosecutions to thwart them from individually performing their job.

    Example 1 -- NJ: Targeting DC DoJ Staff through NJ for their abuse of process and frivolous litigation Ref

    Example 2 -- VT: Targeting DC DoJ Staff through VT for their interference with state-level enforcement action against illegal conduct, and expand discovery into DoJ staff attorney knowledge of non-enforceable agreements between US-Telecoms to violate the law Ref

    Example 3 -- DC: Targeting the DOJ Staff for abusing the legal process to thwart discovery of their alleged involvement in war crimes; going after Ref [Passing legislation that targets on going matters (that that have already been discussed) is ex post facto and unconstitutionally targets specific litigation Ref)

    * * *

    Spread the word to your friends: If you know someone that is getting sued by anyone in DoJ or the Federal government, make sure you look for ways that your attorney can expand discovery on the pending Constitutional legal issues.

    The litigation can then form the basis to expand FOIA requests, as you have seen here.

    If your member of Congress ha been sued, they may have standing to compel discovery to prove or disprove what they have said. The US government cannot permit its individual agents to sue you to be quiet, but deny you the ability to compel discovery to prove the truth of what you are saying.

    * * *

    If Congressman Conyers wants to conduct fact finding, and establish standing, all he has to do is talk to Murtha: "How do I get sued by the Executive branch?"


    Encourage Conyers to discuss with counsel, Murtha and other Members of Congress and the state-level litigators involved in the State Privacy issues: How to put themselves out as litigation bait to create standing, then compel discovery of the Executive branch to defend themselves.

  • Is this something that would better wait until after November?

  • If someone is in a safe seat, why not put themselves out now to prompt a lawsuit by an individual cabinet member against a Member of Congress?