Constant's pations

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

Monday, October 09, 2006

House Leadership Needs An Immediate CFE-CPA Performance Audit

Update Here is a draft of the audit report.

The House Leadership should be subjected to an immediate performance audit using experts in the accounting and legal professions. The purpose of the audit would determine the degree to which 5 USC 3331 has been violated, and House leadership has failed to implement internal controls and procedures to comply with their Constitutional requirements.

Auditors increase audit scope when there are indicators of fraud. [ Fraud indicators -- How Foley scandal fits in with Congressional malfeasance on Geneva violations in Iraq, NSA-FISA illegal activity, and prisoner abuses. More ]

- -

Statement on Accounting Standards 70 and 99 guide auditors when increasing audit scope and reviewing internal controls. The House Leadership and management should explain their reasons for not responding to these auditing standards.

We discuss a range of performance audit reviews and questions that the House leadership should respond within 24 hours. Failure to respond should be the basis to start a war crimes prosecution of the House Leadership and individual Members of Congress. This information is openly available to the German War Crimes prosecutor, EU, and other interested parties.

(CFE: Certified Fraud Examiner; CPA: Certified Public Accountant; AICPA: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants; SAS: Statement on Accounting standard.)

* * *

House Leadership Malfeasance: The Lessons of Iraq applied to General Governance Issues

If we take a step back from the Foley scandal, and generalize on the House leadership oversight issues, we’ll see some interesting lessons. Specifically, by taking a broad view of the House leadership failures in Iraq, and the inadequate oversight of the Executive Branch, the common pattern will emerge.

The public may find the following questions and comments useful when challenging the existing leadership in Congress. These questions may assist those who are attempting to demonstrate that the House leadership problem isn’t isolated to Foley; rather, Foley is a symptom of failed governance that touches Iraq, FISA, Geneva violations, Iraq war crimes, prisoner abuses, and the NSA illegal surveillance.

* * *

House Administration: Precedents

___ 1 of 14: § 57.1 We the People, regardless limitations on Members of Congress, may call the Speaker what he is: Dishonest. § 63.—Falsehood, has made intentional misrepresentations that he knew, or should know are not consistent with what has happened. 4 of 4: § 64. Indeed, it appears the Speaker lacks the intelligence to effectively manage the House, ask for assistance, or do what he should do.

___ 43 of 45: § 6.7 There was once a select committee to "investigate and report on the welfare and education
of congressional pages." The House leadership is in a position to review whether this committee is or is not needed. Please discuss, as the House leadership learned of the Foley information, how this resolution was or was not considered. Is there a particular reason the House leadership has not reviewed this precedent, or is there something else getting in the way of reviewing this matter?

___ Ref The Rules Committee has the power to make rules. One desirable rule is to create a meaningful sanction for failing to enforce the rule of law, protect the Constitution, or failing to ensure that Geneva is enforced. Does the House leadership have a plan to ensure that the Rule of Law remains supreme, or are there -- as with the Foley case -- excuses not to put the Rule of Law supremely above all things?

___ 28 of 45 There exists a SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONSSELECT COMMITTEE ON CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS. The committee, which had not been abandoned as of this precedent, includes the function, "Making a continuing study of the organization and operation of the Congress of the United States and recommending improvements". Please discuss where this Committee has been, what discussions the House leadership has had with the Committee, and the reasons the House leadership has apparently failed to comply with reasonable expectations that they engage in effective management of the House.

___ 16 of 45 The House has a SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE BEAUTY SHOP. The failure to create a select committee related to violations of specific statutes is curious. Does the House leadership have a reason for not appointing another, similarly situated select committee, to investigate whether there should or should not be reforms in the House management, oversight, and leadership related to Geneva violations, or other inappropriate unconstitutional conduct?

___ Ref The House has the power to call investigations into any matter. Please discuss the reasons the House has not created special investigations to review general matters related to violations of the law. Was the House leadership under some sort of pressure not to investigate a matter?

___ Ref The Constitution recognizes the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Congress has not enforced this requirement in re NSA-FISA violations. Please discuss why the House leadership is asserting this right in re documents, but fails to ensure that this right is not protected for the rest of the American public. Is there a reason that the House leadership has two standards on whether the US Constitution is or is not enforced; what is the basis for the House leadership to invoke a right which it has broadly not enforced or protected for all citizens?

___ 1 of 14: § 15.1 Ref The Speaker has the power to receive evidence in Executive Session. With respect to the Foley issues, some have suggested that the matters were sensitive. Please discuss the reasons the House leadership when it was first aware of the issues that may have been possibly derogatory-defamatory, did not go into executive session. Is there a reason that the House leadership refuses, as the President does with FISA courts, to use confidentiality; or is this merely a retroactive excuse to justify inaction when the issue original arose ____ (pick your date when the issue first arose)___.

___ 8 of 10: § 14.10 Establishes the relationship between House Leadership responsibilities and Corrupt Government Practices. Within this precedent is the power of the House leadership to assign to select committees the power to investigate alleged violations of the law. Does the House leadership have an explanation why it has failed to review alleged violations of the law; failed to enforce Geneva; not ensure the FISA violations have been investigated; and outline the reasons that alleged war crimes have not been the subject of House Committee examination?

___ 2 of 3 § 3. in re 18 USC § 1001— Members of Congress are not immune to arrest for felonies. Please discuss House leadership position on what claim of immunity they plan to invoke to avoid arrest for failing to prevent Geneva Convention violations.

___ Ref The speaker's duties are established in precedent. The speaker has the unfettered power to refer matters to Committees. Please discuss what plan, if any, the Speaker has in mind to refer to the Committee related to the effective House operations, and a plan to conduct an audit of the House leadership management.

___ 25 of 37 The Speaker has the power to interpret rules. Please discuss the Speaker's methodology for determining that making inconsistent statements is an appropriate assertion of power. When did the Speaker interpret any rule to mean that the Speaker did not have to take action on a matter than may violate the law, laws of war, US Constitution, FISA statue, Geneva Conventions, or other prohibitions against illegal conduct; does the speaker not have a reason for referring this possible violation of the law to the appropriate committee; does the Speaker have no plan to refer to any committee alleged Presidential violations of the law; how many letters from the public are required to remind the Speaker that he should take action to refer a matter to the appropriate committee related to possible violations of the law; which day in October 2006 would the Speaker prefer that these citizen petitions arrive in his office?

___ 30 of 37, § 3.35 The Speaker has the power to withhold Parliamentary inquiry until certain facts are determined. When there are violations of the law, usually a Committee is assigned to review the matter. Does the Speaker have an objection to having all committees review possible violations of Geneva Conventions for their failure to prevent violations of the laws of war, and for their continued appropriation for things that are not lawful, in violation of Article 1 Section 9?

___ 3 of 3: § 10.1 Privilege is not absolute. In some cases issues related to the open media are denied privilege. Please discuss how open information, released to ABC can credibly be related to privilege.

___ 31 of 37; § 3.38 The Speaker has the power to call executive sessions. Some matters relate to sensitive matters, but deserve fact finding before decisions. Does the House leadership have an explanation why this option was not used as established in precedent; or is there a reason that the Speaker chose to ignore the possible violations of the law?

___ 32 of 37: § 3.40 The Speaker has the power to issue contempt citations for anyone who does not cooperate with Congressional inquiry. There is nothing preventing the Speaker from calling for evidence related to allegations of violations of Geneva, US Statute, international criminal law, or any other matter which the House appropriates money. Does the House leadership have an explanation why this power of subpoena, and ability to work with the US attorney, was not used to lawfully inquire into alleged war crimes, FISA violations, and other unconstitutional conduct by members of the Executive branch, or allegations that Members of Congress were not enforcing the Geneva Conventions?

___ 33 of 37: § 3.41 The only thing the Speaker has to provide to the US Attorney is the name of the person who is in contempt. NO other fact finding is required. Does the House leadership not have an explanation why it failed to hold hearings, call witnesses, review the alleged violations of the law, and simply transfer the names of the President, Vice President, and other alleged war criminals to the US Attorney for prosecution under the laws of war?

___ Ref Ref A 5 USC 3331 criminal investigation determining whether the Speaker or other Members of Congress have or have not violated their oath of office. The Speaker is, by statute required to take the oath, and sign it. Legislative privilege does not apply to this document which "shall be admissible in evidence in any court of the United States." Please discuss whether a certified copy of the Speaker's oath has been provided to the FBI for purposes of a 5 USC 3331 indictment.

___ Ref There has been some discussion about which evidence is or is not admissible. The Precedents clearly state the Journal is evidence. Please discuss the Speaker's plan, if any, to object to the Journal being admitted into evidence. Is there a reason the House leadership did not take action to ensure there were sufficient guidelines in place to fully comply with this Constitutional obligations?

___ Ref Ref House precedents are provided to the Speaker. Please discuss how the House leadership does or does not review these precedents. Specifically, is there a reason that the House leadership appears to have little coherent story on what did or didn't happen; and how this confusion would advance the Party's interests [See: "he protects the interests of his party and individual members thereof." Ref]

House Administration: US Code

___ Ref The speaker has the power to delegate responsibilities. The Speaker appears unclear what duties he does or does not have. Please discuss the methods the staff uses to implement this statutory requirement. Are there periodic reports and audits performed by House legislative counsel, or are these audits performed by outside consultants?

___ Ref 2 USC 803 Outlines the Congressional awards program. Please discuss the basis for providing awards. How is the House leadership in a position to provide awards when the House leadership is unclear what it is supposed to be doing?

___ Ref Legislative compliance reviews whether Members of Congress are or are not adequately complying with legislator requirements. Please discuss the role the Legislative compliance plays in reviewing the House leadership. Can the office explain why there are problems with the House leadership ensuring that operations are effectively implemented?

___ Ref House rules permit expenditure of funds to visit locations where there may be expertise or samples of excellence in industry for the House leadership to review. What is the reason the Speaker did not use funds to review the best practices in industry; make personal visits to review the issues; and then ensure the House leadership put these best practices into effect in the operation of the House?

___ Ref The Parliamentarian is permitted to spend funds for necessary things to operate the office. One reasonable expenditure is employee training. Attached to this objective are employee training plans. Please discuss the funding used to provide training to the House leadership. Please discuss the computer scheduling system which ensures that the House leadership has or has not received the necessary training to adequately comply with their statutory requirements.

___ Ref The Standards of Conduct training program includes advisories on how to implement various programs. Please discuss the advice the Committee has provided to the Speaker on various oversight issues. Is there a reason the House leadership appears to be in the dark on so many legal issues related to FISA, Geneva, NSA surveillance, the Constitution, and the laws of war?

___ Ref The rules of procedure for the hearings in the legal compliance office are promulgated in the Congressional record. The House leadership through the Committees, under Constitutional authority is responsible for issuing the Congressional record. These are the records of Congress. Please discuss why the House leadership appears to be unclear what their duties are; and what basis the hearing officers would or would not make findings of violation against the House leadership. Is there a guide or other list of case law which the House leadership knew about, or should have known about that indicated their fiduciary duties?

___ Ref House rules permit the House leadership to hire consultants. Is there an explanation why the House leadership has not hired consultants who have expertise in management, oversight, and doing internal audits of the House leadership management plan?

___ Ref House rules permit personnel to be detailed from one agency to another. Does the House leadership have an explanation why, if there were known problems with staffing, internal audits, and other management issues, why experts in these areas were not detailed to the House leadership?

___ Ref The speaker has the power to hire attorneys to ensure the operations run smoothly. The Speaker appears to have a difficult time understanding what his job is. Please discuss the methods used to assist the Speaker in determining whether assigned counsel are or are not sufficiently meeting their objectives and standards. How are attorney violations of misconduct under this work plan reported to the State Disciplinary Board or the DC Attorney Disciplinary Board for possible disbarment?

House Administration: Sample Committee Oversight

___ Ref The House rules permit committee and House leadership to spend funds for advertising. Is there a reason the House leadership did not spend funds to advertise requirements for management assistance?

___ Ref Some committees have checklists. Please discuss why the House leadership is not using these checklists to ensure that the House leadership is effectively managing operations.

___ Ref In 2006, each member of Congress received a copy of the Constitution. Does the House leadership plan to explain why they did not develop a management plan to implement the requirements of the Constitution?

___ Ref The Committee reviews a continuity of government plan. Please discuss which type of government the Committee hoped to implement; and how the proposed continuity plan would or would not be evaluated. In order to "continue" operations, one has to know which operations currently exist. Please discuss how the "continued" operations were or were not going to be tested in a simulated scenario.

GAO and Congressional Leadership

___ 154 of 174: Once House leadership receives the GAO report, what does GAO do to ensure the results are implemented?

___ If House leadership is not able to oversee its own affairs in the House, why should we have confidence that it is effectively overseeing the GAO feedback?

___ GAO audits the executive branch. How does the House leadership apply the GAO reports on OPM to the Legislative Branch and House operations?

___ What is the House leadership plan to use GAO or CRS resources to oversee House leadership operations; and provide information to House leadership on Legislative operations?

___ What is the House leadership plan to implement GAO best practices in the operation and management of the House?

___ If the House leadership in the Legislator has no plan to implement or tailor any best practices from the Executive Branch, what is the House leadership plan to develop a methodology to find, develop, and institutionalize legislative best practices? [Does the House leadership have a plan to "get a plan"?]

___ GAO has issued a report on best practices in training. For whatever reason, the House leadership has failed to ensure that best business practices have translated into effective House leadership. What is the House leadership plan to tailor lessons learned from training best practices to how the House leadership will oversee whether its staff is or is not effectively translating lessons learned into effective staff feedback to the House leadership?

___ GAO has issued a report on NAVY compliance/non-compliance with best practices. Is there a reason the House leadership has not similarly assented to a periodic review-comparison relative to reasonable benchmarks; and the agreement to have those findings published for review by We the People?

___ In 1995, GAO issued a report on government operations. Last time we reviewed the Constitution, the Congress was part of "government." Does the House leadership have a reason in 2006 why the 1995 GAO report on government operations has not been sufficiently tailored and applied to the House leadership operations, oversight, and management of the House? Was 11 years insufficient time to review the report, much less consider how the lessons and GAO findings might be tailored to effectively lead the House; or was there some other plausible explanation for the apparent reckless disregard for the 1995 GAO report, and how it might be applied to effectively manage government operations in the House?

___ In 1997, two years later, GAO issued another guide related to reengineering assessments. Let's presume for the sake of argument that the House leadership failed to comprehend that the 1995 report may have been of some use. Does the House leadership have an explanation why the government wide 1997-era reengineering efforts did or did not take shape and influence the House leadership to consider, "Wow, maybe we could apply these lessons learned to the House"?

___ GPRA of 1993 triggered various GAO guides. When did the House leadership plan to ensure that these types of "really neat ideas" might be applied to the House leadership and the management of the House?

___ GAO interviewed Congressional Staff in 1997 on the effectiveness of the statute See 4 of 44. How does the House leadership explain the credibility of the inputs -- as to what does or does not work -- but the House leadership in its own chamber seems oblivious to these procedures, standards, or goals?

___ On 9 of 44, the GAO guide goes into detailed horizontal-coordination questions between Congress and the Executive. What has been the House leadership plan to ensure that similar "communication goals" worked vertically between the House leadership and House staff?

___ One key starting point 11 of 44 is to define the mission. The House leadership has a clear goal, 5 USC 3331: Protect the Constitution. Please explain why the House leadership, despite the 5 USC 3331 oath, seem oblivious to a goal, and incapable of pointing to a specific oversight plan for the House: Was the Constitution unclear; did the House leadership not comprehend their 5 USC 3331 oath; or was there some other explanation for the apparent confusion over what the "big mission" was?

___ Let's put aside the issue of whether the House leadership did or did not understand their mission, the Constitution, or their 5 USC 3331 oath of office. GAO has a guide to, from scratch, develop a mission statement. If the Constitution wasn't being used as required under 5 USC 3331, can the Members of Congress point to a document they were using to identify their mission, formulate a plan, and conduct operations?

___ GAO also includes on 15 of 44 general goals and questions to implement a program. Is it the House leadership position, absent any plan, that they have no specific goals to monitor whether their internal operations are or are not meeting their Constitutionally required objectives; which objectives were the House leadership measuring performance; how was feedback assessed; was feedback assessed; how were lower-priority goals weighted against higher priority goals?

___ 19 of 44 outlines a process to review long-term goals relative to annual goals. Could the House leadership explain the basis for their annual "public announcements" they were issuing as to what they were or were not doing; and how they were or were not defining success? In the vacuum of nebulous goals and success criteria, what was the House leadership using to evaluate success, monitor progress, or assign tasks to staff?

___ 21 of 44 identifies various factors management considers "beyond their control." Could the House leadership share with We the People whether it views, as it appears, the Constitution as something it could "not control," therefore it ignored it? If the House leadership would have us believe it was giving attention to the Constitution, how does the House leadership explain the disregard for FISA violations; Geneva violations; failures to report under Title 50/Title 28 violations of statute; Presidential signing statement which communicated express intent not to comply with the Will of We the People, as he is otherwise required to do?

___ Put aside the above. 23 of 44 outlines procedures to evaluate progress. Does the House leadership, now that it has no option, plan to implement this adjustment-evaluation plan; or is there another excuse we have to not comply with 5 USC 3331, the oath of office?

____ 25 of 44 lists sample check sheets, templates, and checklists. Does the House leadership have an explanation why they have not ensured similar checklists have not been fully implemented as the Congress otherwise requires of NAVAL aviators, MARINE CORPS aviators, or AIR FORCE aviators, or Combat crew commanders located under ground, on the sea, above the ground?

____ What is the House leadership plan to publicly share samples of the checklists 24-37 of 48 it uses to ensure the House is effectively managed; or copies of the completed checklists; or copies of the comment-resolution-review process; or samples of how identified issues are or are not effectively implemented?

___ Pretend the above doesn't exist. GAO has issued specific guidance on how to improve Congressional decision making. How does Congress credibly argue it can oversee any agency when the House leadership cannot demonstrate it effectively implements any leadership oversight within the House; why should anyone have any confidence in the decision making within the House leadership, much less the decisions related to Combat operations, appropriations, or whether the President is or is not effectively complying with his Constitutional mandates?

* * *

Issues and Questions private citizens may use to oversee Congress, challenge the House leadership, and pressure the existing Congressional leadership to respond to public oversight. You’ll notice many of the questions and issues are similar to the co-called “Lessons learned” from Vietnam, which America supposedly had learned and would “never let happen again.” You’ll also see that the lessons also echo from Nuremburg, and may prompt some to ask, “Didn’t we prosecute Germans for assenting to the failed, lawless leadership”?

Questions which the House Leadership does not appear to be asking, much less answer as they relate to Iraq and Foley:

___ Do we have the right people

___ Do our people have the information needed to credibly do their jobs

___ Are we asserting our oath of office

___ How were the original assumptions used to formulate the original plans at odds with the events as they unfolded

___ What assumptions are not playing out?

___ Are we appropriately adjusting our oversight, interactions with the President

___ How were worst case risks considered as subsequent decisions eliminated expected options

___ When did the House leadership suspect there was a problem; what was the House leadership’s reason for not reviewing details, adjusting funding

___ When the plans did not prove easy to impellent, how were evidence and facts reviewed to assess POTUS reports, competence and adequacy

___ How was it decided, concluded, or agreed that the President’s approach was/was not satisfactory; and how were House leaders complicit with Problems, failed oversight, and inaction despite the need to adjust.

___ What lessons did the House leadership glean from their original reviews; how were these lessons applied/not applied

___ What reason does the House leadership have nor not following up on issues, not challenging the President; how does the House leadership approach to the President square with the oath of office and ethics requirements of Members of Congress: Their duty to the Constitution, 5 USC 3331.

___ How are the less of Vietnam and issues with Congressional oversight being addressed: Information accuracy, regional resolutions

___ Why should we believe the opposition to the President was bonafide [The RNC rebellion against the President over the Military Commissions Bill was illusory; the Congress unlawfully assented to illegally violations of Geneva in the revised bill]

___ What proposal as the House leadership privately discussed, but did not openly discuss [ Draft, funds transfers, the recklessness of invading Iran despite the problems of Iraq and Afghanistan]

___ How are Congressional-oversight issues of LBJ in re Vietnam getting reviewed, if at all; how is the House leadership applying the lessons

___ What tradeoffs are not being acknowledged

___ What RNC domestic-economic agenda are at risk if the truth of the situation with the requirements in Iraq were known

___ What review has the House leadership made of the briefing to POTUS to assess systemic problems with the Executive Branch

___ Are house leaders private reservations at odds with (a) private communications with the President; and (b) public comments to voters and media.

___ How bad will the situation deteriorate before House leadership withdraws support of the President

___ To what extent is the risk of “loss of control” driving inaction, which is feeding the Executive branch’s irrelevant fear of “loss of control”
___ What pressure is the House leadership under from VP Cheney to remain silent about concern

___ It’s been known that information has been withheld, and the problem have been known. What action is the House aware that other Presidential-sourced information has been withheld from House leadership [Title 28, Title 50]

___ Does the President work with the House to ensure the information flow to the House leadership improves

___ What steps has the House leadership taken to get information independently, use other method to evaluate the situation [In Iraq, over FISA, with Geneva violations]

___ Based on POTUS contradictions, what is the House leadership plan to get reliable information

___ Is there a plan to adjust how the House leadership interacts with the White House

___ When the President and Executive Branch have not been responsive to reasonable requests for information, what has been the reason House leaders have approved legislation?

___ The Constitution permits the House leadership to withhold assent to legislation for any reason. What is the reason the House leadership approved legislation on matters the Executive has been known to lie, mislead, and provide fraudulent information to Congress?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why it continued to approve appropriations for Departments where the Executive Branch was not cooperating?

___ Does the House leadership understand that approving a budget despite evidence of war crimes makes the House leadership complicit with war crimes?

___ What was the House leadership’s knowledge of the discussions to include in the Military Commissions Bill language that would provide for DoJ Staff defense should members of Congress be prosecuted for war crimes at an International Tribunal?

___ Once the House leadership approved the authorization to use military force, what was the plan to ensure that the combat operations and domestic contracting efforts were consistent with public statute, Geneva, and the Constitution?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why, as required under Title 50 and Title 20, despite the failure of the President and Attorney General to explain deviations from statutes, the House leadership did not withhold funding or demand an explanation in writing why the Title 50 and Title 28 reporting requirements were satisfied?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why, despite its inaction on Title 28 and Title 50, there was no concern raised that the US Attorney, FBI, or DOJ OPR was not reviewing the problems of DoJ Staff counsel reporting; AG compliance; or POTUS processing?

___ Does the House leadership have a plan to work with the State Attorney Generals, DoJ OPR, or the American Bar Association to investigate the apparent wholesale disregard for the oath of office by the DOJ Staff counsel and Attorney General?

___ How will the House leadership develop new methods to get information

___ How does the House leadership read between the lines on NIE, and Intelligence analysis sent through the White House; as opposed to information the House leadership gets directly from the lowest level analysts in the Executive Branch

___ Does the House leadership have a plan develop, use, rely on independent assessments of the situation out the White House and Executive Branch?

___ What thought has the House leadership given to developing its own intelligence gathering apparatus outside the IG system, and moving beyond the current “take what we get”-approach to the White House-screened information?

___ What is the progress of this alternative information sourcing

___ What will be done to ensure this alternative system is used when evaluating Executive Branch plans, or making adjustments to budgets during the Conference Committees

___ There’s been discussion that the House leadership has been unresponsive to Senior Congressional staffers. What steps has the Committee taken to ensure they are adequately reviewing the inputs from the other staffs of the ranking membership?

___ How does the House leadership reconcile the difference between (a) advertised claims that they are engaged in discussions; but (b) the overt efforts to block minority members from deliberating on issues. What will be done to ensure the debate is full, not one sided, and that legislation is based on reasonable discourse, not forced assent to illegal policies?

Executive Branch Bubble

The President and House leadership has consistently demonstrated they are oblivious to reality. We have large scale war crimes in Iraq; prisoner abuses, FISA violations; reckless disregard for the Constitution, yet no Congressional investigations.

___ What is the House leadership plan to ensure the President and Execute branch are making competent decisions based on reality?

___ What method will the House leadership use to ensure the Executive Branch personnel are adequately supervised?

___ How do we explain the DoJ Staff counsel visits to unofficial websites during duty hours, and their use of non-legal resources during business hours while the Attorney General otherwise stated there were insufficient staff resources to comply with the FISA requirement

___ Does the House leadership have a plan to (a) compare the Attorney General Comments on what was or was not required to meet the known FISA requirements; with (b) the stated DoJ Staff manpower; and (c) the actual DOJ Staff usage.

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why, despite the apparent problems with management and oversight of over 10,000 Congressional staff members, that the House leadership has not worked with the President to approve legislation that would provide management assistance, conduct internal audits, or do other reviews to assess what problems need attention, and that there remains a credible plan in place to manage the known issues.

___ Please outline the current auditing plan that the House leadership uses to identify management issues, develop a corrective action plan, and monitor the effectiveness of these plans in achieving these results

___ Despite the access to legal counsel, auditing, and other fiduciaries [aka “Lobbyists”] does the House leadership have an explanation why they were reluctant, unwilling, or refused to hire outside consultants to ensure the House leadership remains competent and had the requisite staff in place to competently mange the Congressional staff?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why, despite the willingness of the President to spend funds to solve the post 9-11 problems, why there was not a balanced effort by the House leadership to ensure the Legislative branch had the requisite staff in place to oversee, audit, and effectively monitor this expanded Presidential power?

___ What was the reluctance of this House leadership to apply the lessons of Vietnam, and show the world that the current House leadership could more effectively govern that another party that may or may not have effectively managed government operations during Vietnam?

___ Is there an explanation why, despite the ability to access the Congressional Research Service, National Archives, Academia, or other historical documents, the House leadership was unwilling to develop a plan that would effectively manage the Congress during war time?

___ What magic condition, result, or outcome was the House leadership waiting for to trigger a correction, result, or an adjustment?

___ Was the House leadership merely unaware that it was in the middle of a problem?

___ What was the reason that the lessons of the Kennedy School of Government, and other Professional Executive Seminars, which Members of Congress and the House leadership attend, were not applied, implemented to ensure the Legislative operations remained effective?

___ Does the House leadership have any explanation why, despite total control over the agenda within the House, it was unable to establish an agenda, establish rules, and develop oversight procedures to ensure that that House remained a functioning, responsive body to the Constitutional requirements?

___ What was the House leadership plan to ensure the President sufficiently complied with the law, statutes, procures, and requirements of We the People – as asserted through Legislative Bills?

___ The Constitution provides for the Legislature to assert its power through Legislative Acts. What was preventing the House leadership from working with the Senate to enact legislation that would ensure these oversight issues were resolved?

___ Was there something within the House leadership, Congress, or some other branch of government that was getting in the way of the House leadership doing what it should – enforce the law, and manage government operations?

___ House leaders regularly interact with private consultants during Congressional testimony. Was there something getting in the way of the House leadership asking for help?

___ What was the basis to assert that a given witness before the House leadership was or was not an expert; yet there is no record that the House leadership relied on that experts witness to apply lessons to ensure the House leaders effectively managed its operations?

___ How do we explain the unlimited power of the House leadership to call any witness, gather evidence, and compel anyone to respond to any subpoena, but there is no record of the House leadership requesting specific assistance to resolve these oversight problems?

___ What was getting in the way of the House leadership to request assistance, solicit input, or otherwise work with the Public to resolve these issues?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why, despite its unfettered power and ability to access any person, record, and piece of paper, it refused to review these lessons learned, and did not put into effect the lessons of international controls, the auditing community, SAS 99, SAS 70, or other audit related procedures which witnesses and auditor-lobbyists should have been in a position to provide?

___ The President and others in the Executive branch have a job. Their job is to put into effect the laws. Please discuss the House leadership plan to ensure the Executive Branch plans are effective, credible, and that the results as reported are incorporated into the House leadership hiring, oversight, reporting, training, and performance reviews of the Congressional staff.

___ Once information is obtained from the Executive Branch, does the House leadership understand how that information is reviewed, questioned, assessed; and how problems with the Executive Branch plans are appropriately challenged and reviewed?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why it takes so much time to respond to simple questions about what should have been long implemented, had the House leadership effectively managed its operations from the outside?

___ Does the House leadership have a plan to conduct an internal audit of its operations, identify problems, and develop a strategy to timely reconcile this problem?

___ What is the plan of the current House membership to find new leadership who is remotely interested in something besides whether their personal property is or is not located conveniently to a potential off ramp to a potential highway which may or may not run through “valuable” farmland?

___ Does the current House membership plan to discuss any plan to audit the House, conduct a review, and explore what the issues are, much less consider a solution?

___ Is there a date certain when the House leadership might appoint someone to consider the question: “Do we really know what we’re doing, have we an idea of the problems, or are we unclear who we need to ask for assistance?”

___ Is there something stopping the House leadership from consulting Members of Congress who are CPAs, experts in internal controls, or familiar with management to conduct an internal staff study, oversee a review, or otherwise ensure that the House leadership management plan is responsive to its Constitutional mandate?

___ Does the House leadership plan to make this approach public so that We the People might inspect this plan, and provide informed commentary?

___ One of the assumptions of a Republic was that We the People would be too busy with our day to day jobs. In theory the elected officials would have the time to dedicate their times to legislation and governance. What is to be said of a Republic where We the People have to dedicate our lives to Government Oversight because the elected officials cannot be trusted to do what the Founders said they would do – govern?

___ Does the House leadership have any reasonable explanation why -- despite their track record of inaction, failed reviews, and inadequate internal audits – they cannot point to any plan to publicize the House leadership management plan for public comment?

___ Does the House leadership plan exist; or is the House leadership going to hide the plan from public review using creative twists of the law?

___ How many requests for the House leadership plan has been hidden behind “legislative privilege,” yet the plan is known not to exist?

___ If there was a plan, that plan – because it is allegedly related to malfeasance with respect to alleged war crimes, and failures by members of Congress to prevent Geneva violations – is admissible. It is no longer protected by privilege. Can the House leadership explain why it is not cooperating with the German war crimes prosecutors to determine what plan, if any, existed in Congress to ensure the illegal kidnapping-rendition program was or was not investigated, as required under the Geneva Conventions?

___ Does the House leadership, despite arguably infinite time, power and resources – not have an explanation why it has not reviewed this Congressional oversight plan?

___ How was the House leadership’s management plan refined by the lessons of 9-11, FISA, and other problems with Executive Oversight?

___ Did the House leadership plan include a reconciliation page that effectively showed how the lessons learned from Iraq, FISA-NSA violations, and Geneva violations were or were not effectively integrated into the House oversight plan?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why these reconciliation sheets have been retroactively created?

___ Does the House leadership understand that creating these check sheets after the fact is admissible as evidence of having failed to do what one should have done in 2001, going forward?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why these audit check sheets were not publicly discussed, reviewed, and reconciled with actual House operations?

___ Does the House leadership plan to appoint anyone to conduct this review who is not associated with the Congressional staff and is part of an independent audit team?

___ What is the plan of the House leadership to ensure this audit of the House leadership operations is fully supported?

___ Does the House leadership understand, that in failing to enforce Geneva, it no longer can credibly assert privilege on matters related to alleged failures of Members of Congress to enforce Geneva; and that all post-2001 decisions related to the Geneva violations are related to an alleged fraudulent course of conduct, are not protected, and related to post-decision communications which cannot be shielded by any legislative immunity?

__ What reason does the House leadership have for not reviewing, independently outside the 9-11 Commission, the impact the post 9-11 world would have on the House leadership government operations?

___ Was there any plan to consider how the House operations were or were not adequately meeting its Constitutional obligations?

___ Where is the audit report and House leadership plan to fully comply with its Constitutional obligations?

___ When was this audit report reviewed?

___ How were opposing views to the audit results reconciled?

___ Was there a plan by the House leadership to ever release the results of this audit report and provide this information to the public so that We the People might have insight into whether the House leadership was or was not doing its job?

___ How have the White House leadership problems with the 9-11, Iraq, Geneva, FISA, NSA, and DOJ OPR oversight playing out with the House leadership oversight of these issues in Iraq, illegal warrantless surveillance, and prisoner abuses?

___ Can Members of Congress point to the GAO documents they received, their notes, and the plan that they had – if any – to put into effect the needed reforms of the House management?

___ The Federal Government spends a lot of money on training, conferences, and employee certification. Can the House leadership show that the personnel it has assigned, trained, and has under its control is satisfactorily meeting the requirements one might reasonably expect of a marginally functional House leadership office?

___ What is the basis for the annual performance awards provided to Congressional staffers?

___ How does the House leadership justify the end of term performance bonuses to staff members who, apparently, were so “defective” in their judgment, that the House leadership consistently ignored them?

___ Was there a reason the House leadership continued to have on staff personnel who were so untrustworthy that they would be ignored; yet at the same time we continue to have annual bonuses, salaries, and other valuable consideration provided to – what the House leadership would implicitly argue – were incompetent?

* * *


The House leadership has total control over the agenda, legislation, hiring, and staffing decisions. Nothing is in the way of the House leadership relying on private industry, academia, or consultants to modernize the House operations.

Indeed, outside analysts could conclude that the only problem is with the House leadership. Once the leadership changes, the existing, competent Congressional staffers could go about their business.

___ What is the reason the House leadership has for failing to investigate, explore, or listen to CRS or GAO reports as they related to the Executive Branch – but tailor those audit reports to the House so that the House was modernized to ensure the GAO findings were effectively implemented?

___ Was there ever a plan in anyone’s’ mind within the House leadership to resolve these issues?

___ What was the basis for the House membership to elect a specific candidate to be in the House leadership?

___ Is there anything within the House rules which requires the House leadership to comprehend anything related to management, auditing, leadership, oversight, or reviews?

___ How have the House leaders discussed doing what they should have done?

___ What questions has the House leadership not addressed; what other issues have the house leaders not approached that they should have otherwise reviewed?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why it put party loyalty above the Constitution, thereby defying the House ethics rules?

___ When starting the management process in 1994, what was the House leadership afraid of starting or reviewing; was there a reason the House leadership feared they might find something else during their reviews

___ What issues did the House leadership hope to avoid, not confront, or explain away?

___ To what extent did the House leadership interactions with VP Cheney and David Addington have any bearing on what the House leadership did or did not review?

___ Was the House leadership concerned that, by reviewing certain issues without the House, that it would be forced to confront the “difficult” issue of the Constitution and abuse of power by the President?

___ If the Constitution was “difficult” to face, what was the reason the House leadership’s oath of office can be believed as something they were willing to put into effect, as otherwise required 5 USC 3331?

___ How were the lessons of Nuremburg factored/not factored into the House leadership thinking on issues of denial, or illegal statutes?

___ What side issues or distractions are being used to shift attention from core leadership issues?

___ What are the excuses this House leadership is providing to not confront issues or shift attention to irrelevant issues outside the House leadership control?

___ Does the House leadership have incredible reasons for inaction

___ How does (a) the legal requirements in the Constitution square with (b) what the Members of Congress in the House leadership should have done with oversight, action, questions, reviews, and leadership plans

___ When the House leadership uses the excuse of “we had other issues,” what discussion, if any, did the House leadership have on the need for increased staff, or new competencies in other areas?

___ Can the House leadership provide before the election any credible reason or explanation why -- as evidence of war crimes and illegal activity occurred in Iraq, NSA, and Prison camps – there were no discussions or changes within the House oversight plans?

___ We’ve seen major violations of Geneva, FISA, laws of war, prisoner abuse standards, the Constitution. Does the House leadership, or its membership for that matter, have an explanation why these statutory requirements – 5 USC 3331 duties of Members of Congress to enforce – have not been adequately investigated?

___ What is the reason the US proposes to “export the blessings of liberty” yet the American people are not being offered the chance to “enjoy” those blessings under the leadership of this House leadership?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why there was so much interest to “bring democracy to the Iraqis” but there was not a parallel interest to ensure the same (failed) oversight was not reformed and modernized in the Untied States House of Representatives?

___ When Members of Congress conduct interviews or work cases -- for various service academy appointments, issue flags for retirements, or provide community awards to American youth – does the House leadership understand that their failed leadership is at odds with the standards they expect American youth to aspire?

___ Does the House leadership have a credible explanation why the excuses for inaction are or are not squaring with the original failures to adjust or resolve the oversight problem of the House leadership?

___ How are the patterns of “information acceptance-inaction” similar to that of the Executive Branch in re Iraq?

___ How are the House leaders’ inaction and commitment to a failed, flawed Management system in Congress similar to the same failed “stick to what is failing”-approach used in the Executive branch in re FISA, NSA, Katrina, DoD operations, prisoner abuses, Iraq, Afghanistan.

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation for not adjusting?

___ What excuses does the House leadership have for not addressing the early signs of problem?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why it continued with the moment of solutions which were failures, without regard to whether the solutions were or were not achieving results?

* * *

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why, despite Foley’s computer being sized, the Congressman’s IM sign-in name is still being used?

___ has the House leadership ensured that Foley has been denied access to all computers?

___ Has the House leadership worked with the FBI to ensure that all possible computers Foley may be using have been denied access to his account?

___ Is there a reason why Foley’s IM account has not been disbanded?

___ If there is no mechanism to effectively ensure that the House leadership problem is or is not resolved after a Member of Congress has left, why should anyone believe that the Congress is effective in conducting oversight of Presidential expenditures, or conducting inquiry into whether the funds appropriated are or are not for illegal things?

___ What Pressure has the Vice President put on Hastert to not leave?

___ What red flags in 2001 were not examined by the House leadership as they related to 9-11?

___ How has the Vietnam-like “agenda” argument – that of LBJ – been used to justify inaction?

___ To what extent has the fear of “not being able to implement an agenda” masked the fundamental issue of whether (a) that agenda is or is not credible; or (b) the House leadership is or is not competent to oversee that agenda.

___ What plan does the House leadership have to challenge the legality of signing-statements?

___ The House leadership knows the Presidents oath of office is to the Constitution. Does the House leadership have a plan to ensure that the laws are enforced; or is there another excuse the House leadership has to avoid doing what it has the Constitutional requirement to d?

___ Why should anyone around the globe, after seeing this disastrous House leadership, believe that democracy works?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation why it fails to ensure the existing rules are enforced?

___ Does the House leadership have an explanation for foreign fighters, insurgents, and other alleged “enemies of Democracy” have an expiation why the House leadership cannot reconcile (a) the law, and Constitution; with (b) their action; or (c) the results of failed oversight: Reckless disregard for the rule of law, abysmal results, and excuses.

___ Why should the people of Afghanistan have “confidence” in democracy when the House leadership fails to put into effect –within the narrow confines of the Halls of the Chamber – the basic principles of accountability, responsiveness?

___ Can the House leadership comprehend why a nation of Afghanistan – that has failed to see a credibly system of governance in place – would look to the House leadership and say, “We would prefer the disaster of the Taliban to these fools who are in the House leadership.”

___ How is the House leadership defining “accountability”?

___ How is the House leadership of “accountability” squaring with the results insurgents are seeing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, or elsewhere?

___ If the results of the US government are at odds with what is possible, what is the House leadership plan to work with others who might offer other solutions?

___ Has the House leadership chosen to commit to a flawed President, without regard to whether the approaches are making progress or lawful?

___ When does the House leadership plan to apply the standards of “accountability” and “legal obligations” to the House leadership, it otherwise promulgated in Congressional proclamations, as they apply to other nations?

___ How does the House leadership explain the momentum of inaction we’ve seen since 2001: No timely review of these issues?

___ How can the House leadership say that there will be sufficient time to “purge” the leadership; you’ve had since 1994 to get this right and this is the disaster We the People get.

___ If you don’t have enough time to handle a “trivial” matter, why should we believe you have the “interest” to handling something more complicated like: War crimes, Geneva, FISA, the Constitution?

___ Why should anyone believe that these failings are isolated to what the House leadership defines them to be, and not more broadly applied across the entire spectrum of legal issues: War crimes, FISA violations, prisoner abuse, illegal war.

___ Does the House leadership plan to use their problems – related to their inaction – as an excuse to continue doing nothing?

___ Why should anyone take seriously leaders who are using problems – which they failed to manage – as an excuse for inaction; then using the abysmal results as an excuse to stick with what isn’t working?

___ Why should we give you any more time to make more messes with other things?

___ If the House leadership was “concerned” with the issues, why is there no adequate management control system in place to detect, much less address these issues when they are small?

___ Is the House leadership incapable of reading the Constitution to comprehend the legal responsibility they have?

___ Why should we believe that the House leadership, left to hide in the dark, will adjust its conduct; would it not be more credibly to have open investigations of the House leadership, and openly discuss the required management plans in place to address this issue?

___ What is the House leadership plan to address this problem?

___ Does the House leadership plan to openly discuss the failed House management system; and what reforms are needed; and the required staff and oversight to implement the needed plan?

___ We’ve already seen thousands of deaths in Katrina, Iraq, and 9-11. What catalyst, besides additional deaths, is required to awaken this House leadership to the requirement to change?

___ What is the reason the House leadership believes that it can argue, “Because we’re ignoring simple problems” they are capable of handling bigger problems?

___ Please provide an explanation why the House leadership is not using, as the President does, its incompetence in dealing with simple issues as an excuse to ignore bigger problems?

___ Why is the House leadership more adept at creating excuses than in implementing solutions?

___ Why should we believe that the House leadership, that has allegedly been complicity in failing to prevent war crimes, should be permitted to remain on the political stage?

___ If the President of the United States is permitted to pardon anyone for this reckless disregard for Geneva, what is to prevent them from returning and inflicting additional abuses?

___ Please provide a credible defense why the House leadership – if they are lawfully prosecuted and convicted of war crimes – should not lawfully, forever removed from the political stage through the lawful imposition of the death penalty?

___ Even if the House leadership were to avoid these issues, the US Attorney and DoJ Staff are not resolving these issues. When a nation no longer effectively enforces the law it is a broken state. Could the House leadership provide a credible explanation why they believe that the current House leadership is in a position to provide any reasonable confidence that the US has, at its helm, anyone who is interested in asserting the rule of law?

___ If the House leadership is not willing to assent to the Constitution, its oath, or face the mounting evidence that the House leadership’s “raised army” in Iraq and Afghanistan is on the verge of defeat – please provide a discussion of what forum, besides the court and combat – the House leadership is willing to assent or permit these issues to be resolved?

* * *


This House leadership cannot explain why they have no House Management Plan, nor can they explain why they have not consulted with experts who might have provided feedback.

The only credible catalyst for action this House leadership will respond to is the prospect of the Article III imposed death penalty. It was only when the rude reality of a war crimes prosecution did the Members of Congress include language that would otherwise pay for a defense for war crimes.

This House leadership is recklessly in defiance of the Geneva Conventions. It refuses to assent to the laws of war. The only catalyst for action is the prospect that the House leadership may be hauled before a war crimes tribunal and adjudicated for war crimes.

Indeed, despite voting to authorize force after 2001, this House leadership failed to ensure the Geneva Conventions were fully enforced.

The way forward is to conduct an immediate audit of the House leadership management; and demand the House leadership explain why it is not immediately working with the Certified Fraud Examiners and Certified Public Accountants within the House to identify the flawed management practices, and ensure the House operations fully comply with the Constitution.

Until the House leadership fully complies with its oath of office, this House – and the defective army it has abysmally provisioned – will continue to suffer wider combat losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House leadership failed to oversee this war, as it has the Constitutional obligation and power to do so through Article 1 Section 8 appropriations power.

It is time to bring a war crimes prosecutor, working with the State attorney Generals, into the American Congress and lawfully prosecute the American House leadership for war crimes. Until that does, foreign fighters will continue to build on the marginal successes they have, and further destroy the war fighters this House leadership has defectively provisioned.

This House leadership is outnumbered, on the wrong side of the law, and has failed to engage in self-government of its own Chamber. No citizen of any nation could reasonably look at the House leadership as any example of anything but the danger of accepting democracy. It should be no wonder why foreign fighters continue to gain support as they wage open combat against the American military and civilians – this House leadership refuses to assent to the rule of law, the courts, or reasonable prudence.

Foreign fighters have no option, but open combat, to effectively combat the recklessness this House leadership has injected into the political, legal, and military landscapes.