Constant's pations

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

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Solving the Nuclear Reactor - Jellyfish Collision Problem

Jellyfish are known to clog the water-intake valves of nuclear reactors, jeopardizing effective cooling, threatening nuclear reactor overheats. Ref Ref

We discuss a solution to this problem, which may address a second.

* * *


Some believe due to climate change, the warming sea temperatures are giving jellyfish more plankton to grow, creating an abundant food supply for jelly fish:
Jelly Fish Predators "Banner fish which are not bothered by their tentacles. Arrow Crabs gobble them up in one bite. Turtles, certain fish and snails nibble on the jellyfish's tentacles." Ref

* * *

Nuclear Reactors Could Go To A Cycle System

We discuss several approach to solving the "Nuclear Reactor - Jelly Fish Collision Problem."

Approach 1: Two layers of fences around the Nuclear Reactor.

There could be two perimeter fences, wide enough to permit a barge which would remove the jelly fish from the outer fence.

Approach 2 Sliding Screen In Front Of Intake

The screen in front of the intake could slide, on a constantly moving screen. To the side, out of the way of the intake area could be an open area for the jelly fish predators to feast on the jelly fish no longer getting sucked into the intake valve.

Approach 3 Predator Seeding

Beyond the intake valve area, the nuclear power plant could seed the ocean with jelly fish predators, preferably ones that could be harvested for food.

Approach 4 Rotating Intake Valves

Imagine a three-cycle system or rotating drum with three intake valves, all connecting to the nuclear reactor. At any given time, there could be either two (2) or one (1) intake valves connected to the intake channel.

Intake a Intake b
\ /
\ /
Rotation axis \ /

. i

Intake c

Rather than wait for the jelly fish to
build up to excessive levels, the water manifold could be daily rotated between the two intake systems, one side never exposed; and the third system would rotate out of the water to a cleaning bay.

When cleared of all debris and predators, the system would be readied for rotation to the intake cylinder.

(1) Around the water intake valves, there could be fish breeding, and special reserves for turtles.

(2) The cooling-water-intake system could have a dual manifold: Once the jelly fish reached a safe level, the intake system would slide to the second water-intake system.

(3) The jelly fish predators would be exposed to the non-used intake system, cleaning out the water intake.

The three-cylinder system would rotate around the two cylinders connected to the water; only one of the cylinders would be non-exposed to the water; and the nuclear reactor intake system could cycle back and forth between the intake valve; and the non-intake valve.

* * *

The approach above would assume that the predators could be an alternate food supply to solve the second problem: Diminishing fish stocks.


___ Are bannerfish sufficiently meaty to warrant this approach to solving the jelly fish problem; or could the banner fish be raised only as tropical fish for exotic fish tanks?

The answer may not be the immediate fish which enjoys jellyfish, but the other predators, further up the food change, which like banner fish.

"Schooling fish like banner fish and surgeonfish are abundant plus predators like trevally, barracuda and dogtooth tuna."Ref

_ _

___ Based on current jellyfish growth rates, when will the costs for this type of retrofitting effort be cost effective?

___ Is the cost and engineering associated with this nuclear reactor retrofit more cumbersome and costly than the current method: Shutting down the nuclear reactor?

___ Is the volume of the jelly fish-build up slow enough to be solved by herding predators around the nuclear reactor; or will this herding compound the sea-water intake problem?

___ If the holding tanks for the fish live were big enough for the fish, why bother having a direct sea intake system? [If there are cooling tanks for the turtles and see to feed on the jelly fish, why would we need to worry about direct sea-water intake?]

The multi-channel intake approach may solve another problem: Oxygen intake systems also get clogged.
"Fish farms in Scotland and Shetland have seen thousands of salmon in jellyfish-clogged fish cages die from lack of oxygen." Ref

- -

___ Could nuclear reactor maintenance personnel have a secondary-function, including fish and turtle farming?

The approach is not isolated to one ocean, but is a worldwide phenomena.
"Several Spanish beaches have had to close down this summer as the waters around the Costa del Sol, the Costa Blanca, the Costa Brava and the Balearic Islands are infested by large numbers of jellyfish."Ref

Read more . . .

Real Answers To Citizenship Questions

Ref Here are the real answers to the new citizenship questions.

Use at your own risk.

* * *


Why does the United States have three branches of government?

So the President can ignore them.

One branch wasn't bad.

Two branches weren’t good.

Four branches were enough for a swing set, tree house with a sunroof, and a walk in closet.

Real Answer: To divide power; ensure that power is not concentrated in the hands of one person or a small group; and prevent the abuse of power and violation of rights. It didn't work.

Honest Answer: Today, or when it was originally written? You need to be more specific with what you are asking. It's supposed to have three branches, but this government only respects one of them. Are you talking in theory, or in actual practice under a given Administration?

Name two rights that are only for US citizens

The right to be abused by DHS agents during illegal interrogations.

The right to a failed government.

The right to interesting questions on citizenship tests.

The right to have a citizenship test.

The right to have rights others do not have.

Real answer: All people are endowed with inalienable rights. US Citizens do not have special inalienable rights -- all people have the same inalienable rights. The government doesn't recognize them unless the government official is being subpoenaed by a war crimes tribunal.

Honest Answer: The question is poorly worded. Rights aren't "for" anyone; they are "protected" or "enjoyed. Please restate the question using proper English. Also, how is anyone to know that Americans only have a right that all 6.8Billion people do not have -- how can you prove that: Can you prove that all citizens of all nations do not have any of the rights that Americans enjoy?

Name two cabinet-level positions

1. Bend.

2. Over.

The Position of Cabinets.

The Cabinet Level Positions.

Real Answer: Secretary of Defense/Department of Defense; Secretary of State/State Department. They're the same as the President, who is the decider, and they blindly obey.

Honest Answer: Poodles and Dobermans: They like to appear in dog shows, have their picture taken, and like to be lead around by a leash. Woof!

Name one important idea found in the Declaration of Independence

The idea that independence and can be declared.

The Declaration of Independence.

Real Answer: The inherent right of people to remove from power despotic tyrants.

Honest Answer: There are no ideas in the document; there were words written on the document.

What does the Constitution do?

Keeps the President's house warm in Crawford.

It Constitutes.

Nothing, Constitutions don't do anything -- they're just a piece of paper; We the People do the work to make sure it is respected, enforced, protected, defended, and preserved. Government officials cannot be trusted to assert their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

Real Answer It' defines (a) the structure of the US government outlining delegated powers; and (b) some of the rights the government is supposed to respect.

Honest Answer: Nothing. We need a new one. Here's what it might look like: Ref

* * *


A. Bravery Points

If you chose the "Honest Answers" you might be awake. However, your attitude might be interpreted to be just that: "An attitude" and your name could be added to the "no fly list" and sent packing. Where? You don't want to know. They have plungers there, and the guards are bored. You are brave. Give yourself a bravery point.

B. Poodle Points

If you chose "real answers" you are qualified to be a Presidential speech writer, and excellent Congressional Committee Witness. You are a poodle. Give yourself a poodle point.

C. Citizenship Points

If you chose any of the "other answers" you are very good at taking tests. You are a citizen. Give yourself a citizenship point.


* * *

"Ignorance is no leash for a fool."
-- Constant, 2006

[ Check: Not Written By Shakespeare ]

[ Constant's Quote, Credit History: Streisand Franken]

Read more . . .

Multiple Impeachments of a Sitting President

Its rare for a President to be impeached. Tyrants deserve multiple impeachments, the last one being the best.

Defying precedent, there are four (4) impeachments on the table between November 2006 and January 2009.

Which one do you support?

Ref It took many steps to get to the Moon in the Appllo program: Why should impeachment be different?

Ref Consider any military operations: There is never a single option, but alternatives. Why not approach impeachment the same way?

* * *

Multiple Impeachments

Only two President have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Their impeachment had multiple articles.

Multiple impeachments, each with multiple articles of impeachment, is unprecedented, appropriate and warranted.

* * *

There’s been some talk as if the President may or may be impeached. The thinking goes along these lines: Unless there’s an investigation that is complete, the basis for the impeachment will be seen as invalid.

This assertion is not valid for the following reasons:

(1) Congress Can Demonstrate Leadership

Multiple impeachments would give the Congress the chance to show the world that it can effectively manage something, unlike the President charged with maladministration. Non-voters might be inspired to have confidence in an effective Congress that well manages the oversight with well-crafted, well organized effort to impose multiple impeachments on the Executive.

___ Without showing the world that the Congress can oversee four different, well contemplated reviews of the President, why should anyone believe Congress can effectively oversee a budget, a war, or effectively respond to something complicated like a crisis?

(2) Investigations Can Be Ongoing, but do not have to be complete

There is no requirement that “the” investigation be complete. The pattern of maladministration is large. It is possible to narrow the specific crimes to one or two things for this impeachment, and save other charges for the next impeachment

___ If Congress won’t plan to oversee the President with four impeachments, why should American voters have confidence in Congress, regardless the Party in Power?

___ Isn’t the way forward to find new leaders, regardless their party, who are willing to organize and lead, not make excuses to do nothing?

(3) Multiple Impeachments are Constitutional

A President is not subject to only one impeachment during their term in office. The President’s conduct is forever reviewable.

___ If Congress will not visualize something that might work, why should We the People believe Congress is able to comprehend the solutions, problems, or the causal drivers behind those problems?

(4) Several Impeachments Will Separate the Charges

The House may choose to have four rounds of impeachment, focusing the first impeachment on the well known, non-disputable allegations that are well supported; and the second and third impeachment related to other criminal activity that is less certain, but fairly well known. The fourth impeachment could be the clean-up of the remaining charges.

___ Does Congress have a plan to more effectively manage Committee Calendars?

(5) The Senate Has No Power to Reject Multiple Impeachments

The Senate is not permitted to say how many trials it will or will not have. The Senate has no power to say how the House will or will not charge the President. The Senate has no input into the number of charges; or the scope of the House investigation.

___ When will the House assert power regardless what the President or Senate might say?

(6) Testing the Senate

Multiple impeachments would give We the People a chance to see how this Senate will respond to various levels of evidence. The first impeachment could be a test of something that is well established, easy to prove, and would not take much time. This would quickly put the House Managers before the Senate, and give We the People a chance to see how serious the Senate is in responding to the allegations or whether they are or are not serious about reviewing evidence. This feedback would be important for the primary-preparations to lawfully target for removal Members of Congress who are not taking their Oaths of office seriously.

___ Is there a reason why We the People should believe the Senators should not be lawfully removed for defying their oath, not considering the evidence, and failing to convict someone who has alleged engaged in war crimes?

___ If the Senate will not act to protect the Constitution, why should they be re-elected to office in 2008 or for the White House?

___ If the Senate will not review the information related to the Presidential abuses, how can any of them argue they are a viable candidate to solve the problems they refuse to consider?

(7) Testing Oaths of Office

Constitutional challenges are needed, and a way to test the effectiveness and seriousness of Members of Congress is to make them perform in multiple rounds. The Members of Congress cannot lazily believe that the impeachment is a single event; but that the course of conduct over the series of impeachments is something We the People will monitor, evaluate, and determine whether they remain committed to their oath of office, respond to feedback, or comprehend that a failure to do something can be remedies by supporting subsequent impeachment efforts.

___ Is there a reason Members of Congress are not willing to have their integrity publicly challenged?

(8) Subsequent Modifications

Based on the first impeachment, the Senate and House would jointly conclude a result, and the outcome would be something We the People could use to evaluate what other types of evidence, charges, and other things should be reviewed. We the People would have the chance to determine how to shape the subsequent impeachments; and whether we wanted to break the planned 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, impeachments into different groupings to better couch the misconduct.

___ What better way to demonstrate competent leadership than to use the lessons of the 1st and 2nd impeachment to resolve the issues and lawfully remove the President from office with the final presentation of war crimes evidence in the 4th impeachment?

* * *

The way forward is to not think as impeachment as a single event, but a series of House actions that could be spread over time.

The investigations could be ongoing, but as the simple charges could be drafted, those could be forwarded to the first impeachment. As information subsequently surfaces, they could be packaged in the 2nd and 3rd impeachments.

The approach would allow investigators to have confidence that there will be a timely floor action on the House and Senate related to what is well known. There would be no sense of rush that things have to be accelerated; and as the Members of Congress debate the issues, the subsequent impeachments could be tailored to respond to their original concerns.

Subsequent investigations could be directed to make various charges more robust based on the concerns that Members of Congress have openly raised. Once Members on the various committees raise concerns, and investigators able to provide evidence to support additional charges related to those concerns, We the People will see that the subsequent impeachments have more merit; and that Senate refusal to remove will have less credibility.

No credible argument can be made that the impeachment is a single event, which must be supported by exhaustive, timely, and distracting investigations. This argument incorrectly assumes that the evidence does not already exist, or that the various charges will take time to properly present. Rather, it is possible to quickly organize a few simple charges, warm up Congress to the ongoing Presidential reviews, and make it clear that the investigation will not drag on for years, but that the impeachment actions will continue until the President either resigns or is convicted.

* * *

The primary benefit of many impeachments is that as more Members of Congress are forced to commit either for or against the charges, the scope of the subsequent investigations and public outrage could like trigger new lines of inquiry. A first impeachment will send the signal that things can happen quickly, do not need to be a distraction, and the investigation can quickly result in something which the House can formally present to the Senate.

Overall, multiple impeachments would send a clear signal to this and future Precedents: You may not be removed from office right away, but you shall endure multiple black eyes. Where a President refuses to assent to the rule of law and feels they only need to persuade just over 1/3 of the Senate to support him – and ignore the House – a President should know that where they refuse to do what they should, the House will take action to give them multiple black eyes.

Impeachment is not a single event. It can be a process, and a President can be charged with multiple impeachments. Some Presidents do not appear swayed by a single impeachment. Let their legacy record them as being the first who were multiply charged with multiple impeachments.

This would be unprecedented by design: To remind the Executive that We the People can, in an unprecedented way, create a new standard of recklessness by which future Presidents are measured. Not only whether they resign or are removed from office in disgrace, but how many impeachments their Presidential libraries will either confront or pretend didn’t exist.

* * *

Share with your friends the idea of multiple impeachments against a single President. Present the idea in the context of multiple actions by the same House, in conjunction with other efforts:

(1) State proclamations calling for Congress to impeach
(2) the state Attorney Generals to prosecute a President;
(3) war crimes investigations and prosecutions;
(4) US Attorney and FBI investigations;
(5) State Grand Jury reviews;
(6) State Attorney Disciplinary Board directed at Staff Counsel in Congress and the Executive Branch for their failure to assert their attorney oath of office.

The message is simple: The House is not required to put all the information in a single list of charges. Investigations can be spread out, and as more information is disclosed, new impeachments can be prepared for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds.

The message to the President is simple: there are many different groups, organizations, and entities sharing information. They are not required to consolidate their efforts for a single milestone or deadline. The information sharing is ongoing. The House has the option to issue multiple impeachments. Any Member of Congress who says the information sharing and investigations can only be complete after lengthy reviews are misguided. There is a lot of information already on the table that could be easily packaged into the first impeachment.

* * *


Here are some questions you and your friends may wish to consider, raise with your elected officials in the State and DC, and challenge them to make a case why this would not work, or is not acceptable.

___ What is the reason that there cannot be four impeachments?

___ Why do investigations have to result in only one impeachment?

___ When will the information, that is already available supporting removal from office, be quickly provided to the House for the 1st Impeachment?

___ Is there a plan by the House to review how the Senate does or doesn’t respond to the information so that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Impeachment efforts are improved?

___ What is the plan of the various state attorney generals, state proclamation efforts, and the Members of Congress to jointly share information between the Grand Juries, US Attorneys, and FBI agents on the status of what they are finding?

___ Is there anything that would prevent the House from requesting all interested parties to present their evidence in the first week of January, outlining what they have, and issuing a first impeachment by the second week of January?

___ Based on the fist impeachment, what is the plan of the State Attorney Generals to increase their monitoring, targeting, and disbarment efforts directed against the DOJ Staff counsel and Congressional Staff counsel?

___ How will the subsequent information related to US Government staff counsel disbarment efforts be shared across the states to support State Prosecutions of the President?

___ Once the information from the 1st impeachment is shared, how twill the various actors coordinated their efforts to ensure that there is a more robust set of charges in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th impeachments?

___ What is the notional timeline of the various interested parties to support 4 impeachment efforts between November 2006 and January 2009?

___ What are the milestones for the 1st impeachment: What information is needed; what types of charges are most easily presented?

___ What is the oversight plan to monitor the effectiveness of the preparation plans for the 1st impeachment effort; how will these lessons be shared around the globe to solicit world inputs to gather evidence for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Impeachment efforts?

___ How long will it take after the 1st Impeachment effort in the 2nd week of January 2007 to prepare for the information for the 2nd Impeachment effort?

___ How many Committee hearings are expected t be needed after the 1st Impeachment effort to marshal the evidence and present the evidence?

___ How will the results of the 1st Impeachment effort already underway be used to modify the investigations, evidence, and House and Senate oversight by We the People?

___ What method will be used to translate the Member of Congress feedback into more robust investigations plans, work with the US Attorneys, and present the information in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th impeachments to make the charges more difficult to ignore?

___ How will the results of the Senate votes on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th impeachment efforts be used to create media messages for non-voters to encourage them to see that the Senators in both parties are or are not willing to assert their oath?

___ How will the results of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Impeachment efforts be used to show that the US government is or is not competent in facing legal issues; Constitutional violations; supreme violations of the law?

___ What method will be used to support new political options based on the action or inaction of Members of Congress on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th impeachments?

___ What state and federal political strategies will be adjusted based on the new information gleaned: How Members of Congress do or do not do their job?

___ Does a Member of Congress or State official have a reasonable, credible basis not to support an impeachment effort that had multiple impeachment options?

___ Do Members of Congress or State officials have a credible explanation why the simple, small, and easily provable high crimes could not be quickly presented to the House for easily consider as a test of their competence in handling self-evident Presidential criminal conduct?

___ How effective are the House Managers is modifying their approaches in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th impeachment efforts based on the feedback from the first attempts?

___ How successful are the political leaders in generation support for the broad investigation approach with multiple impeachments; or is the support generated because of non-government/citizen-led efforts?

___ Who is showing the most competence in protecting the Constitution

___ Is there a particular state where officials are more responsive to concerns; how are these lessons and successes getting shared?

___ How is early success generating subsequent investigation, evidence, discover, and support for subsequent impeachments in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds?

___ Is there a training program that will supports dissemination of lessons learned, and assists the voters and non-voters to evaluate Members of Congress in their competence to remain Members of Congress?

___ Which guides are most useful for the public to use to monitor the effectives of multiple impeachments?

___ Are Members of Congress giving good reasons why they cannot do their day to day work, and as new information surfaces, make an informed decision whether that information belongs in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th impeachment?

___ Why is any Member of Congress saying that the investigations will be “long,” when they could be organized to support multiple impeachments, and not be long?

___ Do Members of Congress have a credible reason to explain why multiple impeachments -- with the attached opportunity to make the charges more compelling and less susceptive to a finding of innocence – would not work?

___ Are Members of Congress making credible arguments why another approach would be more credible?

___ Why are Members of Congress asking for long investigations into issues that are already known and could easily be inputted into the first or second impeachments?

___ What is the basis for the Member of Congress assessments on the duration of the investigations?

___ If Members of Congress are saying that some issues may need more time, what is their reason for not agreeing in November 2006 to put those types of charges in the 3rd and 4th impeachment?

___ Do Member of Congress respond to the idea of multiple impeachments?

___ Do Members of Congress have an explanation why, if some information is open, why that information is not quickly packaged into a simple charge?

___ What is the basis to say that the investigations have to be long; can’t the investigations be ongoing, and channel the new information into various milestones: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th impeachment?

___ Who is to say that the information related to this President has to be put into a single impeachment?

___ If the scope of the activity is large, and the supposed investigations might be long, do Members of Congress have a plan to stagger the charges and evidence so that they are presented in smaller clumps, more manageable, and allow a dual-track approach to governance (1) Day to day business; and (2) The ongoing investigations to channel evidence into the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th impeachments?

___ Man went to the Moon in Stages. He didn’t go there on the first time. Why isn’t the same approach begin given to this President: Nibbling away a little at time; testing what does or doesn’t’ work; then finally successfully accomplishing what is ultimately desired: A full assertion of lawful power by We the People through the House and Senate to lawfully impose final review of the Presidents’ alleged war crimes: Conviction for violations of the Geneva conventions, removal, and forwarding that information to the war crimes tribunal at The Hague for final adjudication, which may include lawful death by hanging?

___ Is there a reason Members of Congress are giving you to say that, unlike the Apollo Program, the President accountability has to be handled different?

___ Why are members of Congress arguing one standard for program management in the Department of Defense, NSA, FAA; but they are not willing to apply the same approach to how they do or do not effectively review presidential programs?

___ Software is managed using various levels of reviews. The software isn’t simply created then launched into the ether. There are many trials, reviews, and tests. Why is Congress, when it passes rules related to how the FBI does or does not interface with SAIC on developing the I-Drive to store FBI information not taking the same approach to how the Congress approaches the data and management of the impeachment process: Multiple interactions, subsequent reviews, opportunities to adjust?

___ Why are contractors like Halliburton, KBR, and SAIC given the chance to make multiple interactions on an allegedly illegal contract effort in Iraq to support unlawful warfare; but Congress is not willing to take the same approach when it comes to compelling Congressional missions: Overseeing the President?

___ Is there a reasons that Congress passes rules on how the government does or doesn’t do its activities related to complex projects; but Congress is not willing to apply the same, incremental, and progress approach when it comes to engaging in an effective Presidential oversight program?

___ What’s a good reason why there can’t be 4 Impeachments of this President?

___ What is a reason that a President has abused this much power should not be subject to four different rounds, led by four different investigation teams, that build on the lessons from before and show the President that – unlike Iraq – Congress can plan something, and achieve an effective result?

___ Why can’t Congress build on the lessons of Iraq – learn that something can be solved, planned, and successfully executed – and apply the same approach to impeachment: Gather information, test, building on successes, and ultimately show that the Members of Congress can do what the President refuses to do: Plan, organize, lead, and effectively engage in successive improvements to build on lessens and, with evidence and the skilful guide of evidence, show that the President was lacking in the skills Congress well demonstrates?

___ Why are contractors like SAIC given multiple chances to “eventually get it right” when it comes to DOJ software management; but Congress is expected to get impeachment right in only one effort?

___ If SAIC gets multiple chances to get it right, shouldn’t Congress give itself at least 4 attempts to get impeachment-removal right?

___ Who would have argued that we would only send one mission to attempt to land on the moon?

___ Is someone saying that the first mission would have accomplished everything?

___ Couldn’t the Congress look at the Apollo Program in the same way – the early missions are tests; and the alter missions will explore more complicated things that are related less to testing, and more to novel ideas, and more intriguing aspects?

___ Why is the President, NASA, SAIC< and the Department of Justice given money to arguably waste it on things; but the Congress will not willing to efficiently/effectively manage multiple, focused, well crafted impeachment efforts when it comes to protecting the Constitution – make multiple efforts to support the same objective?

___ Why does the President get multiple chances to “finally get it right in Iraq,” and fails; but Congress is supposed to get impeachment right on the first time, or not at all?

___ Why is the President given multiple chances to engage in illegal activity; but Congress only has one chance to oversee that broad pattern of conduct?

___ Couldn’t impeachment be looked at as many steps, with a chance for improvement, adjustment, and refinement?

___ Why is Congress, if it is not willing to engage impeachment as if it were a Presidential Overnight Program, credibly arguing that it can oversee something more complicated like a DOJ FBI I-drive upgrade?

___ Wouldn’t it be credible for Congress to apply the same rules, standards, program management principles to impeachment as it expects of Program managers managing the DHS databases?

___ If Congress were compelled to use the program-management approach for multiple impeachment efforts, would Members of Congress have a greater appreciation for what was or was not lawful by way of Presidential maladministration of those similar program efforts?

___ If Congress can effectively manage multiple impeachments, isn’t Congress in a credible position to show it can credibly overseas an monitor the many illegal activities in re rendition, NSA-FISA violations, prisoner abuse, illegal war, fabricated WMD intelligence?

___ By keeping impeachment “off the table,” why should We the People believe that Members of Congress are taking a program-management view toward Presidential oversight?

___ Is there any prospect that the required-desired integration between state-federal and international investigators will be adequately managed if the public is not fully aware of the overall program management effort to support multiple impeachments?

___ Would it not be a credible demonstration of US government competence if, unlike the President in his planning for Iraq, the US Congress could outline a plan showing how the various lines of evidence would better support either the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th impeachment?

___ If the 1st impeachment doesn’t work, why not use the lessons to inspire more non-voters to press for more information, and make more calls encouraging Members of Congress?

___ If the voters know that successful attempts at removal would generate more public knowledge, would it not be in the interest of non-voters to participate: Knowing they were part of something that was building and growing: Credible government oversight that is well managed, is well organized, and effectively shows that the US Government can effectively do something spanning many months?

___ Why is Congress saying impeachment is all or nothing: Either you get it right the first time, or we sit around doing nothing for two years until the President lazily decides in 2009 that he might want to think about shaking the new President’s hand outside the Capitol?

___ If there were multiple impeachments, wouldn’t that act as a constant reminder to the President that he’s still in charge, we have more oversight, are continuing or monitoring of his maladministration, and we can continue to encourage lower level people in his Administration to come forward?

___ When will it sink into the US government’s consciousness that, with 4 impeachments, this will widen the net, and make more US government officials susceptible to not being able to enjoy a pardon as the activity would be easily connected with the impeachment activity?

___ If the US government is not repeated to engage in the above, is the US government communication that it needs a new system of rules in a New Constitution to better guide it?

___ If the US government is not willing to engage in multiple impeachments, is it arguing that it needs outside assistance from international war crimes prosecutors?

___ Is the resistance of the US government officials to support multiple impeachments linked with their fear they may be implicated for not having acted sooner to prevent war crimes?

__ Are Members of Congress unwilling to consider 4 impeachments because this might increase their chances they are positively connected with 5 SUC 3331 violations, and implicated in an alleged conspiracy not to prevent war crimes, when they had the power, duty, and authority to review Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports related to those alleged Geneva violations, war crimes, prisoners abuses, and decisions by the President and Attorney General not to honor the laws of war?

___ Are members of congress reluctant to support an effective Presidential Impeachment Program with 4 impeachments because they actually fear being implicated for war crimes and lawfully being sentenced to death by hanging?

___ why is the US government not willing to share information related to criminal activity with the State Attorney Generals for purposes of supporting prosecutions against the President, Members of Congress, and US Government staff counsel?

___ What is the date that the US government plans to work with the State Attorney Generals to successfully exchange information, and ensure the US Constitution is protected?

__ When will the US government share information with the German war crimes prosecutors related to illegal US government activity, and violations of the law by Members of Congress, DoJ Staff counsel, and other Executive Branch personnel related to the alleged conspiracy not to prevent war crimes despite their power and 5 USC 3331 obligation to prevent international war crimes?

Read more . . .

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

CENTCOM Has No Power To Compel Action Against American Civilians

We discuss CENTCQM's continued absurdity.

* * *

Apparently, CENTCQM has a policy that press releases shall be posted in full.
Some of you may recall that I've gotten a tad of criticism (::clearing throat::) from CENTCOM for not posting their press releases in full. Ref


1. CENTCQM is a government entity. It has no power to compel anyone to comply with non-disclosed "terms and conditions."

2. Fair use rules permit We the People to use or not use information as we deem fit.

3. CENTCQM does not have the power to define what information we do or do not post.

* * *

Evidence of Abuse

Ref Note that CENTCQM would ask that bloggers act like journalists; but when given a request, CENTCQM treats bloggers like annoyances.

___ What legal authority is CENTCQM relying on, other than non-sense, that would compel anyone to comply with their unreasonable requests?

"FAIR USE" does not apply to government work. This work is in the public domain. Bloggers may, through the transformative nature of the creative work, choose to treat the news release as a piece of art, and systematically shred it, ignore it, repost portions of it, or do whatever it likes.

CENTCQM has no power to compel anyone to not use something called an ellipsis [ . . . ] which permits excerpts.

CENTCQM has no power to compel bloggers to disclose e-mail; or confirm their e-mail address; or verify that the source of the information is or isn’t' form a third source which may or may not be linked with CENTCQM .

___ Even if there is a term that says that the news release "must" be posted in full, how does CENTCQM know whether the posting is from the news release, or has been cross-posted/excerpted from another source?

CENTCQM cannot prove how has or hasn't posted the information from the news release; nor prove that someone didn't get the content from another source. Linking to another source could satisfy the CENTCQM requirements.

___ What does CENTCQM propose to do if someone were to receive a news release, but only post portions of that release, linking the full release to somewhere else?

It cannot compel a free citizen to disclose the source of information; or require them to post the full contents from other blogs.


CENTCQM has no legal authority to compel American civilians to do anything.

* * *

Example: It is possible for this blog to take the information from this blog, and rewrite it, edit it, and use it as how We the People deem fit.

Similarly another blogger could do the same thing.

If CENTCQM is going to send We the Peoplea private e-mail stating that We the People must do or not do something with that information, then they are engaging in active censorship: Requiring We the Peopleto fully disclose the contents of things We the People do not wish to disclose. We the People am free to not disclose what We the People choose.

CENTCQM cannot compel We the Peopleto repost information that We the People have not agreed to repost. We the People may choose to link to other sites and content that have the full content. We the People may choose to ignore CENTCQM 's request.

We the People may also choose to use CENTCQM 's e-mail notification as a fair warning that CENTCQM has new information, then find the same content, and link to Portions of that content in We the People blog.

For CENTCQM to tell We the Peoplethat We the People have to use all their content is UNENFORCEABLE; and We the People may choose to honor or not honor their requirement.

Further, We the People may choose to re-edit the information as We the People choose, and clearly write that We the People have gotten the information from someone else.

CENTCQM has no legal authority to compel We the Peopleto prove how We the People got the information; nor can they stop anyone from using their e-mail notification as a fair notice that there may exist a full posting of that material somewhere else that We the People may choose to ignore, post to, link to, or partially edit as We the People deem fit.

CENTCQM e-mails are deemed to be public notifications that there may be new content that others may choose to post, link to, or not post in its entirety, refereeing the content that may be linked with other people.

CENTCQM , as with the Iraqi insurgency, has demonstrated that it has finite power. If you choose to assert that you can compel anyone to do anything, please count your dead and remind yourselves that you are not immune to the will of the Iraqi people to lawfully defend themselves, assert the rule of law, and lawfully eject illegal invaders from their lands.

CENTCQM 's problem is that they have not fully answered these questions, as We the People may compel. Perhaps if CENTCQM fully responds to the war crimes prosecutors, some might consider posting your content. Until then, you shall continue to suffer lawful combat losses in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Translation: As with the Iraqi insurgency, CENTCQM , by being arrogant, is inciting in the American civilian population, creative ways to defy their power. You cannot compel anyone to follow your illegal orders. Your orders have no effect against civilians.

Posse Comitatus applies. You do not have police power. Your DOD General counsel is under investigation by the War crimes prosecutor. His background on military law, even if it were relevant to civilians, inspires a reasonable question in the public minds that the legal basis for CENTCQM 's ORDER is groundless.

CENTCQM Has created a reasonable nexus for We the People to question its legal authority, its credibility, and the basis to have confidence in it leadership, competence, and ability to wage war, much less professionally interact with We the People. You work for us. Do you job, follow lawful orders. Until you learn how to follow the laws of war, don't lecture any American civilian in any e-mail whether they can or should post the complete content of your e-mails.

If CENTCQM disagrees with this Order, you may chose to file a complaint in District Court ordering all bloggers to comply with unenforceable standards. You have no legal power or authority to compel any civilian to post portions, part of, or anything that we do not wish to post; and you may not compel any civilian to reveal how the information We the People post was or was not obtained; and you cannot compel anyone to post information that they may or may not have received from non CENTCQM sources.

CENTCQM is hereby admonished, and this conduct shall be entered into the public records for purposes of documenting abuse against American civilians; and made available for public inspection by war crimes prosecutors.

CENTCQM has been DENIED the power to compel anyone to report fully the information that may or may not be received by mail.

CENTCQM is ORDERD to cease and deist from making unenforceable constraint, and shall be DENIED the authority to compel anyone to tell any citizen that content they can or cannot post on their blog.

CENTCOM is ORDERED to cease and DECIST from sending harassing e-mails to American citizens.


* * *

The redacted CENTCQM Press Release [ Source ]

Transformative Adjustement of the CENTCQM ART

. . . e . . . . . . a .. . . . . t . . . S . . . . . . h . . . We the People . . . t . . .


This edition . . . contains . . . pieces . . . [0f] individual postings made by . . . members concerning . . .Another writer [wh0] is not adequate . . .

Another . . . written . . . emphasizes. . . the great purpose . . . the author to be “a main . . . end . . . for the . . . [p0rn] video . . . as an example.

For future issues, the editors urge [their sexual ] members . . . to submit [p0rn] articles in the field . . . brother, . . Do not [wait] . . . write [p0rn] . . . protect [p0rn] . . .you will gain the . . .[s3x] reward.

Questions For CENTCQM Based on This Release

___ Why are you disclosing the information publicly related to intelligence?

___ Why does CENTCQM engage in public disclosures of what information it does or doesn’t have?

___ Why is CENTCQM revealing that it has access to the password protections, unless CENTCQM would like someone to believe CENTCQM can do something that it cannot?

___ Even if it were true that the information CENTCQM has is correct, what value is it to disclose what CENTCQM knows?

___ If CENTCQM has received a copy of the information, what is stopping NSA and CENTCQM from targeting those who supposedly wrote the information?

___ What is CENTCQM ’s legal authority to compel people not to communicate; but then to require American citizens to communicate?

___ What is CENTCQM ’s plan to translate this information into an operations plan?

___ Why should American civilians assist you when you are being arrogant, as you are against Iraqi civilians?

___ Why should anyone believe that your translations are correct?

___ Is anything that the people posting the information saying valid?

___ Rather than abuse American civilians, what effort has CENTCQM made to directly discuss the contents of the messages with the originator, not simply those who post the information?

___ What effort is CENTCQM making to secure evidence of war crimes which may be posted on the internet?

___ Has CENTCQM complied with the Brady requirement that all information which may be of use to defendants is provided to the war crimes tribunal?

___ If the information is correct, what is the basis to suggest that CENTCQM has a plan that effectively respects the right of the American public to treat the CENTCQM public affairs office with as much respect as might be given to a dog?

Read more . . .

Draft War Crimes Tribunal Investigation: Pelosi, Senators, Representatives

This is a draft information package for the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, and for public discussion. Pelosi and other Members of Congress in the Senate are presumed innocent until proven guilty before the war crimes tribunal.

This information is not a charge of criminal activity; presented for discussion purposes supporting discovery, grand jury investigations, and prosecutors.

* * *

Prosecutor Contact Details

If you have information which may provide details related to the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting or other information related to these alleged statutory violations as they relate to war crimes, feel free to provide your information to the following European prosecutors, current expanding their investigation against US government officials, and the alleged complicity of Members of Congress in war crimes:

Ref German

Ref Milan, Italy

Ref Information of interests to war crimes prosecutors. Forward signed policy memos, budget documents, meeting minutes, or other signed memoranda and letters/e-mails.

Legal Theory

Ref Investigation, War Crimes Prosecutors For Those Who Failed to Do their duty -- Investigate, enforce the law, assert their oath, or report (a) evidence that they knew or should have known was related to illegal war crimes; or (b) evidence related to a failure of others to timely comply with the Geneva Conventions.

Ref Statutes Implicating Members of Congress in re Alleged Malfeasance in re Alleged War Crimes Evidence, Reporting; Alleged failure to faithfully assert oath to fully enforce Geneva Conventions as required by Member of Congress 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

Legislative immunity: Not applicable for Members of Congress or staff counsel on prosecutions for alleged war crimes, malfeasance, or refusal to faithfully discharge duties, 5 USC 3331 oath of office. Only may be requested in civil litigation, EX: 42 USC 1983, but not guaranteed.

Draft Tribunal Opening Remarks

Nancy Pelosi and Members of Congress including Republican Senators have been implicated in alleged war crimes. The information presented may be of interest to the international community when evaluating the credibility of Member of Congress statements.

Proceed with caution. Members of Congress well know the possible sanction for discovery of their alleged war criminal conduct. They could be lawfully adjudicated the death penalty. They have a vested interest in avoiding discovery and examination of the apparent evidence gaps within the Congressional Staff file related to the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting, discovery, memoranda, and reviews.

Draft Allegations of The War Crimes Tribunal

Count 1: Failure to prevent, stop, investigate, document war crimes despite duty to enforce Geneva Conventions.

Count 2: Unlawful abrogation of 5 USC 3331 oath of office duties, including following up on evidence of Title 28/Title 50 war crimes as reported or not reported and reviewed.

Count 3: Failure to use constitutionally delegated oversight power and duties delegated to protect the constitution; prevent war rimes; and investigate, report, and document violations of the Supreme Law and Geneva Conventions.

Count 4: Illegal assent, agreement, and cooperation to put an illegal oath of secrecy related to illegal activity before the oath to the Supreme Law; and a failure to disclose, examine, report, and document evidence of war crimes as required by the oath of office.

Count 5: While entrusted with power and in a position of authority in the United Sates Congress, engaged in a reckless disregard for the right of others; refused to review evidence of war rimes she knew or should have known she had a duty to report, investigate, document, and review.

Count 6: Rather than remove herself from the allegedly illegal agreement to remain silent, Pelosi and other Members of Congress used the fear of the death penalty for war crimes as the pretext to not review war crimes and other illegal activity they knew, if properly completed, would implicate the Members of Congress. The ever-present fear of facing sanctions for failing to prevent war crimes, and the attached possible legal consequence of the death penalty inspired Members of Congress to avoid the issues of war crimes. Once the inquiry was started, it was thought Members of Congress would be implicated for their failure to have previously acted to prevent the object of their belated investigation.

Count 7: Upon receipt of evidence, repots, information, and memoranda of illegal activity, Pelosi and other members of Congress refused to document, follow-up or inquire into the real reports mandated by Title 28 and Title 50 documenting the illegal activity. Pelosi id not inquire, review, or ask about the non-compliance because she failed access to future information, and not her oath of office or her duty to enforce the law for past failures and illegal activity which she knew or should have known were not properly documented in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports from the President and Attorney General.

Count 8. Pelosi had the wide latitude, discretion, and authority to conduct any inquiry, document her concerns, and outline a specific course of investigation she and other Members of Congress might have taken to review the President and Attorney General and the alleged pattern of criminal conduct she knew or should have known was not consistent with the information she and other members of Congress saw documented in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports. Despite this opportunity and position of power and access to information required to be submitted to her as minority leader, Pelosi and other Members of Congress did not timely act on the information they had indicating that the President and his alleged co-conspirators were violating the Geneva Conventions. Their joint failure contributed to the pattern of illegal conduct, war rimes, and other violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Count 9: Pelosi and other Members of Congress alleged illegally agreed not to take action on war crimes related information because their investigation was through to subject them to scrutiny for not having acted earlier when they had the power, duty, authority, means, and opportunity to investigate and prevent future violation of the laws of war, Supreme Law, and other obligations she did not honor as required by her oath of office.

Count 10: Rather than remove herself from the alleged illegal activity and conspiracy to remain silent about war crimes she knew she had a duty to document, report and investigate, Pelosi and other Members of Congress hoped to force the public and others to focus on issues and activities unrelated to evidence establishing Pelosi and others had not done what they should have done.

Count 11: While employed as a Member of Congress, Pelosi and other Members of Congress had the legal obligation to consult with counsel. Despite known violations of the law and evidence the DOJ Staff counsel and Congressional Staff counsel were unreliable, Pelosi and other members of Congress continued to rely on defective legal advise that they knew or should have know was not reliable; and in doing so, were reckless in not removing from here staff the defective counsel and others unwilling to asset their oaths of office. Despite the power, authority, and ability to remove, replace, more effectively supervise, request assistance, conduct staff assistance visits, and seek assistance from legal experts, Pelosi and other members of Congress were negligent in their supervision of Congressional Staff counsel and failed to properly ensure they met the minimum standards of competence expected of legal counsel. Pelosi and other Members of Congress knew or should have known that the legal advise was not reliable, and that the duties and obligations to the Constitution, Geneva Conventions, and Supreme law were not being fulfilled by relying on this defective legal advise. The defective legal advise included consultations, failures to document the gaps in the required reporting, and an inadequate statutory compliance-oversight system as required to ensure the President and other members of the Executive branch were meeting their legal requirements under Title 28, Title 50 and other statutes.

Count 12: Despite overwhelming evidence of illegal activity, lack of required reports related to those illegal activities, Members of Congress and Pelosi were negligent allegedly did not faithfully perform their duties as they promised in their 5 USC 3331 oath of office taken in 2001, 2003, and 2005 and recorded and filed as part of the record. The alleged malfeasance allowed what they knew or should have known were unlawful war crimes to continue unchallenged, not reviewed, supported, not stopped, and permitted, contrary to the laws of war and her specific, ministerial duties that competent legal counsel knew or should have known were duties and obligations on Pelosi and other Members of Congress to review, investigate, report, document, prevent, and prohibit illegal appropriations to continue. Despite the clearly established law, Members of Congress and Pelosi were reckless in their duties and failed to timely assert their full authority to report their concerns in writing to the Inspector Generals; did not document as they had the power to do their concerns with the US Attorneys; and were complicit in failing to faithfully do their moral best to ensure the Geneva Conventions, US Constitution, and Supreme law were protected. The failure of Members of Congress and Pelosi to do their jobs and assert their oaths faithfully resulted in additional war crimes they knew or should have known, when fully investigated, would subject the Members of Congress to the judicial review of this war crimes tribunal. Relying on the expectation that they could not afford to be caught, nor expose themselves to possible evidence discovery, Members of Congress and Pelosi jointly agreed not to review matters of Presidential war crimes in exchange for his tacit agreement that he would not conduct investigations through the US Attorneys Office, DoJ Staff counsel, or Department of Justice OPR on matters related to Congressional malfeasance related to the President’s criminal conduct and war crimes.


Pelosi and other Membes of Congress did not timely remove themselves, nor properly enforce the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirements related to non-enforcement of the law, and Geneva Conventions. Pelosi’s alleged inaction, recklessness, and gross disregard for her 5 USC 3331 oath of office obligations were illegal ignored, unlawfully permitting, not preventing, and illegally condoning illegal war crimes to continue despite her power to stop, report, investigate, intervene, call for reviews, request assistance, or forward information to the US Attorney, Inspector Generals, and State Officials with the power to enforce the law against the President and his alleged co-conspirators.


Upon lawful adjudication of her 5 USC 3331 and illegal violations of the law s of war, and the failure to prevent war crimes and refusal to timely act to call for investigations of war crimes, Leader Pelosi should be subject to a reasonable penalty lawfully adjudicated as the death penalty.

* * *

Draft War Crimes Tribunal Lead Adjudicator Comments

Leader Pelosi, thank you for attending the tribunal. We trust your stay with at The Hague has been as hospital as might be expected under the circumstances.

You’ve taken an oath many times to protect the Constitution, enforce the law, and do so faithfully. Under the American Constitution, Members of Congress are required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution. The US Constitution is a fine document. It includes in the Articles specific language granting war crimes tribunals authority to prosecute any American indicted for war crimes. The Geneva Conventions are one such treaty that you knew, or should have known were attached to your oath of office.

War crimes tribunals are not established to destroy the sense of law in America. Rather, they remain the last option short of war which might constrain American leaders to do what they should. Sadly, despite your oath to the Constitution and the promise to enforce the Geneva Conventions, the evidence before the Tribunal suggests you may have a legal problem.

The investigation you are the target of is a war crimes investigation. You are in what the legal community eloquently refers to as a prosecutor’s trap. The evidence and findings of the investigation to date suggests that you didn’t do what you were supposed to do; and failed to act when you had the duty. Either you were aware that the President and others were violating the law and you didn’t inquire into why the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports were not drafted; or you failed to review the evidence of illegal activity that you knew or should have known didn’t comply with the Geneva Conventions; or despite your knowledge of the reported war crimes and illegal activity you and other Members of the American Congress did not do what you should have done: Inquire into the reasons why the President and Attorney General had not documented the illegal conduct in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports. These are serious matters.

Leader Pelosi, your problem is simple. You are in no position to negotiate. The law is clear. Either you got an exception report and did nothing; or after learning of the illegal activity, you did not inquire into the illegal activity as your promised in your oath.

Your words mean nothing. Swearing to tell the truth before this tribunal is meaningless. The record to date, using non-classified information clearly establishes two things: Your presence; and your knowledge. What the law does or doesn’t say is irrelevant to what evidence you and others suggest cannot be found.

Rather, the burden is on the defense to explain why the evidence that should be there but isn’t, and should not have been required; or that the exception reports that you should have reviewed and documented to the Inspector General and US Attorney are not available as they are otherwise required to be. The issue is not one of privilege. These are issues related to post-decisions after the original illegal activity was started early in 2001, well before the subsequent reviews Congress did or should have done and debated. There is no basis to argue that any line of inquiry, records, discovery, or other things relates to a mater which this tribunal need to trouble itself with.

There is no evidence where there should be; and there is no action where they should have been. This is not a burden of proof that is difficult to meet. Rather, it is the burden of the defense – you and your counsel – to meet.

Our investigation has been exhaustive. We cannot produce evidence that should exist; nor can we pretend that something is there which isn’t. Our investigation suggest that you have a legal problem linked with the possible punishment of the death penalty.

Early inaction may induce others to continue inaction, especially when subsequent information and evidence confirms the alleged malfeasance on war crimes. Your motive for not impeaching the President included the alleged criminal objective not to have your alleged malfeasance in re war crimes examined. Where the results are clear and the defense cannot produce any evidence suggesting that you did what you should, the punishment authorized by law is the death penalty.

It is a serous matter when government officials promise to do something, but cannot be trusted to do their jobs. By refusing to do your job and accepting the burden of others to remain silent about illegal activity your actions communicate you intend to comply with your legal duties; nor do you care to do what you promise: Enforce the law.

You don’t have the power to decline what you agree to do; nor on matters of the law take the powers of other branches. You jot is not to solve the President’s legal problems; your job was to have removed yourself from the agreement to do nothing.

It doesn’t matter why; the issue is – you believed there was some rationale for your decision to:

(1) Put something else before your oath;
(2) Not do what you should have
(3) Pretend the law was something else
(4) Incorrectly believe nobody would notice or do anything

You miscalculated.

The unlawful rebellion and insurrection by you and your alleged co-conspirators in Congress is known to the world community. Your constituents should not have to do your job. Your job was to have asserted the law, not excuses.

Leader Pelosi, do you report before this War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague that you are not under the influence of any medication, drugs, or alcohol?

The relevant American statutes and Conventions of Geneva authorizes this tribunal to impose for alleged war crimes the penalty of death. The Tribunal has carefully considered your counsel’s motion to offer to assist with prosecuting others. The overture is welcome, and appreciated.

The War Crimes Tribunal has carefully reviewed your well written request to have various issues and terms reviewed. People, lawyers, and prosecutors are creative negotiators. Your legal counsel should be commended for their work product. However, the request is not timely. This should have been offered sooner, not this late in the game. The law does not negotiate, neither does this Tribunal.

After careful deliberations, we conclude that the assistance you have offered is not needed. You and your alleged co-conspirators are in the same legal trap. The defendants request to bargain and negotiate is denied.

Our investigation makes the adverse inference that you are allegedly complicit with war rimes and 5 USC 3331 violations. You and your counsel have no legal standing to negotiate lesser sentences other than what we are required to impose on defendants correctly charged, and properly convicted of war crimes.

Although your defense is frivolous and futile, the Tribunal has considered your request for an appeal. The defendant is dismissed to her quarters at The Hague. Bail is denied. The Tribunal has not been authorized to release the conclusions of law. However, the Tribunal has informed me that you are authorized to hear your lawful sentence: Death by hanging.

* * *


The war crimes prosecutors investigating these alleged war crimes would be happy to receive any additional information you have related to Title 28 and Title 50 reporting issues.

The alleged American war crimes are not isolated to the Executive Branch. The DNC leadership remains under formal investigation. Malfeasance on war crimes is a serious matter, especially on matters the American leadership knew might warrant the death penalty.

There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. There are 6.8 Billion people on earth, and only 535 members of Congress. Congress is unable to raise an army to wage combat against poorly trained insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Congress has no prospect of prevailing, even in the court room or on the battlefield. Congress is free to offer terms of surrender; or you will lawfully be destroyed through the judicial system by the Rule of Law. You have been denied the power to defy the Constitution, laws of war, or obstruct enforcement of the law; yet, despite this denial of power, you have illegally asserted this power. Very poor timing.

The DNC leadership is allegedly complicit with war crimes. Your story doesn’t add up. The law is here; you are there. There is no overlap, as there should be. Everything you hope for is linked to one thing: A desire to change history and the evidence. It is impossible. You didn’t do what your promised, nor did you assert your moral best. We the People know. Surrender now, or will lawfully becomes less comfortable. We outnumber you; you are outnumbered; and the rule of law shall prevail.

* * *

There is no excuse for the current situation. The evidence of inaction, lack of communication, no changes, and no direction to the lawful authorities is overwhelming, pervasive, and not isolated to either the Executive Or Legislative Branches.

These matters are not privileged nor protected by any Congressional rule. They are post-decision-related actions. The alleged conspiracy is wide.

The US leadership has no constitutional or legal authority or power to suppress this evidence, or pattern of malfeasance. The American leadership fails to explain the failure to provide the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; and the lack of information despite the well reported conduct does not inspire any reasonable belief that Members of Congress have timely asserted their oath of office.

* * *

___ What was Pelosi thinking to justify inaction on gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 reports

___ Why would Pelosi have more interest in access to information (in the future) than in taking action on known violations (related to observable evidence and information in the past)?

___ What might someone’s reason for not doing their job on this notification: Review, investigate, document, report, and account for the missing Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

One answer is the fear of the death penalty. The Congressional staff counsel isn’t completely stupid. However, their feigned ignorance of Geneva is not compelling, especially in light of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal where civilian policy makers, as Members of Congress are, failed to do what they had the power to do: Investigate, review evidence, and end support for illegal activity and war crimes.

A separation of powers doesn’t mean that power is isolated; or that the power of the US government is infinite. It is the opposite: Responsibility is shared, especially when the legislative and executive branches have a joint responsibility to ensure the laws of war are followed, especially before enacting legislation related to things they knew, or should have known were illegal.

A separation of power does not mean that responsibility is isolated; responsibility is shared. The intent of the oath is to bind the Members of Congress to do what they would otherwise not do on their own – ask a difficult question; and compel an answer which is supported by facts, not fiction.

Despite the known fiction, this Congress jointly agreed to continue appropriations for illegal things; but has no record of reviewing the known gaps in the President and Attorney General’s Title 28 and Title 50 reports on planned illegal activity. Despite knowing of the illegal activity, the DNC cannot argue it asserted all its power to assert its oath, document the concerns, and direct the Inspector Generals, US Attorneys, or the State Attorney Generals to come to their assistance. Rather, they jointly agreed to remain silent about the activity they knew or should have known was not lawful.

IT is serious to fail to assert ones oath; or putting secrecy above the Constitution. Members of Congress have a problem: Some, if not all, were in silent agreement that if they dared speak of the illegal activity or ask probing questions, they might have their access to classified information revoked.

___ When you have information showing the activity is illegal, why would you want to have continued access to illegal activity?

___ Once you were given the implicit threat of loss of access to information in the future, what were your reasons for not using the information you had: The open media, the public commentary, and the statutes?

___ Was the Constitution not clear: We shall be free from invasions into your private unless a warrant is issued.

___ Was your FISA requirement process not clear: We the People shall expect Members of Congress to ensure the law is enforced, and the misconduct prosecuted.

___ What else has Pelosi swallowed without questioning: More illegal activity that she and others did not challenge on matters related to Iraq and prisoner abuse.

Whether you were in the minority or majority, nothing stopped you from forwarding your concerns to the US Attorney, State Attorney General where you live, or the Inspector General. If you are innocent, there will be two copies of the Title 28 and Title 50 communications: One in Congress; and the Second in the Executive. They are not privileged. They either exist or they do not.

The NSA has an incomplete record of what was or wasn’t communicated. The full evidence, if the laws was fully followed, does not suggest that Members of Congress were fully doing what they should: Reviewing the Title 28 exceptions; or reviewing the revelations of activity, and asking why they were not informed of the illegal activity.

Pelosi doesn’t want attention on the President’s impeachable offenses because the attention will turn on her and her other friends in Congress – her friends on the other side of the aisle in the GOP. If she digs too much, or lets others dig too much into the non-classified, illegally classified, and the exception reports, there’s a problem: Things aren’t there that should be; and the things that are there don’t match what she and the others failed to do, but should have done: Investigate.

Pelosi isn’t interested in blocking an investigation into the President’s war crimes because of partisan concerns. She has one objective: To block a review into her own alleged malfeasance: The failure to follow-up on the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports that she and others in Congress knew, or should have known were incorrectly filed.

Malfeasance isn’t difficult to prove, especially when the evidence – where it should exist – doesn’t exist. These are matters of criminal law and politics. The Congressional Staff counsel and DoJ Staff also well know the evidence gaps; and the inaction.

We the People know why there is a rush to not review matters related to the President: There are many other things that Congress knew about, but failed to timely do. These are matters related to reporting, which the Congress compels by statute on the President and Executive Branch. The committee leadership is on the reporting list; they were either informed as the statute requires, or they were not.

Pelosi knows what she was or wasn’t told. The difference doesn’t matter. The net result is that she and others despite what she supposedly wasn’t told, still did nothing to do what they should: Correctly document their concerns with the US Attorney, Inspector General, and the State Attorney Generals where they live. Government officials do not enjoy special protections as citizens, and the immunity for inaction. Rather, they lose their claim to remain above the law, and are equally subject to the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting obligations. Once the Leader and other members of Congress ere told, in the open media, of the illegal activity, they allegedly did not correctly review their Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports to determine which they had correctly received; and which they had not.

That review should have immediately signaled to the Congressional Staff counsel, Inspector General, US Attorney, and the State Attorney Generals that there was a problem: Congress either knew something with the original Title 28 exception report and was playing stupid; or Congress, despite being aware of the failed reporting did not investigate as required, and they had a duty to do.

Subsequent to those original alleged violations of the law, the Members of Congress in both parties allegedly failed to do what their oath required: Determine with precision the details of the President’s illegal activity; and determine who within their ranks failed to do what they should have done. This inquiry would have revealed the problem which Pelosi and others do not want to admit: The leadership in both parties was jointly in a position to know what was reported, and what was not. They illegal activity is known, but the decision not to investigate remains the policy of Congress in November 2006. This is not a lawful option, not a credibly demonstration that the Member of Congress are serious about asserting their oath of office as required under 5 USC 3331.

* * *

International war crimes prosecutors have launched formal investigations into Pelosi, the GOP Senate Leadership. The alleged war crimes are simple:

(1) Failure to prevent war crimes
(2) Illegal appropriations for unlawful activities
(3) Conduct contrary to the oath of office
(4) Conduct that is less than the required standard of conduct expected of Members of Congress and the Congressional Staff
(5) Conduct that bring discredit upon the United States, and materially undermines public confidence in the American legal system
(6) A pattern of willful failure to investigate, stop, and prevent illegal activity they knew or should have known
(7) A pattern of conduct that demonstrates are personal interest in not aggressively reviewing patterns of illegal conduct, as that conduct would implicate the Members of Congress for not having acted earlier.
(8) A failure of the Congress and Executive Branch to meet the minimal reporting and enforcement requirements in Title 28 and Title 50
(9) False reports by committee chairmen and Members of Congress to the Congressional leadership on whether statutes and Geneva Conventions were or were not being enforced.

One pattern of illegal conduct of one committee is not isolated to once section of the Executive Branch. Had the Congressional Committees done what they should, the Congressional Staff counsel would have well reported that illegally captured NSA data was subsequently used by the DOJ and DHS to engage in warrantless interrogations; and the CIA and other contractors illegally used this unlawfully captured information to engage in kidnapping and abuse and other violations of the laws of war against American citizens.

Congress has no power to compel anyone to be silent on the illegal activity. It is not lawful to classify evidence related to illegal activity. This is a legal standard that Members of Congress, especially the arguably defective Attorney-Representatives, knew or should have known was not lawfully classified.

* * *

The Constitution is first.

Indeed, We the People are lawfully targeting for prosecution the Senate, not just one party, but all 100 Senators. You’re on very thin legal ice. Time to wake up.

* * *

The DNC-GOP leadership is the target of the war crimes investigation into the alleged joint conspiracy to abrogate the US Constitution and Geneva Conventions. Members of Congress know, or should know of the Tokyo War Crimes precedents. Individual citizen government employees in a policy making positions, with the power to investigate and prevent war crimes, were lawfully executed for war crimes. Members of Congress know the possible punishment for what they failed to do include the death penalty.

Pelosi is under formal investigation by We the People, the international community, and other entitles for alleged war crimes.

The issues are not classified, but are related to open admissions the President and Attorney General made; and the plain statutory obligations of the President and congress to jointly communicate on matters related to illegal activity.

No classified information has to be reviewed; however, redacted version of the classified NSA, CIA, DoJ, and DOD documents will show the President and the Members of Congress were on the same page: What was happening; and what was not being done – correctly documenting to Congress, as required under Title 28, the violations of the law.

Members of Congress would like the public to believe that they didn’t know. The problem with this defense is that We the People know enough about the Title 28 exception reports to ask the simple question: Once you were aware of the illegal activity that started prior to Sept 2001, why is there no record of you staff and Congressional counsel of having done a review of the Title 28 gaps?

This is not a matter of Congressional privilege. These are post-decision-related events. Either the evidence is there, and Congress can point to their inquiry that would have prevented the illegal appropriations for war crimes related activity; or there is no evidence as required, and Members of Congress did not act as they should have done to investigate what they knew or should have known was the failure to correctly report, as required, in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports, the planned violations of the law, and their subsequent failure to review and end the illegal funding for things that they knew or should have known were contrary to the Geneva Conventions.

Those are the only options. It doesn’t matter what actually happened: The net result was the same: Inaction, malfeasance, no documentation, failure to prevent war crimes, and continued assertions of classification on things that could not be lawfully classified.

All 535 Members of Congress are allegedly complicity in things that they knew were illegal and not timely ended; or they are allegedly reckless in not comprehending the scope of the illegal activity which was widely reported, and not timely reviewed in the context of what was or wasn’t reported, as required, in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports.

The burden of proof rests with the Government to provide the paper trail associated with this post0decision communications. One would think, this late in the game, the President would offer the memos showing Senator Feingold that there is no reason to be concerned about Gonzalez alleged perjury before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 6 Feb 2006. There has been no satisfactory response. The adverse inferences it that the Attorney General has lied; and that the motivation of this lying was not to protect national security, but to hide the scope of the illegal activity that Members of Congress knew, or should have known, was not correctly reported in the Title 28 exception reports.

It doesn’t matter what creative twists of the FISA procedures the President and Attorney general creatively self-delegated. The FISA process was corrupted.

The problem for Members of Congress and the alleged co-conspirators working for the Congressional Staff contractors is that the legal language related to the “legalization procedures” could only have been drafted if someone outside the Congress, not under contract, informed Congress that there was a valid legal issue putting their legal interests at risk. Congress has been aware of the legal issue. The post-decision communications are not isolated to Congress, and cannot be protected by privilege.

The short answer is that there are potentially many holes going to appear in the Congressional Staff Legal Counsel roster as the attorneys are, one by one, slowly deprived of their livelihood, disbarred, and subject to war rimes indictments.

The investigation has been expanding since the early years of the Bush Administration.

Think back to the lessons of Hezbollah. Do you recall the surprise the Israelis had when they learned the Hezbollah was able to intercept their communications, but the Israelis didn’t realize their communications had been intercepted?

The US Congress and Executive Branch have the same problem. Unlike the days of Nixon when the abuse of power was “isolated”, this President wants each of the Members of Congress to take the fall for him, while he plays for the next two years. He is laughing at you because you agreed to do something you knew would bind you to war crimes.

We the People well comprehend the situation. It is not our problem, but your problem. IT is November 2006. The GOP internal “squabble” is irrelevant. The Congress has a job to do: face the President’s illegal activity, review the Title 28/Title 50 exception reports, and make a full accounting for the US Attorney, Inspector Generals, and the State Attorney Generals currently investigating the illegal US government activities which have violates our Constitutional rights.

It is November 2006. You are still in power. You shall comply with the law; or you shall lawfully be held to account. This is not a negotiation.

* * *

Also complicit with the alleged war crimes and conspiracy with Congress are the FBI agents, US Attorneys, and criminal investigators working for Congress and the Executive B ranch who have failed to remove themselves, discuss, document, and formally work with the Grand Juries reviewing this matter.

As was the case in 1974 when the Watergate Grand Jury discussed the possible loss of confidence in the US legal system, in 2006 the Voters Communicated what the Grand Jury suspected: Loss of Confidence.

Absurdly, despite controlling the Congress, the DNC leadership would have the world believe that it can’t do anything about the President, leaving the responsibility to We the People to rally the State legislators to pass proclamations. The ruse has one goal: To distract attention from the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting problems.

The FBI, contractors, and investigators well know there is a large disconnect between what was done; and what is required. This is called criminal activity. It is illegal to assume non-delegated powers to not do what you should do; or induce others not to assert their oath under any threat, promise, or protection. That power has only been delegated to the US Attorney who has the power to decline to prosecute; this matter has not been properly presented by any investigator to the US Attorneys for a public comment on that specific declination decision. The investigation continues. The evidence is mounting.

* * *

Draft Interrogatories For Leader Pelosi

___ Leader Pelosi, could you explain why you put your loyalty to secrecy above your loyalty to the Constitution.

___ What war crimes did you know about but not take action on because you knew, suspected, believed, or feared your future could be standing before a war crimes tribunal?

___ Please share with the war crimes tribunal, investigators, and grand jury the means by which were induced not to faithfully do your job as required under 5 USC 3331?

___ What adverse results were you under the believe you might suffer if a complete investigation in 2006 was or was not completed?

___ How were you threatened with a loss of access to information if you disclosed the illegally classified information?

___ Why would you put your loyalty to access to illegally classified information above you duty to end the illegal activity?

___ Please share with the tribunal the other illegal activity you knew about, related to war crimes that you’ve done nothing about.

___ The DHS conducts a warranties interrogation program on American citizens using illegally classified information, and data captures using unlawful procedures. Please share with the tribunal the data that you were notified in writing, as required by Title 28, the decision of the Attorney General not to comply with the Constitutional requirement to follow, enforce, and protect the Bill of Right provision indicating that personnel shall be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that their personal information shall only be used for lawful purposes.

___ On what date were you notified in writing, as required by Title 28, that the Attorney general did not plan to enforce the law related to the FISA reporting requirements, and procedures the Congress in the FISA statute agreed would be followed.

___ When were you notified in writing, as required by Title 28, that the Attorney General did not plan to enforce the law related to imposing sanctions on Members of the NSA, CIA, and DoJ for their decision not to follow the Constitution.

___ When you were notified of the illegal activity in the open media, what review and on which date did you discuss the legal issues of Title 28 with your Congressional Staff counsel?

___ After you were notified through your Committee, open media, and other information submitted into the record that you were aware of the illegal activity, what action did you take to document your concerns with the DHS, DoJ, DoD, CIA, NSA, and other agency Inspector General?

___ On what day did you document your concerns related to the alleged perjury by Executive Branch personnel to the US Attorney?

___ Once you were aware that a Member of the Department of Justice had given misleading information to a Senator, what action did you take to review the Title 28 exception reports related to that illegal activity?

___ After you reviewed the exception reports of Title 28, who did you consult within the US Attorneys office outlining your concerns that Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports had not been followed?

___ When were you told the investigation was going to be complete?

___ Do you have a reason for not openly discussing the existence of the gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

___ When were you told your evidence would be provided to the Grand Jury, and that you and other Members of Congress would be free to conduct your duties until your testimony was required?

___ Do you have a reason for not discussing in the open public the information related to the alleged violations of Title 28 and Title 50, or the failure of your Congressional staff counsel to review these issues?

___ When were you told the CIA was engaged in illegal kidnapping, but the Attorney General, as required under Title 28, was not planning to enforce that statute?

___ Does the Leader have an explanation why, despite the requirement to report Title 28 exception reports, there was no question related to the illegal activity that had surfaced?

___What is the explanation the Attorney General gave in the Title 28 exception reports that Americans were being held without being charge with a crime – in violation of the law – and there was no evidence?

___ Was there a concern within your staff that the scope of illegal activity was large or small?

___ How much illegal activity is acceptable to ignore?

___ When the attorney general communicated to you as minority leader through the Title 28 exception reports that there was illegal abuse in violation of the law, but he had no plans to prosecute anyone for that abuse, what was your reaction?

___ How many years experience in Geneva Conventions, international law, and the laws of war does your Congressional Staff Counsel have?

___ When did the Congressional Staff counsel last attend Continuing Legal Education related to the Constitution, laws of war, Treaty Requirements, rules of evidence, Title 28 reporting requirements.

___ Are any of your staff familiar with the litigation rules related t discovery, evidence, and the rules related to refusing to recognize privilege on matters that are publicly known?

___ Once something is inadvertently disclosed, through whatever means, did you staff counsel tell you that that information remains secret and cannot be introduced into evidence?

___ What is the explanation your staff counsel have for apparently not comprehending that the ORCON Rules prohibit the classification of illegal activity; yet the same staff counsel claim that the disclosed information cannot be discussed?

___ How do we reconcile the rule of evidence recognizing the admissibility of inadvertently disclosed information; but your apparent decision not to review the problem with the Title 28 exception reports?

___ When you knew the laws of war had been violated, what was you opinion on the laws of war: Should they be followed; or ignored; or left to someone else?

___ What is your view on the Oath of office as it relates to a treaty obligation: Is one required to take the oath without any mental reservation?

___ The evidence before us suggests that there has been no destruction of the 5 USC 3331 oath of office you signed in 2001, 2003, and 2006. Would you care to point to the documents the Tribunal Has and indicate whether that signature on the 5 USC 3331 is or is not your signature.

___ Do you remember taking the oath?

___ Were you under any medication when you took your oath?

___ Do you have a record of alcohol abuse while on the House floor, while engaging in official business?

___ Is there any medical history of your having abused drugs, stimulants, or anything else that impair your judgment when you took the oath on 2001, 2003, and 2005?

___ Is it fair to conclude that you were fully aware of what you signed in 2001, 2003, and 2005 when you signed the oath of office and promised to faithfully discharge your duties?

___ When were you told of the floating Naval ships where US personnel, contractors, and other personnel detained prisoners, combatants, and other people?

___ When did Attorney General Gonzalez inform you or anyone on your staff with a Title 28 Exception report that there was no plan to prosecute anyone in the Department of Defense for holding prisoners in international waters and abusing them in violation of the Geneva Conventions?

___ When was your last conversation with Brad Berenson when he worked on the White House counsel’s office?

___ When did Attorney General Gonzalez discuss with you and report in the Title 28 exception report the decision not to prosecute anyone who engaged in commerce, trade, transactions, or other interactions with the Syrians and Iranians government?

___ Why is Brad Berenson unwilling to comment on something that the Attorney General should have documented to you in writing: Whether there was or was not a plan to prosecute personnel who allegedly violated the non-support clauses related to interacting with the Syrians and Iranians on matters related to abuse, trade, torture, or other exchanges?

___ What explanation did you Staff counsel have for not discussing the issues related to the transfer of prisoners?

___ Is there a plan by anyone on your staff to review the Title 28 exception repots from the Attorney General; and determine which Title 28 reports were or were not properly filed, issued, reported, or stated with sufficient precision to allow you to determine whether the Attorney General had or had not fully complied with his reporting requirements under Title 28?

___ Is it the Leaders’ position that she was or was not fully informed of a planned violation of the law?

___ Is it the Leaders position that she was or was not fully informed of a planned exchange with Syria?

___ Is it the Leaders’ position that she was or was not fully informed of a legal matter which a White House counsel named Brad Berenson knew, or should have known, was linked with Syria?

___ When did Leader Pelosi first get notified of the decision by the US Attorney General not to prosecute anyone for their alleged relationship, cooperating, and interaction with the Syrians on matters related to illegal abuse, violations of Geneva, or prisoner abuses?

___ Is it the Leaders’ position that she, as minority leader, was not informed of a legal issue that the White House counsel’s office knew was inconstant with the Title 28 reporting requirements?

___ What is the reason the Leader cannot explain why someone in the White House counsels office like Brad Berenson allegedly knew of illegal abuse and plans to work with the Syrians; yet the Leader cannot point to anything indicating that she was or was not informed of this development?

___ When was the Leader informed of Berenson’s admissions of the alleged involvement of countries that were otherwise not publicly allied with the United States?

___ What information does the Leader have that you have not disclosed that would convince your inaction was better than action on investigations.

___ Why was it argued that action was better on matters of violations of the laws of war, as they related to the issues of Iraq WMD?

___ Why are there double standards on whether action is better or worse than inaction?

___ Why are there double standards on whether action is superior or subordinate to inaction?

___ How does the Leader keep her story straight?

___ Which laws and evidence o you compare; and which do you ignore?

___ How does the Congressional leadership propose to check the Article II Branch unless the laws are enforced?

___ Does it concern the Leader that someone may or may not enforce the laws; while other issues are ignored?

___ Did it not enter the mind of the Speaker at any time that someone would find out about this reporting problem with Title 28; and the lack of response from the Congressional leadership?

___ You knew or could have known of the illegal activity. Is this correct?

___ There’s no documentation by either the Article or Article II powers to support any agreement with illegal activity. Is this correct?

___ There’s no evidence you fully assert our oath to put loyalty to the law above a loyalty to keep things secret. Is this correct?

___ Is there any evidence that you are aware that you put your loyalty to keep silent about illegal things superior to your duty to put your oath to the Constitution above all things?

___ Has the Leader read the transcript of the above responses?

___ Do you disagree, have reservations, or wish to expand, revise, or explain anything else?

___ What were you told by your attorney before you appeared today?

___ If you were told anything by your counsel, did he ever tell you to tell the truth?

___ If you are not asked a direct question, are you going to offer anything?

___ Do you realize that this is a question and set of interrogatories related to an alleged war crimes investigation of which you and Members of Congress are currently the targets?

___ Have you been promised anything for testimony that is not full, accurate, complete, true, or consistent with the facts as you know them?

___ What are your reasons for not keeping the impeachment option on the table?

___ Where in the US Constitution are you delegated any power to deprive the House of Representatives the right, power, and option to review matters of criminal conduct by the President or other officials?

___ Is there anything in the Constitution that you are aware that would suggest that you as the Speaker have any power to compel any Chairman of any committee to vote for or against an impeachment decisions?

___ Who was threatened with a loss of chairmanship if they voted for impeachment?

___ How many discussions related to the impeachment did you have between July 14 and July 21 of 2006 on the subject of impeachment?

___ Please discuss the Title 28 notification letters you received from the Attorney General on the first Monday after the July 14th. Please discuss the comment you made to your staff, and the notation on the information.

___ Do you recognize your initials by the memoranda?

___ The initials on the memoranda. Do you see those? Whose initials are those?

___ Can you explain the French Embassy interest in the NSA surveillance which Gonzalez reported in the Title 28 exception reports?

___ Do you recognize the person in the photograph?

___ Do you agree or disagree that the photograph of the individual at this restaurant matches the name and initials on the Memoranda with your initials?

___ How long has that staffer worked in your office?

___ Do you have any reason to not trust them?

___ This cable includes their name. It was intercepted by GCHQ. The data of the cable is after the Memo was written. However, the information was not formally disclosed to anyone outside your office. Do you have an explanation for why GCHQ would have a copy of the memoranda before the information was formally released?

___ Is it reasonable to conclude that your initials on the memoranda was signed at a date no earlier than when the Attorney General first notified you of the concern and planned violation?

___ Could you share your response to this news clipping. Is this your handwriting?

___ Do you recall writing this note on the new item?

___ What is the data of the article?

___ The information on the memoranda is after your initials on the press information. Is this correct?

___ What is the reason you are relying on Title 28 exception reports, when your public commentary on news issues shows you are fully aware of the legal issues, and events that might otherwise trigger your review of the Title 28 reports?

___ Even if you didn’t review the memoranda, and your initials weren’t there, how do you account for the inaction on the issue which was previously reported in the media?

___ Would you care to comment why a foreign embassy would show interest in a news item you had commented on, discussed, and were in a position to know about?

___ Why does someone outside your office know about the foreign embassy interest, but you as a Minority Leader were not told of this information?

___ When did it enter your consciousness that the debate on torture definitions was a smokescreen over known abuses?

___ Can you point to floor statements you as a Representative made suggesting, despite your power to speak on any other matter, that you were supposedly troubled by the matter, but made no mention of the Geneva violations, smokescreens and the existence of war crimes?

___ Is there anything in any floor statement you would like to Tribunal to be aware that would demonstrate that you did what you should have done; or timely provided a response to the Title 28 exception reports?

___ Why would anyone care about your legislative agenda that may or may not get enforced?

__ To assert Article I powers, the laws must be enforced. How do you decide which laws to ignore, which laws to enforce?

___ Do you agree or disagree that you have no judicial power?

___ Why are you asserting that something was or was not lawful if you have no judicial power?

___ What is the basis to make a legal determination that something is lawful?

___ Where are you delegated in the Constitution the power to make legal conclusions of law as to whether the President has or has not violated the law?

___ Do you understand the legal duty you have to protect the Constitution?

___ What is the reason you did not forward your concerns with the Title 28 exception reports to the US Attorney?

___ When did you send the letter to the Inspector General in either the DoJ, NSA, CIA, DoD, or DHS on this issue?

___ When did you plan to discuss the concerns you had with the illegal activity?

___ Why were they saying the issue is classified if it is not lawful, and cannot legally be classified?

___ Who told you that the illegal activity could not be discussed?

___ When did they tell you that illegal activity could be classified?

___ What is your view on the DOJ Staff and US Attorney who knew of the illegal activity, but did nothing?

___ Did it ever enter you consciousness that the FBI and DOJ Staff counsel might put their loyalty to the Construction above their loyalty to secrecy?

___ How do you explain Bereson’s fatal admission that the White House counsel’s office was aware of ongoing operations related to a country the US publicly had no favorable diplomatic relations?

___ Are you saying that the Attorney General never sent you a Title 28 exception report related to this matter which Berenson publicly commented?

___ Are you asking the tribunal to believe that you were not fully informed of something a former White House counsel has publicly commented on?

___ What is your basis to assert that this issue s classified if it is illegal?

___ How do you explain your response to the discloses of the illegal activity: Berenson fatally disclosed the illegal activity, the fat that he was aware of it. Were you not informed at any time of the connections the United States had with Syria on these detention issues?

___ Is real was surprised by the Hezbollah ability to intercept communications the Israelis thought were secure. Did you know about that?

___ How much information do you think war crimes prosecutors have which NSA is not aware and you may or may not have been told?

___ How many gaps in the Title 28 exception reports do you believe exist?

___ How long did it take your staff to arrive at that conclusion?

___ What is the name of the lead contractor who supports your staff counsel on legal matters, discovery, and audits of your work area?

___ When was the last time your office counsel had a peer review by an attorney?

___ Were you briefed on the results of that peer review?

___ Do you have a plan to inquire into the quality of your staff counsel performance as measured by the attorney peer reviews?

___ Where is the NSA currently monitoring in Afghanistan?

___ Is NATO winning or losing?

___ Is the Taliban making gains or losing?

___ Do you think the NSA intercept capabilities are impressive or something to be desired?

___ Would you agree that an impressive NSA capability would inspire in the NATO forces a sense of mission, and given them the leverage over troops which were marginally organized and not known to have sophisticated satellites at their disposal?

___ NATO is an impressive organization. Do you agree?

___ Why is NATO not able to organize troops and NSA resources to prevail over marginally trained fighters who live in caves?

___ Is it not the power of Congress to raise and support the NSA resources?

___ When did the President draft for you a Title 50 exception report on the NSA plan to ignore the Constitution, violate the warrant requirement, and not follow the law?

___ You publicly commented on the issues. Please explain what action you took after the President admitted there had been illegal activity: Did you inquire into the Title 50 exception report the President is, by statute, required to submit to Congress indicating his planned violation of the law using DoD resources?

___ What was your reaction when you learned of the violation of the law?

___ Where is your judicial power to make conclusions of law?

___ What inquiry did you make to the Inspector General of DoD or the NSA on the matter related to the disclosed illegal activity?

___ When did you learn of the pre 9-11 monitoring by the NSA?

___ What is the data today?

___ How long is a reasonable amount of time for someone to respond to an event, disclosure, or report that occurred before 2002?

___ Do you recall your oath of office in 2001?

___ How long was your term in 2001?

___ Do you recall signing this oath of office in 2003?

___ What happened between 2001 and 2003: The NSA illegal activity was known to have occurred. What is your explanation for your oath of office not being fully asserted?

___ What should you have done after you were aware of the illegal activity, but the failure of the President to provide you with the Title 50 Exception report?

___ Is there anything you would like to add?

___ Once the FISA court was lied to by the BI Agent (who didn’t do their job and otherwise made a mockery of the Department of justice before the Judicial Branch), did it occur to you that the FISA court would not be happy with another government official in Congress who didn’t do their job?

___ When did it enter your consciousness that the legal issues would not be reviewed by the FISA court but by a war crimes tribunal?

___ When did you plan to come to We the People to explain your dilemma: You knew something, but were convinced you couldn’t talk about illegal activity?

___ Did it occur to you that the boundary of the law was there for a reason?

___ What does a red light mean on a traffic light?

___ Do you understand the difference between a Green Light and a Red light?

___ When you see a red light what are you supposed to do?

___ Is the law a green light, red light, or a yellow light? Discuss.

___ Or is the law merely the signal light itself?

___ Is the law not something that would signal there was a problem and someone may have done something that needed attention?

___ Is there a chance that the law is there as a guide to suggest to others that they must do something; and that failing to do something might not be consistent with what they should do?

___ What is your view on the law: Can it be ignored; do you believe the laws should be ignored if hey are not in the interest of the President to follow?

___ What is your plan to implement your agenda if the President is not going to issue a favorable signing statement?

___ Has anyone every asked you not to assert your rights, power, or authority to do something for any reason?

___ What is your rationale for taking the impeachment option off the table?

___ When did you discuss this with Hillary Clinton?

___ Where in the Constitution does it grant the power to a Senator and Member of The House to jointly agree not to take action on a legal matter?

___ Where does the Constitution permit Members of Congress to agree not to keep legal options, delegated in the Constitution only to the House of Representatives, on the table?

___ Why is a Senator having any say on whether impeachment is or is not an option?

___ Where in the Constitution does is there any clause which permits the unrecorded voice vote of one Senator to trump the power of the House of Representatives to decide this issue related to impeachment?

___ Are you sure that impeachment is off the table?

___ Why does the French embassy show an interest in the NSA domestic surveillance program?

___ Did you an Hillary discuss this memoranda form the President when he discussed the French Embassy interest in the NSA monitoring?

___ Ever consider the Syrian interest in French wine?

___ How many Hezbollah electronic intercepts did they make of the Israeli tank formations in Lebanon?

___ Wondering why the NSA and National security Counsel are going bonkers?

___ When was the last time you spoke with a member of the FBI’s Counter Intelligence?

___ Did you find them competent?

___ How were they dressed?

___ Did you ever come across information from the FBI Asst Director indicating that he was aware of performance problems within one of his FBI agents, but had promoted them to a position of increased responsibility?

___ Were you satisfied with the information you received related to the National Security Council investigations into suspected leaks of NSC deliberations?

___ Is there something about the FBI you believe the NSC should be aware when reviewing their counter intelligence activities?

___ Nobody in the FBI has a problem comprehending the statutes?

___ Did they show you how their cell phones can record?

___ Did you ever get a briefing on the GCHQ intercept capability?

___ Any concern that friendly allies might be leaking that information to nations that might like the Taliban?

___ Where do the Taliban live?

___ And the NSA employees: Do they live in the same caves?

___ How does it feel to live in a country where you’ve given information on a daily basis: The world’s concerns with the United States are valid?

___ What is it like to be told on a regularly basis in your intelligence briefing that the only possible way to solve a problem is for the CIA and President to violate another nation’s laws?

___ What is it like as a Leader in the Congress to be told that the US Government has information showing US official refuse to assert their oath, protect the Constitution, and deny the rule of law to prevail?

___ How does it feel to live in a country whose principles are at odds with what you know your government is doing?

___ Do you think We the People do not have an interest in reality?

___ What is your view on inconsistent agreement whether action, facts, inaction, or ignorance are preferable?

___ To get what you want, do you have to ignore evidence of war crimes, and become complicity with having not stopped what you have the power to compel what promised?

___ How does it feel to live in a country where the most foolish of citizens can, with a flick of a switch, outmaneuver alleged war criminals in the US government simply by putting he US Constitution under a rock and standing on the rock?

* * *

To defend the Constitution, you must defend it, not make excuses.

Impeachment is not a partisan DNC option. Excuses of blowback was an excuse to do nothing and prevent the examination of alleged DNC complicity with inaction on war rimes.

The DOJ OPR was blocked by the President? Is the FBI and US attorney not allowed because of the President to go after the GOP-DNC leadership?

* * *

Adverse Inferences

The US Congress and Executive Branch personnel have a known war crimes problem. The Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports are not the only lines of evidence.

The letters point to a problem between the DOJ OPR and NSA; and the DOJ IG as they understand the DoJ OPR-NSA interface on the investigations. Once the President and Attorney General decide not to enforce the law or violate the law, this is a matter of evidence which should be documented in one branch; and received in the second. The transmittal satisfies the disclosure requirement, and it is not credible for either branch to assert that the communication related to the illegal activity is protected by either or both branches.

Public Statutes are public. They cannot be retroactively classified. The Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirement were either followed or they were not; the Members of Congress either timely acted to prevent war crimes or they did not; Member of Congress and the President were either in agreement to do nothing, or they were not.

The result of the alleged conspiracy is an abrogation of the Geneva Conventions, US Constitution, and the requirements under the US oath of office. The common course of conduct had one objective: To put personal political interests before public duties to protect the Constitution. This is not lawful.

Once Pelosi and other Members of congress were aware of the non-notification by the Attorney General and President despite the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirements, the record does not support the contention that they have secretly done or not done anything. The public debates on the legal issues do not suggest they have agreed to cooperate or not cooperate; rather, the existence of the information agreements does not appear to be linked with the public debate and legislation.

The review of emails, records, and other notes after the decision not do nothing appears to have been cursory, incomplete, and not as what one would expect on a matter related to war rimes, Geneva violations, Constitutional violations, alleged perjury, and obstruction of Justice.

The legal duty to review the data is not supported by the public statements suggesting the legal obligations were or were not being fully implemented. Either the data was reviewed appropriately or it was not. The examine does not appear to have been sufficient as what would reasonably be expected of a Constitutional officer faithfully asserting their full 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

Counsel appears to have not been adequately supervised. This is troubling in light of the well known legal violations which Congressional Counsel appears to have not aggressively moved to document as required under their Article 82 Geneva requirements. Their duty was to ensure the Congressional leadership was fully aware of the war crimes obligations, and the nexus related to abuse, not the irrelevant definition of torture. The failure of Counsel to demonstrate competence in this area appears to be a fatal problem for their defense before a war crimes tribunal. Once Congressional counsel coordinated on the DoJ legislative liaison memoranda, regardless their position, they are attached to that document for purposes of disclosure, inquiry, and what they may or may not have agreed to. These activities are not pre-decisional, but post-decision, after the original illegal activity started in 2001.

Members of Congress and Staff counsel cannot lawfully claim privilege on subsequent efforts to block discovery of illegal war crimes; or other decisions related to agreements to remain silent on known failures to review Title 28 and Title 50 gaps. These gaps can be easily measured in terms of when the President knew or should have known that his orders were violating the law; and the subsequent public comments Members of Congress made outside the legislative chambers related to what they were or were not aware as it relates to war crimes, FISA, NSA, Iraq WMD, abuse, and rendition. These issues are disclosed, not protected, cannot lawfully be classified, and are post-decision related discussions: None of the Congressional Staff Counsel memoranda related to the alleged Title 28 violations, or the alleged failure to review the problems with the Title 28, are protected.

Congressional staff counsel have a credibly problem. There is a reasonable basis to question their veracity. The record does not suggest they timely removed themselves, not sufficiently documented their concerns; nor communicated to the US Attorney or the Inspector Generals their concerns. At odds with Congressional Staff counsel contentions that they did everything they could, or were not aware is the contrary conduct of Senator Rockefeller who did the opposite: Rockefeller appears to have known enough to document his concerns; but Staff Counsel to do not report a balanced communication that might be expected with a proper Title 28 follow-up; nor a credible documentation no request for review by the NSA, CIA, DoJ, or other intelligence community inspector General. Senator Rockefeller’s actions, although may have been well intentioned, have launched his staff counsel into the proverbial prosecutorial trap. The leadership knew something to be concerned; but the Staff counsel would have us believe that they knew nothing; yet at the same time, Staff Counsel would ask that they be given the respect and deference to keep confidential the memoranda related to these commutations.

We judge the Communications are not related to any substantive legal discussions, but with a post-decision concern that the subsequent disclosures implicated both the Senator and the Staff counsel for not having timing removed themselves, nor reported the information they knew or should have known was not consistent with statute, and could not lawfully be classified under ORCON. It is impossible for Rockefeller and his Staff counsel to claim to realities at the same time – either they are competent, or they are not; either they are aware of the legal issues, or they are not. Regardless the convenient confusion, all possible ambiguity was removed once the President, Attorney General, and others publicly acknowledged the illegal activity, but there again was not substantive effort by any Staff counsel or Member of Congress to review the original Title 28 except reports that were known, or should have been known, not to have been consistent with what the President and Attorney General had a legal obligation not report. This problem surfaced and was well reported in the open media with the rendition efforts; the prisoner abuses; and the Geneva violations at Guantanamo. Bolton’s’ public disclosures of the domestic monitoring also failed to trigger a substantive Title 28 or Title 50 review by Members of Congress.

* * *

All 50 State Attorney Generals have the information they need to lawfully prosecute the President, Vice President, and Any Member of Congress. The evidence of the Title 2, Title 28, and Title 50 violations is believed to have been a joint agreement by Members of Congress not to enforce the law; and not follow-up on issues related to alleged war crimes. The lack of documentation is stunning.

There is no reasonable explanation for any grand jury why there was no follow-up on the letters to the US Attorney; nor a letter to the Inspector Generals outlining the problems with the Title 28 or Title 50 reports. The Grand Jury has yet to disclose the evidence that would warrant Congressional action. As with the 1974 Watergate Grand Jury, the Department of Justice has well entered the zone of reasonable public loss of confidence in the US justice system. It has failed, and Members of Congress have been allegedly complicit in its destruction as has the Attorney General and President.

The pattern of abuse, misconduct, and illegal activity is extraordinary. The Members of Congress and Executive Branch personnel well know or should know they have unlawfully failed to faithfully assert their oaths as required under 5 USC 3331. The Members of Congress and Executive Branch personnel have illegally put unlawful activity over their requirement to not classify illegal activity. They have jointly assented to illegal agreements to keep secret evidence of the Title 28 and Title 50 non-repots; and do not appear to be inclined to admit what they originally failed to do: Prevent war crimes. The Military Commissions Act language related to DoJ Staff counsel defense for US government officials and Contractors is noteworthy. This is public evidence that the Members of Congress knew, or should have known, that the legal mess they found themselves was hoped to be addressed with this defense. The Congressional language in the bill indicates there were specific discussions on the war crimes implications which Members of Congress refuse to publicly comment or acknowledge in the context of the Title 28 and Title 50 non-reports. Despite passing the illegal military commission bill, Congress has yet to publicly account for when it first knew of the illegal activity; or when it should have taken action non the known failures of the President and Attorney General not to file the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports. One would think, even under the false sense of security of immunity, Members of Congress and their Staff counsel would have openly discussed the illegal activity without fear of consequences. This has not happened, further undermining their contention that they took timely action; or that they had no idea what was happening. The language would only be dratted to support the opposite conclusion – that they knew what was happening, and they knew their action was not timely; and their conduct remains inadequate to support a credible 5 USC 3331 defense.

The evidence supporting Congressional Staff Council complicity is pervasive, not protected, and admissible. The documentation is intergovernmental transmissions, not protected by any rule of privilege, and is a lawful requirement for both the Executive and Attorney General to meet, and for Congress to have reviewed. Neither side of the data exchange and review process has successfully demonstrated full compliance with the spectrum of reporting requirements on all known illegal activity.

* **

These are issues of sovereignty. The scope of the evidence of illegal activity is well known within the Executive and Legislative branches. The interdepartmental communications continue to support the adverse inferences already disclosed by the Grand Jury in the Watergate Era: The evidence is substantial. The public has every reason to have grave doubts about the timeliness of the American judicial system to properly manage this problem.

Pelosi is of special interest. She is the Minority Leader. She appears to have popular support, although considerable opposition. Based on the open record, she appears to have a problem adequately running a single office. Her leadership skills although impressive, do not translate into effective staffing and Title 28 and Title 50 reviews. It defies reason to suggest she will be able to effectively use the same management skills which have otherwise not adequately checked the President as Minority Leader to do the same as Speaker. It Is not plausible the same representative who has trouble overseeing a few Congressional Staff counsel on Title 28 and Title 50 issues will be able to credibly oversee the larger patterns of abuse and illegal activity crossing many committees and branches of government.

Pelosi’s leadership problems on the Title 28 oversight, oath of office enforcement, and arguably reckless management of her Minority Staff counsel gives the War Crimes Tribunal Cause of concern. Once the pattern of conduct goes unchecked, her peers stand little chance of effective oversight, especially on issues which members of Congress, including Pelosi, have a vested interest in avoiding: The Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirements. Congressman Waxman appears to be in a more credible position not provide an effective example of competent oversight and aggressive fact finding that Leader Pelosi has otherwise failed to demonstrate with the apparent recklessness she has shown toward the Title 28 and Title 50 issues.

* * *

Going forward, We the People have several lawful options, none of them to Leader Pelosi’s liking. A New Constitution remains a violable option, one that would strip the Congressional leadership in both chambers of their discretion to review or not review the issues, and transfer this oversight and investigative function from the Executive Branch and combine the function in a competing 4th Branch of Government.

Also, Pelosi as Minority Leader should under go a public audit of the known Executive Branch reporting requirements to her as Minority Leader; and a sample of her responses to those known illegal activities. At first glance, the results do not appear to support her contention that she will remain a viable Speaker nor positioned to provide sustained leadership for the needed forms.

All known executive Branch reporting issues that should have been followed should be identified. The audit team, in conjunction with prosecutors and war crimes experts, should identify where there should be a known Title 28 and Title 50 requirements. Once there is a known illegal function or operations, that activity would be linked with a specific Title 28 and/or Title 50 report. Pelosi’s problem, confronting all Members of Congress, will be to reconstruct what they have or haven’t done after the original legal notification; and the subsequent disclosures in the open media. The Members of Congress also know their communications are subject to monitoring and have been disclosed to parties outside the US government. These are post-decision agreements and commutations not protected by privilege and admissible.

* * *

The form of the communications will be of interest to the War Crimes Tribunal. How Pelosi and Staff Counsel of the Congress were or were not notified is secondary to whether the notification ever occurred. There are e-mail diaries, classified websites, and other non-public information which, because of their connection with illegal activity, can also be disclosed, even if highly redacted.

Although the inspector Generals can only be lawfully removed by the President, they still may be lawfully impeached for having failed to provide emergency reports on matters they knew, or should have known were related to the gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports.

The US Code is fully of reporting requirements on matters of law, statute, and information between the Executive Branch and Congressional leadership. The list is not isolated to the Title 28 and Title 50 related issues. The list is possibly endless of the range of information the President and Attorney General legally were obligated to report, but the Members of Congress have not timely reviewed the completeness of these other exception reports. If the Committee Hearings on the FISA and NSA issues are of any measure, it can be presumed the Senators and their staff have privately discuss their legal options with private counsel.

The timelines, notifications, directions, and subsequent memoranda do not add up. DoJ IG appears incapable of timely providing a straight answer on when memoranda were or were not sent; or, when there was no memoranda, why we are in 2006 waiting for resolution of legal issues and notification which should have been made in early 2001. The unseemliness of the response warrants an upward adjustment in the sentencing.

DoJ and the US Attorney are also sitting on a pile of evidence awaiting Grand Jury review. The untimely reviews also warrant an upward adjustment for FBI agents and Senior DoJ personnel who know, or should know, the scope of the legal problems confronting staff counsel, senior DOJ Staff personnel, and the US Attorneys. Whether the information is or isn’t classified is secondary to whether there were or were not the required notifications on the classified, although illegal activity. ORCON prohibits classification of illegal activity; Counsel may not credibly argue that the information is protected so long as that illegal activity should have been reported, but was not timely documented as required under the Title 28 and Title 50 requirements. The alleged malfeasance, failures, and non-documenting include issues well before 9-11 occurred.

* * *

Members of Congress have fallen into the public trap of attempting to solve the President’s foreign policy issues, while making no credible case they can be trusted to address their primary obligation: To assert Article I powers, not provide patches for the wakened Article II leadership.

Members of Congress and the Congressional leadership should cease from doing the Presidents job. The President should resolve his legal issues; it is not appropriate for the Congress to (a) ignore their duties; (b) exercise powers only delegated to the President; and (c) leave We the People with the burden of organizing effective enforcement of the statutes.

The 2006 election clearly indicated who was in charge: Not the Republican Party. However, it is November 2006, and the Republicans remain legally responsible for what they have or have not done. It is not appropriate for the DNC leadership, after winning a victory, to tell We the People that options are not on the table. Rather, it is arguably reckless for the DNC, after having secured a position of trust and confidence, to not exercise the power it has to inform the public, and call for impeachment in the Well of the House.

There is no reason We the People, while Congress does nothing on these legal issues, should be required to do what was already done at the election: Organize, lead, and resolve the leadership problems. Once the DNC leadership secures their mandate, they are free to use the bully pulpit to call for action. The silence, despite the victory, is an indicator of a major problem. We the People should not have to request the States do anything; however, because of the decision to remain silent, We the People must make adverse inferences about the motivations of the US government officials, irrespective of their public political loyalties.

Congress has the power to wage war; the President should be forced to mange his legal problems related to illegal war. We the People should not be compelled to rally the nation – as Congressional leadership should do – to defend what is already in the Constitution. Rather than do their jobs, We the People must remind Members of Congress that they are under continued investigation for their war crimes; and that the President must be held accountable for his misconduct, just as Members of Congress are held to account for what they have or haven’t done to protect the Constitution.

* * *

Absurdly, without any Congressional assistance, the DNC leadership with their silence, are implicitly requiring US Citizens to hold a second referendum on the rule of law. Rather than call for an impeachment of the President, the DNC leadership has effectively told the US population that they must redo the 2006 election effort, but at the State level. It is a waste of the US Citizens' time to do the work that Congress could easily do: Simply make a single announcement that there is a charge of impeachment.

Government, as opposed to anarchy, is designed to be effective, not necessarily efficient. The 2006 Election showed the majority of voting Americans are voting for change. The Voters rejected the 2001-2006 GOP legacy. The majority of seats, linked with a census assigning roughly the same voters to each Congressional district, has tipped away from the GOP.

Impeachment is not an issue for the DNC to argue is their issue. Impeachment is a delegated power to protect the Constitution when the Article II powers refuse. The power to impeach remains.

The leadership remains in a posit onto use that position of power to influence, spread the word, and communicate the way forward. However, this joint GOP-DNC leadership has implicitly agreed to do nothing to resolve the known Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirements; nor link that known illegal conduct with a public inquiry into what was or was not done by Members of Congress. Once the President believe he is not subject to continuing investigations, Congress is effectively communicating that it is not serious about examining the other half of the equation – What Members of Congress did or didn’t do as attached to that impeachable conduct.

It is not reasonable or the DNC to put the burden o We the Pele – who already voted for them to lead – to do the work at the grass roots level, that cold be easily orchestrated if there were real leaders in either the DNC or GOP.

The Citizen led effort to hold t hues government to account will likely force the US Congress to confront the real prospect of a 3rd Party, a New Constitution, and a wave of new voters committed to make a difference in this citizen led effort. Both parties are not adequately positioned to provide leadership, nor effectively justify confidence thy are serious about their 5 USC 3331 legal requirements.

* * *

US Government Leadership Is Unconvincingly Playing Stupid

The US leadership cannot credibly claim that they didn’t know what was going on. Inaction by the GOP-DNC leadership is linked with their knowledge that the natural consequences of their inaction on war crimes could be the death penalty.

Rather than provide leadership from Congress, the implicit goal of the GOP-DNC leadership is to use the US population not confront each other to distract attention from what the US government officials in Congress and Executive Branch failed to do: Asser their oath, as measured by the Title 28 and Title 50 requirements.

The US government approach to impeachment is inefficient be design, wasting the public time to rally people away from the core legal issues of Congress. Any time spent on non-Congressional misconduct is of the interest to both parties: they have no interest to permit the expanding investigation in the President reveal the other lines of evidence attached with the alleged misconduct by Members of Congress, and their complicity with war crimes through the failed Title 28/50 reviews.

A republican form of government hinges on representation. Requiring the public to do the work of Congress turns the Constitutional relationship on its head. Absurdly, the Congressional leadership is prejudging inaction and the decision to do nothing on the basis of no information; yet the GOP-DNC leadership is refusing to act on information not on the basis of what may or may not happen to the Constitution, but what may or may not happen by way of Consequences to them individually. In effect, they’ve well demonstrated a motivation or mens rea to justify (in their own minds) inaction on a well known Title 28 and Title 50 review problem.

* * *

US Government Leadership Cannot Take Credit

Despite the inaction by the DNC-GOP leadership, the Members of Congress appear poised to take credit for what they have not done: Lead the effort to rally the nation not support protecting the Constitution. The leadership is not from Congress, where it ought to be, but from the few who dare to comprehend the absurdity of the situation.

The DNC-GOP leadership is not doing their jobs, nor exercising the leadership they are reasonably expected as political leaders. This is a separate issue than the legal issues before the War Crimes Tribunals and The Hague.

However, given the volume of work required to mobilize the citizenry, which Congress refuse to do, there is little stopping the newly mobilized from using their resources needed to pass the State proclamations to form a third party, draft a new Constitution, and formally lead the prosecution and impeachment effort to lawfully remove from office those implicated and convicted of having failed to assert their 5 USC 3331 obligations as they related to war crimes and Geneva violations.

The joint decision of the GOP-DNC leadership not to lead, and implicitly force We the People to do the job of Congress protecting the Constitution, puts We the People in a position not exploit this management system, craft a revised Constitution, and continue with a new effort that will lawfully destroy the political base of the GOP and DNC leadership.

* * *

GOP Senators are at risk of indictments for war crimes, and losing their jobs. Once lawfully removed from office, the first three weeks of 2009 offers the window to work with the new Senate Class that could tip well in the favor of removal from office. If they fail to act, in 2010, they could face severe voter backlash, especially if the anticipated war crimes indictments mount.

Only 17 GOP Senators need to be lawfully removed from office through indictments and prosecutions for 5 USC 3331 violations. Once they are replaced, and the DNC-GOP leadership is formally charged with war crimes, it is no longer credibly to argue that impeachment and lawful conviction of the President is off the table. It remains to be seen how many GOP Senators ultimately realize that their political and legal futures are in jeopardy, if not their lives (through a lawful adjudication of the death penalty), if they refuse to act and support what are arguably efforts to hide war crimes and not prosecute these issues, or otherwise do not fully cooperate with the US Attorneys and IGs on issues related to the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirements as they related to war crimes.

There is little supporting the GOP-DNC contention that impeachment-removal is not an option. Rather, the issue is what will credibly keep the GOP Senators in power if they vote to acquit the President, leaving him in office. This is not an outcome the DNC leadership can credibly claim credit going into the 2008 election.

* * *

As of November 2006, all 535 Members of Congress are potential targets of the war crimes prosecutors, subject to an appearance before The Hague.

It is not appropriate for the We the Pole to permit Members of Congress to get distracted with Presidential bungling in Iraq, while matters which Members of Congress should face are ignored: Congressional leadership to protect the Constitution.

None of the arguments for inaction are credible. The list of reasons to lawfully investigate, target, and prosecute the 535 members of Congress is well supported by the public record. We the Pele will have to temporarily do the jobs of Congress until we impose on them a new structure stripping them of the power they reuse to assert; and creating a system of governance that does what should have worked the first time: Assert the oath, and have a credible system in place to ensure the Constitution is protected, regardless political loyalty or preference to insurrection and rebellion against the Supreme Law and oath.

* * *

The DNC leadership is using methods which the Germans used during the 1930s: Keeping the citizenry busy with irrelevant things, hoping to cast their eyes away from the illegal activity. DNC leaders cannot credibly claim they are the subject of “unfair” attacks – they have openly stated they are not interested in certain legal issues, and their alleged failure to follow up on the Title 28 and Title 50 warrants a swift public rebuke.

Also, the rushed meetings on irrelevant matters reduces the time the public has to digest the legal issues, distracting attention from Congress.

The DNC-GOP leadership could issue a simple order to impeach, but would prefer their Members spend time doing the work f Congress: leading. The RNC and DNC have a joint interest not to review the impeachable offenses because of their alleged complicity with having failed to timely act. The excuse for inaction are well outweighed by the need for lawful action. There are compelling reasons to continue the investigation into all 535 Members of Congress for purposes of brining war crimes charges.

* * *

The same GOP-DNC leadership which botched the leadership on impeachment, is not finishing Congressional business in Nov 2006 and doing nothing to use the bully pulpit, but requires the public to do its work.

The Congress has yet to account for what it failed t do on the pre-9-11 illegal activity; this conduct cannot lawfully be classified: it is evidence of malfeasance. The illegal NSA pre-9-11 mentoring should have been reported in the Title 50 exception reports, and decision by the Attorney General in the Title 28 reports not to enforce the Statues.

It’s time to make the Congressional Staff counsel do its work.

It is important to now the key inconsistent argument. On one hand the legal community asks the public not to prejudge the verdict on the President or Members of Congress; while also arguing the opposite that nobody can make a judgment without information. Their solution is to neither make judgments nor gather information. That is, in effect, a decision not to provide leadership or govern as they are required to do per their 5 USC 333 oath of office.

There is no evidence the DNC-GOP leadership have properly requested the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports related to the Pre-9-11 NSA illegal activity. We can only speculate what other illegal activity Congress is doing nothing about

* * *

Keep in mind the other options:

Ref State proclamations calling for impeach

Ref War crimes prosecutions

Ref German war crimes prosecutor.

Ref Milan, Italy War Crimes Prosecutor (Rendition).

Ref Sample Disbarment Investigation by State Attorney Board

Maine State level investigation against the NSA activity

Ref New Constitution

Ref Ref Indictments against Members of Congress

Ref Enhanced ABA staff review

Ref Grand Jury-like evidence as we saw with Watergate (there’s a lot)

State level Grand Juries which citizens in NM and OK can vote for by passing the prosecutors.

Ref Recall the lessons of Vermont on the State Proclamation

Ref The GOP Senators are on notice: They have to do their jobs, not pretend they are immune to accountability. It’s too late to

Read more . . .