Draft Attorney-Disbarment Investigation Proposal: John Conyers

It is serious business when a sworn attorney allegedly defies their oath, and submits to interpretations of the Constitution that have not been expressly delegated or crafted.

What's worse is when someone claims to have the moral high ground over a President, who allegedly has delegated himself the power to ignore the Constitution, while the same attorney-representative is silent, and allegedly complicity with the same conduct within his own party.

The Congressman is presumed innocent until proven guilty or charged by the House Ethics Committee; or disbarred by the State Attorney Disciplinary Board.

See also:

A. Draft Pelosi Grand Jury Indictment.

B. Detailed questions about Conyers Ethics Conduct.

* * *

Allegations

John Conyers is a well known Congressman from Michigan, having served with distinction during the Watergate Hearings, and well represented his district for many years. He has been pointed to as a possible Presidential candidate. Conyers has single-handedly led the fight to hold the President to account, launching inquiries, appearing on national media, and receiving wide public support for his efforts to enforce the law. Having served with distinction as a practicing attorney, Conyers has well served the public as a well recognized Veteran.

It remains to be understood where the Congressman slid from this otherwise distinguished career, and apparently chose to engage in questionable conduct, assenting to non-Constitutional provisions. Even if Conyers were to accept the nomination to Chairman of the Judiciary Committee upon condition of him not honoring his oath to the US Constitution, he knew or should have known that the evidence of wrong doing and Presidential crimes was not something that an individual, but the House of Representatives as a body, must review.

Count 1. Illegal assent to Constitutional authority not delegated;

The Constitution does not provide for any person, group, or leader to review the President’s conduct and decide whether or not to impeach the President. This decision and judgment has been only delegated to the House of Representatives.

The Congress does not have the lawful power, authority, or grant of any privilege to assent to any other standard of conduct; nor may he supplant the wishes of a small group or individual over the intent of the Framers: To have the House of Representatives review the conduct.

Count 2. Conspiracy: Agreement to decline to freely vote on a matter of Constitutional law in exchange for a promise of a Chairmanship;

The alleged illegal agreement and assertion of non-delegated power is widely known. IT remains to be understood what the Speaker and the Congressman have jointly agreed in exchange for the assent to the unlawful agreement to ignore the express delegation of power only to the House of Representatives. What was agreed to is irrelevant; only that the outcome of that agreement was, and remains, an illegal abrogation, and unlawful amendment to the US Constitution.

Count 3. Illegal assent to Constitutional language not lawfully amended;

Conyers has no power to assent to another standard or oath outside the Constitution; nor does he have the authority to request others support him in his alleged rebellion against the express intent of the Framers.

Count 4. Refusal to assert ones oath of office, 5 USC 3331.

Conyers has yet to explain why, despite this narrow grant of specific power only to the House of Representatives, why the word of the Speaker should or should not override the express intent of the Founders: That no group or individual decide what is or is not the law: The law is up to the House of Representatives to decide.

Count 5. Other alleged misconduct

Incorporation by reference all material contained in the Draft Pelosi Grand Jury Indictment.

* * *

Legislators are granted wide latitude to engage in or not engage in legislative activity. Their vote can be conditioned upon any factor they choose.

However, it is not lawfully for any Members of Congress to agree to interpretations of the Constitution, or assent to power, which has not been delegated.

Based on information and belief, this proposal for a disbarment investigation seeks to identify the pattern, course of conduct, and other details related to the alleged agreement not to comply with the Constitution.

* * *

The Constitution expressly delegates to the House of Representatives, not the Offices of the House, the power to review impeachment issues.

The Congressman has not been given any power, nor does the Constitution allow him, to recognize Constitutional language or powers that have not been expressly delegated.

It is of little interest what the Congressman may have been at risk if he did not agree with the alleged threat to have his Chairmanship revoked. Rather, the issue is whether, despite an oath to the Constitution, the Congressman has or has not assented to powers and Constitutional language that have not been expressly delegated.

It appears the Congressman has not been clear with the agreement he has; or the reasons he has inconsistently derided the President's exercise of non-delegated powers, but has remained silent, and assented to a similar assertion of non-delegated power from the expected Speaker.

* * *

The Constitution expressly provides for the House of Representatives to review matters of impeachment. This delegation was expressly denied to the Supreme Court in that the Judicial Officers were not connected to the People. The intent of the Framers was to prevent a small group from making a decision related to impeachment, but ensure the impeachment-decision was linked with a large group connected to the People.

The Speaker and Congressman hardly meet the intent of the Framers. They are not a group, nor are they a large body. they are individuals. The Constitution only provides for the body of the House of Representatives to make the impeachment decision. Further, the Congressman and Speaker have no power to individually decide what the Constitution means; again, this is expressly delegated to the House of Representatives as a body to decide.

It remains to be understood why, despite the Constitution granting no power to the Speaker to make a sole impeachment decision, why an expert in the law would assent to a non-Constitutional standard; or to accept an interpretation of the Constitution which is outside the expected Speaker to make.

The Speaker is not the same as the House. The Constitution expressly distinguishes between the officers, the speaker and the body as a whole.

The Speaker has a track record of not being in harmony with the House. The House Members are not in agreement with the Speaker's wishes. The House of Representatives as a body may similarly choose to defy the Speaker and vote to impeach the President. The Congressman was not delegated any power to assent to a different standard than what the House of Representatives has may decide. This vote has allegedly been illegally denied, not permitted, and subject to other to-be-understood agreements.

The Speaker was not delegated any power to interpret the Constitution to suit her agenda. The Congressman was not delegated any authority to assent to what is arguably an unconstitutional assertion of non-delegated powers; and a rewriting of the Constitution to serve the interests of the Speaker, not We the People.

The Speaker was not delegated the power to make a decision for the House of Representatives on impeachment matters. The Constitution expressly delegates this power, not to the Speaker, but to the House of Representatives. The Congress is not in a legal position to assent to the lesser standard; nor may he lawfully claim in writing that he assent to a non-Constitutional decision by the Speaker to exercise non-delegated powers over a matter only delegated to the House.

* * *

___ What is the reason the Congressman is assenting to a review standard which the Constitution has not delegated to the Speaker

___ Is there a reason the Congressman has assented to a Constitutional standard of review which is not Consistent with the Constitution

___ Where does the Congressman find the language, authority, and detailed language in the Constitution that expressly provides for the Speaker to speak for the House on matters of impeachment

___ Is there a reason that the Congressman has assented to a standard of review, which does not match the Constitution

___ Where does the Congressman find in the Constitution language which delegates to the Speaker the power to speak, as an individual, on matters only delegated to the entire body of the House of Representatives

___ Can the Congressman point to any Constitutional rule, language, or standard that says that the Speaker's will, intent, and choice will always match the House Membership or the Will of the House of the Representatives

___ Does the Congressman comprehend that failing to bring a charge, as he otherwise has the power to do from the well of the House, is something that needs to be explained

___ Does the Congressman have an explanation, why -- despite his assertions that there was evidence warranting impeachment -- why the Congressman is unwilling, incapable, or not permitted to do what he has the lawful power to do: Individually charge the President with a crime from the well of the House

___ Does the Congressman wish to share the implied agreement between the Speaker and himself: If the individual Members of the House did not do what they had the lawful power to do -- bring a charge against the President -- that they would be rewarded with chairmanships

___ Does the Congressman not have an explanation why -- despite the vote by the DNC members not to agree with the Speakers choice on the Majority leader -- the House Memberships’ will and choice cannot be shown to be in harmony with the Speaker; or that the Will of the House of Representatives should or should not be presumed to match the single word of the expected Speaker?

___ Please discuss the planned effort by the Congressman and House leadership to block the House of Representatives from reviewing the impeachable offenses.

___ Please discuss the plan, agreement, or other implied understanding not to review the State Proclamations; or deny the House of Representatives a chance to discuss the State Proclamation calling for impeachment.

___ Please distinguish between the (a) President’s alleged abuse of non-delegated powers; and (b) the apparent similar abuse of non-delegated powers over who can or cannot stop the House from reviewing the alleged conduct warranting impeachment: Why is it unacceptable for the President to exercise non-delegated power; but it is permissible for the House leadership as a small group to exercise powers only delegated to the House of Representatives as a body?

___ Please reconcile the difference between (a) the House Membership position on the Majority Leader; with (b) the presumption of the Speaker that her decision replaces the will of the House: How can anyone argue that the Speaker's decision can replace the House when the House has shown it is not willing to permit the Speaker's decision to go unchallenged?

___ The Congressman has derided the President for twisting the statutes, Constitution to suit his objectives. Please discuss why the similar creative twisting of the Article 1 Section 2 powers is or is not different than what the President is accused in re Article II and his signing statements.

___ Please discuss 5 USC 3331 in the context of malfeasance: When a Member of Congress has taken an oath in the year 2004 to protect the Constitution, but action is inconsistent with non-Constitutional language, how does one go before the public to assert that they are in a superior position to judge the President for similar alleged misconduct?

___ Please discuss the agreement, alleged conspiracy, and other promises given or made in exchange for not challenging the Speaker's allegedly unconstitutional position with respect to whether she does or does not have the power to speak for the House of Representatives

___ How does the Congressman distinguish between Pelosi’s apparent self-delegation of powers-not-granted with that of the President: The President had to start small, and then build; how does the Congressman differentiate the same apparent inaction which enabled the President to expand his abuse of power with that of the blossoming Speaker, similarly unchallenged. What other abuses have occurred, but have been hidden for the sake of "larger party objectives" as the President and Rove used?

* * *

Adverse Inferences

The Congressman cannot point to any language in the Constitution which permits him to assent to a lesser standard than that which permits the entire body of the House of Representatives to make a decision on impeachment.

Based on information and belief, we judge the Congressman has allegedly illegally agreed to language in the Constitution that does not exist; and has illegally assented to a delegation of power to the Speaker that has only been delegated to the House of Representatives.

We judge the Congressman, like the President he has accused, has assented to language in the Constitution that does not exist; and has done so, as the President has done, for unstated, to be understood reasons.

The same Congress which refuses to review the President's conduct -- that of acting outside the Constitution -- is equally complicity in doing the same: Not effectively challenging what is not Constitutional, delegated, or expressly authorized or permitted. Until the Congress faces the simple issue of whether the President is or is not following the Constitution, the Congress cannot credibly claim that it is capable of meeting that standard in house.

The House leadership, by their action and words, show they are not different than the President they accuse of crimes, but choose to do nothing about.

The Speaker and Congressman and others are allegedly involved in an illegal conspiracy to craft new language in the Constitution recognizing powers in the Speaker she was not delegated; and have allegedly illegally agreed to not respect the express intent of the Framers when they delegated to the House of Representatives the power to review what the Speaker may oppose.

Nobody can make a case that the Constitution says anything else: That the House of Representatives has the power to review the Impeachable offenses. The Speaker has not been delegated any power to make this decision; at best, the House has shown, in rejecting her choice for Majority leader, a mind of its own -- apparently wholly disconnected from the implicit agreement between the Speaker and Congressman to do something else.

It is time the Speaker and the Congressman explain their position. Whether they choose to explain their decision is irrelevant. The public is capable of making adverse inferences and prompting the house of reprehensive to face what the Congressman, Speaker, and others have allegedly illegally prevented the House of Representatives from reviewing.

We the People have the power to pass more state proclamations;

We the People may lawfully work with our Sate attorney generals to lawfully prosecute Members of Congress who have defied their oath;

We the People may lawfully work with our state bar disciplinary boards to target for investigation and disbarment Members of Congress who defy their oath and refuse to assent to the requirements in the Constitution;

We the People the People may lawfully work with any other person, State, entity, or group to ensure that the Constitution that the Speaker and Congressman have taken an oath to protect is lawfully asserted against them.

We the People may lawfully conclude that the same abuse of powers which this president illegally has engaged is similarly practiced by this House leadership;

We the People may lawfully encourage our peers, colleagues, and other American citizens to lobby their Elected officials, to put pressure on the House ethics board to immediately open an investigation into this alleged conspiracy to recognize non-deflagrated Constitutional powers

We the People may lawfully work with any group of people in either party to work to have the Speaker and Congressmen expelled so long as they continue to allegedly conspire, work to a standard outside the Constitution, and unlawfully deprive the House of preservatives a chance to review whether the President has or has not engaged in conduct warranting impeachment.

We the People may work with anyone to encourage the House of Representatives to find new leadership, support Committee Chairman who comprehend their oath, and who are not browbeaten to assent to language which does not exist in the Constitution.

Until the Speaker and Congressman renounce their alleged conspiracy to unlawfully recognize powers not delegated, We the People may assume that the President, Speaker, and Congressman have indirectly agreed to exercise non-delegated powers to suit political objectives, and deny Constitutional authority of the House of Representatives to make an informed, independent, and lawful decision as to whether there has or has not been an abuse of power by either the President, Speaker, or the Congressman.

* * *

Evidence

Signed, dated letter stating alleged agreement with Speaker to non-constitutional decision: Of the Speaker making a decision not to impeach, while ignoring the Constitutional language which only delegates that decision-power to the House of Representatives.

Expected Speaker Pelosi assertion that she and the leadership would decide whether there would or would not be an impeachment, an unconstitutional assertion of powers not delegated to the Speaker, only to the House of Representatives.

Inaction by any members of Congress on issues of impeachment, despite the power and authority of any Representatives of the House of Representatives to individually go to the well of the House and charge the President with a Crime.

State proclamations in Vermont, Illinois, and California: There remains a credible threat to compel the House of Representatives to face the issue of impeachment; and that the Speaker will have to decide whether she will illegally prevent the House from reviewing the matter; or whether she will silently accept that the House of Representatives may disagree with her, as they did in her rebuke of her choice of House Majority leader.

"Constitution in Crisis" by John Conyers deriding the President's assertion and abuse of non-delegated powers: Showing the Congressman well knows what is or is not a delegation of power; what an abuse of power is; and that he understands that exercise of non-delegated power is not Constitutional.

Other Issues

It remains to be adjudicated whether, by allegedly illegally assenting to language which does not exist, whether the implied promise of a Chairmanship was conditioned upon the Congressman not doing something he would otherwise do: Charge the President with a crime. It is not lawful to refrain from a legislative act in exchange for something of value. This is called malfeasance.

It is lawful to agree to do or not do something that is discretionary; or agree to do something that is required. However, it is not lawful to agree to do something that is outside the scope of the Constitution's delegation.

* * *

What You Can Do

If you have additional information of interest to investigators, feel free to contact the people at this link.

Discuss with your friends whether this proposed New Constitution would or would not mitigate the above alleged misconduct; if not, what improvements would you like to see.

* * *

Michigan Bar Disciplinary Procedures

This is information presented for information for the public and attorneys to review.

Ref Identifying information.

Ref Grievance Filing Process in Michigan.

Ref Form to Sign.

Commentary On Attorney Standards of Conduct

These are some of the standards of conduct an attorney such as Congressman Conyers would be subject to review, and may be of interest to the public when reviewing the above allegations.

Ref 8.4 Alleged Misrepresentation.

Ref Commentary on Michigan Rule 8.4.3

Ref Commentary on Michigan Rule 8.4.2

Ref 8.3 Duty of Attorney-peers to report alleged attorney misconduct.

Ref 8.3.2. Mandatory Reporting of Alleged Attorney-Peer Misconduct. These are arguably serious matters.

* * *

House Ethics

Once an investigation begins, the accused-attorney has a dual responsibility to cooperate with criminal investigators, Congressional Ethics, and State Disciplinary officials.

Ref Allegedly, the pattern of misconduct is not isolated to a single member, but crosses both political aprties:

1. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.

2. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House of Representatives and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof.

The irony is that, if the Congressman has allegedly assented to an illegal construction of the Constution, and not asserted his oath; he may be prohibited from participating in subsequent proceedings related to the President's impeachment.

10. A Member of the House of Representatives who has been convicted by a court of record for the commission of a crime for which a sentence of two or more years' imprisonment may be imposed should refrain from participation in the business of each committee of which he is a member and should refrain from voting on any question at a meeting of the House, or of the Committee of the Whole House, unless or until judicial or executive proceedings result in reinstatement of the presumption of his innocence or until he is reelected to the House after the date of such conviction. Ref

If the Congressman is lawfully convicted of violating his oath of office 5 USC 3331, he may not be able to vote a Chairman or as a Member on any committee; and he may be denied the authority to vote on an article of impeachment against the President he might have otherwise drafted.


* * *

There are also issues which the Congressman appears to have a problem:

Ref Conyers has allegedly made out of court statements related to his intention not to do something. It remains to be understood his reasoning for not exercising powers and duties as a Member of Congress to ensure the House of Representatives as a body is given the opportunity to independently review the matter. Conyers has made material, out of court statements in a non-legislative setting, permitting that evidence to be introduced as evidence; and no claim can be asserted for legislative immunity on matters disclosed to third parties.

Ref The Congressman appears to have fallen into a prosecutorial trap:

A. Either the Congressman is aware of the legal requirements in the Constitution that all conduct be Constitutional; and he is aware of the illegal conduct of the President; and has allegedly illegally assented to a construction of the House Powers at odds with the Constitution; or

B. By issuing statements he did not intend to enforce, the Congress cannot explain why he has one standard for the President, and another for Members of Congress: Why one set of Constitutional violations by the President are subject to report and comment; but like Constitutional violations by the Legislative Members cannot be publicly discussed, reviewed, or examined.

Ref Commentary on Rule 4.4.2: It remains to be understood to what extent the Congressman has allegedly disregarded the rights of Americans and the States to have an enforcement mechanism attached with the Constitutional Guarantee to the States that they enjoy a republican form of government. The Congressman, when he took the oath to protect the Constitution, did not promise to only faithfully serve his party; but the opposite: To faithfully protect the Constitution, and ensure all people and States enjoy a Constructional government.