Oversight Plan: Public Oversight of Congress

November 2006 is the Start of the 2008 Election Season. All 535 members of Congress are on probation. They may be lawfully removed for violations of the law.

You may find this checklist useful in evaluating whether Members of Congress need some attention. Feel free to share with your friends, disseminate widely, and use without attribution.

The goal: Remind all 535 Members of Congress We the People outnumber them and shall lawfully impose our will on them every day between November 2006 and November 2008.

They wished this.

* * *

Important Note: The following checklist references US statute numbers, and other US legal requirements. For your convenience, they are summarized at this link. You may find it useful to keep the reference list open in a separate browser window as you read the content below.

Ref Statutes for reference.

Welcome

This is a checklist with discussion to assist you as you prepare for the 2008 elections. Members of Congress appear to have a hard time comprehending that they are significantly outnumbered: There are over 300 million of us, and only 535 of them.

Even a marginal organization between now and 2008 might stand a chance of engaging in effectively oversight of Congress.

The aim of the information below is not intended to replace criteria you may wish to independently develop or use to evaluate your Member of Congress. Rather the information below is intended to illustrate how easy it is for anyone to develop specific criteria to evaluate Members of Congress, and starting in the Winter of 2006 aggressively oversee and monitor whether the members of Congress are serious about doing one thing: Protecting the Constitution.

* * *

We the People are free to do what we like, while those in office are constrained by many variables. We are at an advantage. Members of Congress are, by design, at a disadvantage they have to do several things at the same time:

- Govern
- Assert their oath
- Legislate
- Not make errors that would warrant their prosecution
- Not make errors that would warrant their disbarment, removal from office, or expulsion by the Congress
- Do their jobs
- Respond to constituent issues and information

The information below is designed to give voters and non-voters information that will help complicate the Member of Congress job: You will be given specific criteria that even the most novice of citizens should be able to comprehend. Unfortunately, the signs are clear in November 2006 – Congress appears to be somewhat confused about their job: Protect the Constitution and assert their oath.

* * *

Rather than do their jobs, one trick Congress likes to play is to change the subject from whether they are or are not competent; to whether We the People are or are not being reasonable. It’s a smokescreen. We the People can use any criteria to evaluate whether Members of Congress are or are not competent, fit to remain in office, or should be removed through lawful options.

The information below may serve as a guide for anyone to evaluate whether the media, open discussions, and the public are or are not effectively challenging Members of Congress. Ideally, the smartest and brightest should be elected to office; and those who are most loyal to the Constitution should be given more respect; while those who put their party alliances before their oath should be deprived of respect.

* * *

The information below will be useful in measuring whether Members of Congress are or are not doing their job. We measure their effectiveness by their conduct and results, not their words and excuses.

Members of Congress are always on probation. We the People can find new leaders. New leaders can be trained to do what Congress refuses to do – effectively govern, not make excuses.

Every day, We the People will have to lawfully apply the pressure to all 535 Members of Congress to compel results, monitor their conduct, and evaluate whether they are or are not serious about protecting the Constitution. If they fail, We the People can lawfully organize to find someone else who has less of a competence problem, and can more easily focus on the number one priority: The Constitution. Indeed, it is possible that new leaders may be found outside the ranks of the RNC and DNC. It will take two years for the first test.

Every day is another opportunity to challenge the government: Why should anyone have confidence in you; and what are you doing to demonstrate that you are serious about the Constitution, not giving excuses to ignore its destruction. The Members of Congress and all government officials have the burden of proof.

We the People have the ultimate power to decide who is or is not doing their job. We are always in the first position; Members of Congress shall never be given a meal for being in second position. They are there because they have chosen to give up liberty and discretion to be bound by their oath. This is their requirement, not something we need to consider as something warranting celebration. The Member of Congress, at best, should be celebrating the fact that we have decided to assent to their nauseating excuses.

* * *

It’s not difficult to find and train new leaders. We the People can easily instill in our ranks the simple notion of a “solutions”-attitude. Members of Congress may or may not comprehend this notion.

The following is a list of quick questions to consider. These are not ranked by importance. It is left to We the People to decide which are most relevant to a given situation. Remember only one thing: Members of Congress are forever walking on political thin ice; We the People have the power to compel answers, share with others their responses, and make adverse inferences if the government is not willing to put actions behind their oath to the Constitution.

___ Do they do what they should; or is there a concern not with what is right, but hw to hide the information from the public and disguise the problems of the Member of Congress.

___ How doe their excuses match their conduct

___ Do they roll over or assert their oath

___ Do they make excuses or do their job

___ Do they assent to non-sense, or do their jobs faithfully

Notice we’re not talking about issues like whether a Member of Congress is for or against a particular social issue. The importance is whether the Member of Congress demonstrates with action and results that they have the appropriate focus: The Constitution, and are not distracted by other issues. Where they cannot focus, We the People can compel them through lawful threat of removal, disbarmen0t, prosecution, and other lawful sanctions including new rules and a New Constitution.

Members of Congress have no power to prevent We the People from imposing on them a new Constitution outside the Article V amendment process. Article V only applies to the government; it is not a requirement that We the People have to respect when drafting a New Constitution from square one. Members of Congress have no power to comment on, influence, or object to new plans We the People craft, create, discuss, or share which may lawfully impose greater burdens on Members of Congress, and more easily protect our rights, and prevent them from abusing power.

* * *

Members of Congress have between November 2006 and November 2008 to demonstrate results and their loyalty to the Constitution; not a loyalty to excuses, or party rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution.

The Standards that we the People may use to evaluate the Member of Congress is up to our arbitrary will; the Member of Congress has no input to the standards we use to evaluate them. The burden is always on them to respond, react, and submit to the will of We the People.

___ Does your member of Congress point to solutions, or excuses; do they embrace responsibility or are they oblivious to the risk that we can find new leaders.

___ Is your Member of Congress competent

___ Does the Member of Congress focus on solutions

___ Is the Member of Congress using the distraction of “issues” and “their position” to distract attention from whether they are engaging in leadership

A simple list of reasonable expectation can be established; and they can be arbitrarily changed without notice. These standards are clearly established going forward from November 2006. They are equally applicable to the GOP which remains in charge and still in power, controlling both Houses of Congress in the Winter of 2006.

No member of Congress may claim that they were not warned; nor that it is our job to explain and justify the rationale behind these standards. Rather, it is the job of the Member of Congress to either comply with these standards; or make a credible case that something other than their oath of office and their supreme loyalty to the Constitution need not be enforced.

Members of Congress will not be in a credible position to ever argue that We the People have a burden. We have no obligation other than to respect the Constitution; however we do not have an eternal obligation to assent to abusive power, nor violations of our rights.

___ Is Congress serious about doing its job?

___ Does it competently enforce the oath of office

___ Is the House rule enforcement mechanism targeting Members of Congress who defy their oath

___ Is Congress asserting its Article I powers against the Article II Executive and the Article III Judiciary

___ Is the House forcing compliance with standards and the Will of We the People

___ Is the Congress demonstrating through actions, not retroactive changes to the law, that it comprehends that legislative acts are the will of We the People

___ Is Congress refusing to enforce the will of We the People

___ How can Congress credibly assert it is doing its job of protecting the Constitution when it fails to assert its power, assent to illegal conduct, or accept violations of the Supreme Law without a comment?

___ Is Congress taking action; or is it accepting excuses, distractions, and non-sense to justify failing to assert its oath.

___ Is Congress serious about enforcing its will and legislative acts

___ How serious is Congress in asserting its Article I powers

___ Despite all the congressional requirements, is Congress doing nothing about the President’s violations of these specific, mandatory, ministerial requirements

Congress has well outlined the solutions to problems. Congress has well documented its expectations, principles, and standards. These are called Statutes. The President has no option but to enforce the laws; where he refuses to enforce the laws, he may be lawfully be impeached. This is a Constitutional power delegated only to the House of Representatives. It is a legal tool the Congress has when the President and others have violated the law, but the Executive branch and investigators refuse to enforce the law against the Executive Branch.

We the People never delegated to Congress the power of discretion as to whether the impeachment is or is not an option. It is an eternal check on the Article II branch. Failure to assert that power, in light of egregious violations f the Supreme Law, can be admitted into evidence to lawfully prosecute Members of Congress for war crimes, violations of their oath, and other misconduct warranting removal from office. It is irrelevant that the US Government may be in illegal, joint agreement to ignore the Constitution, rebel against the Supreme Law, or actively support an insurrection against the rule of law. We the People have the Supreme Power to lawfully impose on the US government a new system which they will be forced to assent to should they illegally decide the current US Constitution is discretionary, too difficult, or inconvenient to enforce. They have no choice; We the People have the final decision. If Members of Congress fail to assert their power, we may lawfully deprive them of any and all powers and delegate that power to a new body which is somewhat serious about doing what Congress refuses to do: Assert the rule of law, protect the Constitution, and ensure they faithfully assert their oath of office.

* * *

Members of Congress are temporarily delegated some powers which We the People may revoke, redelegate, or deny at any time. Congressional power can be imposed through statutes, budgets, oversight, enforcement, reporting, and can impose sanctions. These options have already been outlined and have well stated in detail what the President should or should not do.

IN response, given the President’s apparent memory problems, Congress has devised something novel: Written law. The President and his staff counsel have the fortunate ability to review what Congress imposes on him: It is called a written statute. The Statute is a requirement. The President has no option.

However, there are some cases where the President may choose to ignore the law, not enforce it, or do other things. The Congress permits this. Congress, when the President does this, establishes a simple procedure under Title 28: It is the Notification letter where the US Attorney tells the Congress which laws the President is not going to enforce. This is in writing. The writing is not classified; the refusal to enforce the law is permissible if the President informs the Congress in writing. Upon notification of the refusal to enforce the law per Title 28 (and other similar statutes), the Congress may choose to openly or in private discuss the issue.

The problem this Congress has is that despite the legal process available to enforce and ignore the law; Members of Congress have a problem: They’ve known about illegal activity, but cannot point to specific Title 28 enforcement letters they’ve received. Indeed, some have suggested that the matter cannot be discussed because it is secret. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant: Congress has the power to conduct secret hearings and review the illegal activity, and decide what to do.

Despite the above options, this Congress jointly agreed to do nothing. The problem for the ranking members on the various committees is that they cannot claim they had no power. The Constitution and Statutes also provide for notification to the Minority Leader and the ranking members of the Committees. When there are hearings, any member of Congress can forward to the US Attorney a request for review of the evasive answers. Ranking Members on the Committees can also send at any time a letter to the Inspector Generals asking them to review a matter.

These options are outlined in Title 2 of the US Code. Members of Congress have staff counsels who advise them on these illegal options. Members of Congress are paid to assert their oath, not create excuses.

Here are some links to the above statutes. You will see that all Members of Congress have the option to compel the US Attorney to review a matter; can document their concerns to the IG; and can work with their peers to impose their will on the Executive Branch. The issue going forwards is: Are members of Congress willing to exercise these legal options; or are they given us excuses.

___ When the President says something is classified and cannot be discussed or enforced, have the Members of Congress openly discussed the Title 28 exception reports?

___ What is the reason, despite the decision not to comply with the Article I requirements in the Statute, that the Congress is not reviewing whether the President has or has not fully complied with the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirements on particular decisions not to enforce the law?

___ Once Members of Congress were informed of the legal violations, can any Member of Congress point to any document outlining their concerns; how was this information made available to the Inspector General and US Attorney.

Going forward, the issue is not whether the issue was or was not classified, but whether every of the 535 Members of Congress did or did not do their job; and whether they can or cannot point to a document outlining their legal concerns in response to what has been shown to be gross, reckless disregard for the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirements to Congress, which could have been done in secret.

The President violated the law. Members of Congress were complicity in refusing to review whether the required Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirements did or did not fully report the decision to not enforce the law.

NO claim can be made that these letters were discretionary. There are requirements. There is also no legal basis to suggest that any of the Members of Congress were denied the legal right, power, or authority to see that the law was enforced. The Title 28 and Title 50 requirements are joint burdens on the President and the Members of Congress:

___ Did the President violate the law or comply with it

___ Did the planned violation of the law get documented in the memoranda to Congress

___ Did the Congress review the written memoranda

___ Once Congress was aware of the violations, did it timely follow-up to review whether the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting obligations were not fulfilled

___ How can any Member of Congress argue that they were doing their job, but there is no documented trail between (a) the known publication of the illegal activity; (b) the open admission of the illegal activity by the President and Attorney General; (c) the known problem that the illegal activity had not been documented in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; and (d) The failure of the Congress to follow-up with the President on the difference between (1) the illegal activity that was not reported; and (2) The failure to provide documentation where there was a requirement.

* * *

The crux of the oversight problem for Congress is that their proposed solutions – passing new laws, or legalizing something – is meaningless when the existing laws are ignored. Even when Congress grants the President the power to violate the law – so long as he reports it – it is meaningless to pretend the Congress is engaged in oversight when it fails to enforce the law against the President who has otherwise failed to comply with (a) the original law; (b) the subsequent deviation report; and (c) the assent to Congressional oversight.

It is meaningless for Congress to argue about how it might “legalize” an illegal policy without looking in the mirror: To what extent has the Congress, despite asserting its power through a statute, not effectively enforced that statute, nor adequately compelled the Members of Congress to account for the failure to enforce Title 28 and Title 50.

Ethics is more than who did or didn’t get paid bribes with trips, meals, and other gifts. Ethics is about removing all excuses to enforcing the law.

The Watergate Grand Jury when it knew it had information related to a pattern of Criminal Conduct, knew it has a problem: If it didn’t report the information, the public would lose confidence in the legal system. The problem of 1974 has mushroomed into a reasonable public loss of confidence in the entire system of governance in the United States. It has failed. Congress cannot point to itself as a solution: It is the problem.

We the People will have to remind this Congress that we know what happened; that the requirements in the law were not enforced; individual members of Congress did not timely document their concerns with the US Attorney, President, or Inspector Generals; and Members of Congress individually, when they learned of the illegal activity, did not take time to review their legal obligations to review what they should have done when they knew that the President had violated Title 28 and Title 50.

Congress has been given fair warning: It passed the very laws and statutes that it pretends it can ignore. We the People are presumed to know the law. It is irrelevant that Members of Congress cannot find the time to read the bills they vote on; We the People shall have to compel the Members of Congress to jointly review the legal implications of failing to enforce, document, and protect the Constitutional requirements in Title 28 and Title 50. Whether they are or are not voted out of office has little meaning to a State Attorney General who is interested in protecting the States to their right to a Constitutional Republic—one that includes an enforcement mechanism. Members of Congress do not have the power to trump state law with lawlessness. Rather, State officials may lawfully impose the Constitution and its legal consequences on the Members of Congress when the Congress refuses to defend and protect the document.

* * *

The issue going forward is to explore with Congress what legal, Constitutional tools and powers it needs – above and beyond what it has, but will not use – that will prevent this from happening again: Wholesale defiance of the Constitution by the US government, and a broad refusal to enforce violations of the law from the President down to the lowest level government employee.

Congress will need to make the case that passing new laws, which have otherwise been jointly not enforced, will solve this problem. The alterative is to create a new system that will remove the discretion from Congress, and delegate that power to a 4th Branch that would have the sole responsibility to do what the Congress refuses to do: Enforce the law against the President and all US government officials. The Congress and President would be denied the power to thwart, stop, interfere, or block investigations.

Indeed, there may be a solution which Congress is keeping hidden. However, like President Nixon’s “secret plan” for Vietnam, if Congress had a solution, surely one of the Members of Congress would have waved it before We the People to convince us their divine connection, leaving us gasped and amazed. There has been no waving, only a slow burning of the US Constitution. WE the People are not amazed – we are disgusted with the illegal rebellion this US Government has actively engaged against Our Constitution. They made a poor choice. We have options.

* * *

It is the burden of Members of Congress to provide a full accounting of what they were doing, what they documented, and where their letters are to the US Attorney, Inspector General, and other requests for legal assistance. These are not issues of privilege. These are legal requirements under the Statute which Members of Congress knew they had as option to assert their Article I powers.

They have failed. Until they prove that they did their moral best, WE the People should assume that the illegal rebellion by this US Government against the Constitution continues; and that the Members of Congress are not serious about modernizing the Ethics Statutes to enforce against Members of Congress their failures to follow-up on Title 28 and Title 50 reports which they knew they didn’t get.

Translation: Each of the 535 Members of Congress are potential defendants in a 5 USC 3331 investigation, and remain legitimate targets of the US Attorney, war crimes prosecutors, and State Attorney Generals when enforcing the Supreme Law against each of the 535 alleged criminals in the Congress who have allegedly defied their oath; nor timely responded to the failure of the President to report the Title 28/Title 50 exception reports.

WE the People have two years to lawfully remind each of the 535 Members of Congress that we know the law; and it is their burden to justify why they should not be jailed. The rule of evidence do not apply to WE the People. The burden is on the government to convince We the People that the government is doing its job. Where there are no Title 28 reports, We the People may make the adverse inference that the violations were known, contemplated, but not reported; and that the Members of Congress did not do their moral best to find out why, despite the known illegal activity, there were no Title 28 reports.

Indeed, all 535 Members of Congress are potentially stuck in a legal problem they have created for themselves. We the People can make adverse inferences.

* * *

Members of Congress are still in power in November 2006. They seem to believe that they can “coast along” for the next six weeks until January 2007, and there’s nothing that can be done.

However, they do have a small problem. The Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirements are known, and their (apparent) reckless disregard for this requirement is something that We the People may wish to consider.

___ If the Congress is not willing to enforce the law, or compel the President to meet his legal obligations, why should they be trusted with power?

___ If the Congress is not willing to ask questions about mandatory Title 28 reports, reporting the planned and ongoing illegal Presidential activity, why should Congress retain the power to investigate issues?

___ What is the sense of passing “new laws” when the existing law are not followed?

___ If the “solution” to the Congressional oversight problem is to “require more reports from the President,” what use is it to require more reports when the original reports – which were required – were never provided, and Congress does nothing?

Congress has the burden to demonstrate it has a solution to its credibly problem. We the People already have a New Constitution under active development, debate, discussion. Congress has been DENIED the power to have any input into this New Constitution.

* * *

When talking about patterns of conduct, and governance, Congress has the simple responsibility to assert its power. Where Congress decides to not enforce the law, WE the People may presume they are in active rebellion and insurrection against the Constitution; this adverse inferences is supported when Congress has legal tools to review the President, but fails to use them; or is has imposed mandatory reporting requirements on the President to discuss exceptions to law enforcement, but the Congress and President jointly agree to not comply and not enforce this requirement.

Congress has no power to ignore the Constitution; nor can it lawfully agree to its destruction. We the People have a power to do something Congress cannot: We may lawfully reciprocate.

Where Congress ignores the law, we may lawfully ignore their excuses for failing to enforce the law.

Where Congress refuses to protect the Constitution, we may lawfully ignore their excuses as to why we should have confidence in what does not work.

Where Congress refuses to assert its oath, we may lawfully ignore its request that we wait until they feel like getting around to doing their job.

Congress has no power to make We the People do something unless we agree. We the People have not agreed to permit any Member of Congress to wait until “next year” to review evidence of criminal conduct; nor can they pass bills permitting illegal activity; nor can they approve activity which does not comply with the Supreme Law. These acts of Congress cannot be presumed to be legal, especially when they are – if Members of Congress were to read their oath, Constitution, and the bill – unconstitutional.

Congress needs to explain what its plan is to demonstrate that it will no longer pass illegal bills. Again, if there is a plan, Members of Congress have yet to explain it. We the People may make the adverse inference they have no plan to show the law is Constitutional before they pass it; rather, this Congress would tell, not ask, We the People to accept whatever it says or does is lawful.

Those days never existed. It is November 2006. We the People have the power to lawfully target all 535 Members of Congress, lawfully hound them for answers, and forward the evidence to prosecutors, US Attorneys, State Attorney Generals and war crimes prosecutors. The burden of the defense is on the Members of Congress.

* * *

Let’s review what the Members of Congress have to do no a daily basis:

___ Is the Member of Congress looking at patterns of misconduct before the 9-11 incident (unrelated to the excuse of the day)

___ Has the Member of Congress dared to review the patterns of illegal activity that were starting before the towers fell down

___ What is the reason that the Members of Congress are not examining the illegal NSA spying prior to Sept 2001

___ How can any Member of Congress argue “it was a new world after 9-11” when the President was already violating the law prior to Sept 2001

___ Does the Member of Congress have any evidence that they’ve documented the Title 28 and Title 50 deviation reports

Members of Congress have lazily assumed We the People will not see through the ruse. If it was a “new day” after Sept 2001, it was not a new day before Sept 2001: The Title 28 reporting requirements still existed, were not followed.

Members of Congress have illegally pointed to Sept 2001 events as an excuse to pretend that they have no oversight responsibility; and that despite the illegal surveillance prior to Sept 2001, they don’t’ have to do anything. Wrong answer.

___ Is Congress following the clear standards and requirements of the law; or are they shifting the focus form their alleged malfeasance to the messengers of that malfeasance

___ Are clear requirements, promises, and oaths been enforced

___ Are new requirements being created outside the original standards to justify inaction

___ Is Congress, despite the clear Constitution, pretending that there are new requirements as to whether they are or are not going to enforce the law

___ Is Congress shifting the burden of responsibility to We the People

___ Is Congress looking at the law, oaths, statutes, and Constitution as discretionary, debatable, or a lesser standard that does not need to be enforced

___ To what extent was the illegal conduct conducted because Congress was unwilling to assert its power, had a loyalty to something other than its oath of office, or recklessly ignored the Title 28 reporting requirement

Congress is stuck in a no-win situation. The Members of Congress jointly know they have a problem. They may have “voted against” the Military Commissions Bill, but they hope to enjoy the benefits of having retroactive immunity for failing to prevent war crimes. In exchange for their “non-enforcement of the law against the President” the President has illegally agreed not to investigate the Members of Congress for war crimes.

Small problem: The Military Commission Bill cannot retroactively have any force before war crimes Commission; and the Power has no authority to block the State Attorney Generals from enforcing the law; nor does the Congress or President have the power to retroactively grant themselves immunity for international war crimes; nor do they have the power to defend themselves against their failure to review the illegal activity, and non-reports of Title 28 violations which occurred prior to Sept 2001.

Yes, the “vote against” the Military Commissions Bill was a sham. The Members of Congress jointly agreed to “oppose” something that was not lawful; in exchange for the bill being passed, the Members of Congress jointly hoped to derive valuable benefits, and reward themselves for inaction: Making We the People pay for their legal defenses, despite their legal requirement and duty to have done the opposite of what they did: Inaction, silence, and no follow-up on the President’s known violations of the law prior to the events of Sept 2001.

Had they done what they promised to do – enforce the law – there would have been no requirement for the Congress to have any legal defense. They could have played offenses. Members of Congress chose to roll over, and not assert their oath.

* * *

The oath of office is designed to remove discretion. The aim is to compel the Member of Congress to act. The objective is to remove their latitude, and compel them to do something that they would not normally do.

Retroactive arguments by Members of Congress that it was “too hard” to read the bill; or they “didn’t’ have time” to review the legal issues are meaningless. Especially when they are an attorney, Members of Congress have a duty to make an informed decision.

We the People are presumed to know Title 28 reporting requirements; yet Members of Congress want to pretend that, despite the access to Congressional counsel, they didn’t know the law. Members of Congress are presumed to enforce the law, find out, and make informed decisions.

___ Where are the disciplinary reports against the Congressional staff counsel who have apparently been reckless, defective, and incompetent in their legal assistance to the Members of Congress

___ What is the status of the disbarment proceedings against individual Members of Congress who, despite the legal training, would have We the People believe they are ignorant of something WE the People are presumed to know: The law?

* * *

The way forward is to examine whether this Congress is serous about facing its internal problem: Their active rebellion against the Constitution.

___ Is Congress really doing what it says is needed; or is it giving excuses to We the People to “wait” and “we’ll get to that”

___ What is the excuse of Members of Congress to not openly discuss their failure to review the known illegal activity, and not discuss with the witnesses as the hearings the failure of the President and Attorney General to comply with the Title 28 and Title 50 mandatory reporting requirements?

This Congress has nothing but excuses. It defies its oath. It is November 2006, and the GOP remains in charge.

___ What is the reason the minority members on the Committees are not documenting the known Title 28 violations

__ What is the “bipartisan plan” in November 2006 for this Congress to review the known legal issues which require not investigation, simply a review of their files?

__ Where in the Congressional files are the documented letters to the US Attorneys office

__ Can any Member of Congress point to any document showing that, after they were aware of the Title 28 violations, that they took action to forward their concerns to the US Attorney, Inspector General, and their leadership

___ What records within their files should they be able to point to showing that they were fully asserting their oath?

Members of Congress do not have the power to compel the US Attorneys to remains silent on evidence that doesn’t exist. We the People have the right to examine:

___ Did the Members of Congress do what they should

___ Is there a credible line of evidence that links the Member of Congress with the documents provided to the Inspector General, US Attorney, and the appropriate Member of Congress

___ Can the Member of Congress, despite the known, public, fatal admissions of the President that he violated the law, point to anything that would show they timely reviewed the matter; forwarded their concerns to the US Attorney and Inspector Generals

Congress doesn’t have the credible, defendable position to pass a law, and not enforce it; nor can it credibly argue it should be taken seriously when it has clear requirements and standards, which it fails to review when not followed.

___ Can any Member of Congress explain why the Title 28 mandatory reporting requirements for deviations was not fully followed

___ Once the Member of Congress was informed of the violations of the law, how do they explain no action on the Title 28 reviews

___ Is there any evidence that the Members of Congress timely reviewed the legal issues, reviewed the Title 28 exception reports, or forwarded their concerns to the US Attorney and Inspector General?

Down the line of evidence: The answer is simple – there is no evidence where there should be evidence. The lack of documentation is admissible before the war crimes prosecutor, State Attorney General, Grand Jury, and the State Bar Disciplinary Boards.

* * *

This Congress has a very bad habit, like a defective board of directors, of failing to do what it should. Notice the patterns of conduct

___ Does Congress tell We the People to “wait” on something that should have been reviewed long ago

__ What excuses does Congress give to do nothing

___ What absurdity is the Congress peddling to say it doesn’t need to enforce the law against the President

___ How has the Congress rewritten the Constitution to say that it doesn’t have to enforce the law against its peers; it only needs to pretend the law doesn’t apply

___ How are members of Congress dancing around the problem, avoiding issues

___ To what extent is the Congress chasing symptoms, not solving the real problem

___ How many smokescreens, created and endorsed by this Congress, are Members of Congress chasing; and actively ignoring the real problem in the oval office

___ To what extent is the Congress assuming unreasonable responsibility to solve a legal problem the President has created by violating the law

___ Does the Congress have an explanation why it is not enforcing the law, as opposed to pretending that the disasters stemming from the oval office are something for the Congress to solve

___ How can the Congress argue the President is “too busy” to be held to account; yet the Congress is doing the work of the President – solving problems

___ How can Congress argue the President is “too busy” to be distracted by trifles in the Constitution; yet the GOP openly admits the President plans to “coast along” for the next two years

___ Who can credibly argue that the President does not deserve to be removed from office when he only has a plan to coast along, delegate his obligations to the Congress, and Congress is distracted by Presidential duties

___ How can anyone argue the Congress is “too busy” to engage in oversight, when it is illegally doing things that are only within the President’s power to do: Wage lawful

It’s not the power of the Congress to solve the President’s problems. This President has a disaster in Iraq. The problem is the President. The problem is not for Congress to solve, but to prosecute. The longer Congress does the job of the President – that of accepting the absurd notion that Congress has to “solve” something or create a plan – the more the Congress will be distracted from doing what it has the primary job of doing: Holding the President to account for his illegal activity, incompetence, and plan to delegate his responsibilities to those who were not delegated the power to wage war.

It is irrelevant whether the US troops are stuck in a mess this President created. This President has a legal mess on his hands. No Member of Congress has any legal obligation to bail him out, solve his problem, unless the Member of Congress illegally believes it has been delegated the power to: “Solve the President’s problem.”

___ What is the motivation of the Members of Congress to ignore their job -- enforcement of the Constitution – and do someone else’s job

___ Why is Congress fearful of a backlash against Congress --- if Congress takes action against the President – when it is the President who has well demonstrated he incompetent, unable to do his job, and unfit to lead the country

Congress has no power to act as the Executive

___ What is the interest of the Congress to solve the mess of the Executive

___ What is the incentive of the Congress to avoid what it should, and solve what it cannot

This defies their lawful delegation of power. Congress cannot credibly argue it is doing anything of value when, to solve a problem they did not cause, they have to ignore the problems they have cause: Their defiance of the Constitution.

* * *

Consider the lessons of history.

___ Does Congress have an eye toward protecting the Constitution, or protecting a resources; or are they providing excuses, inaction, and focusing on the controversy of excuses, while ignoring the Constitution

___ Is Congress willing to discuss what it failed to do, how it contributed to the problem

___ How are the lessons of the Iran-Contra affair turned on its head: Are the Congressional policies there, but they are getting ignored and defied by the likes of Addington

__ Which documentation, reports, memoranda did the Congress not issue, provide, follow-up, forward to the Inspector Generals and US Attorney.

The way forward is to prevent this from happening again, not engaging in sham hearings that pass new laws and requirements which this President and Congress jointly agree not to fully enforce at all times. They way forward is to compel the Congress to do what it refuses; and lawfully deprive them of the power and discretion to do otherwise. They can either start doing their jobs in November 2006; or We the People shall lawfully deprive them of the powers they refuse to assert.

Any member of Congress who points to an agenda other than the Constitution must make a strong case that that agenda will be given less deference than they’ve otherwise shown for the US Constitution: Nothing.

___ What is the reason that an individual Member of Congress, despite their so-called legal training, appears to put their oath behind the partisan loyalty

___ How can anyone argue that removing an option form the Congressional power means anything when that power cannot be removed, but remains on the table

___ What is the point of making a meaningless, unenforceable comment about what options are or are not on the table, when the option remains

___ What is the political advantage to anyone for arguing something is not being considered, while it is being considered

___ How can the leadership argue that they’re “for bipartisanship” when they have partisan goals to avoid discussing an issue, or the possibility

Either your words mean something, or they do not. If you’re not serious about exercising an option, resign. If you’re not serious about taking the option off the table forever, don’t be foolish to pretend it might return. You’re wasting your time, undermining your support, and jeopardizing your public standing when you say one thing, but might mean something else.

Either you are with the Constitution and shall assert the options you have, and keep them on the table; or you are not. You have no option otherwise. The only reasonable conclusion is that when you say there is an option on or off the table you’re playing semantics to distract attention from what you failed to do:

___ Where are the documented concerns about the failure of the President and Attorney General to provide the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports

___ Where's the memoranda to the inspector General, you as a Member of Congress, Minority Member, had the power to issue?

Where there is no evidence where there should be, We the People may make an adverse inference. War crimes do not happen on their own. People commit them; others fail to prevent them; and others keep assign legislation despite the illegal conduct; and others despite the legal option to resign continue to not document their concerns with the Inspector Generals, State Attorney Generals, and US Attorneys.

Where there is no evidence of having fully asserted your oath, We the People may make the adverse inference that you, when challenged, will not assert your oath. New leaders can be found: Those who show a marginal interest in the law, not give it lip service, and then do nothing.

* * *

___ Is the Congress looking at real problems; or sweeping the symptoms under the rug?

___ Is Congress making excuses not to plan

___ Is the Congress stating the public “should have done something,” when it was the Congress who ignored We the People

___ Does Congress comprehend who it works for

___ Do the Members of Congress comprehend there are alternate systems, methods of organization, and legal options We the People may use to impose our will on those who refuse to do their job?

___ Does Congress have a credible objective

__ Is the goal of Congress to achieve an outcome at odds with the Constitutional requirements

___ Is Congress looking at the full range of actions

__ Is the scope of the hearing or action plan narrow; or is it broad to maintain standards in the Constitution to compel the Execute branch employees to comply with the will of We the People

* * *

One error of Congress has been the absurd assertion that they “have to legalize” something that is illegal. This understates the problem and Congress’ duty. WE the People may find new leaders who refuse to do what is reasonable, quickly ignoring their legal obligations. Consider the range of requirements on Congress

(1) Hold hearings, gather facts, investigate

Before Congress can lawfully “legalize” something, it has to hold hearings, review evidence, and debate an issue. This Congress has shown its preference for voting for bills it does not read, and then leaving the legal disasters to WE the People to clean up.

Ideally, Congress should find out what’s changed, what they did or didn’t do; then forge a way forward. Indeed, Congress will go through the motions of oversight, and manufacture Congressional creatures that are deliberately slow, ineffective, and not responsive to the rule of law. We the People can find new leaders who are interested in solving problems, not creating the illusion of progress. Real progress not simulated.

(2) Enforce the law

Congress has the power to prosecute Members of the Executive branch through impeachment. They can also forward evidence to the US Attorneys.

Members of Congress can also be charged with malfeasance. The way forward is to change the Ethics standards to compel Action, not silently assent to rebellion and insurrection against the Rule of Law and Constitution. Congress prefers inaction, but likes to talk about change. We the People can impose lawful change with a New Constitution.

(3) Assert will against President

Congress also has the power to force the Executive Branch to comply with the statutes; and if he fails to comply, to report to Congress what is not being enforced.

(4) Impose Problem on President

Congress has the power to force the President to clean up his mess, change a statute, provide new guidance, and compel him to suffer the Consequences of his reckless defiance of the oath.

The above, at a minimum, are what a reasonable Member of Congress should be able to do before asserting that something should be legalized. Until the above are done, Congress is in no position to say that something should be legal. Rather, when the above are not done, Congress – by asserting something is legal – has not reviewed the full range of conduct and problems.

This Congress prefers to do the opposite:

- Change rules without hearings
- Accept a burden the President has created
- Immunize the wrong doers
- Give Congress a pass on whether the law is or is not enforced
- Implement a solution without a review
- Legalize violations of the Constitution
- Give the President a pass on requirements
- Changes the standards to permit bypassing requirements, reporting and reviews

It is not acceptable to We the People for Congress to rush to legalize something they have not reviewed, especially when the activity defies the Supreme Law.

* * *

Consider warrants. They are not arbitrary requirements. Their aim is to prevent the abuse of power.

Rather than comply with the warrant requirement, this President, Attorney General, NSA staff, and alleged co-conspirators in the contracting community have assented to a lesser standard. Some at Qwest did not believe the excuses given to ignore the warrant requirement; others at AT&T and Verizon allegedly provided the NSA access to facilities, allegedly without concern whether they had a legal duty to ensure something else.

The error was for the Verizon General Counsel to have not denied what was later denied; but to keep open the possibility that there existed a contract which Verizon had allegedly illegally cooperated to give the NSA access to things it had a legal obligation to prevent access. Qwest and Verizon did not reach the same legal conclusion.

This Administration has selectively created a nebulous definition of “this program” when defining illegal conduct. “The program” – in the eyes of the US government – only includes the good things, but does not have to meet legal requirements of the Constitution. Requirements are ignored; and the benefits of illegal activity have been asserted as a pretext to justify violations of the Constitution.

It doesn’t matter how the US government defines the warrant requirement. It is a requirement, like the Geneva Conventions, that must be followed. Warrants are there to prevent the abuse of power.

This US government ignored the requirement, and expanded the scope of the abuse. The way forward is not to legalize the activity; but to prosecute the misconduct, and then make illegal those things which the US government jointly agreed to do, not enforce, or ignore.

The way forward is not for Congress to quickly, as it did with Iraq, move to an artificial timeline; but to review carefully what was not followed; and then devise a system which will remove discretion where it has been abused.

___ Which reporting requirements in Title 28 did the US Attorney General ignore

___ Which mandatory reviews by the Court did the President circumvent

___ which evidence did the Qwest CEO see that led him to conclude there was a problem; but Members of Congress claim they did not understand

___ How do we explain the difference between the CEO decision – to refuse to cooperate with illegal activity – with that of the 535 Members of Congress who had (a) an oath to protect the Constitution; (b) a legal power to write a letter to the US Attorney to ask them to review the matter, but the Member of Congress did not act; and (c) The Member of Congress discretion to review a matter, compel an IG investigation, but there is no evidence to suggest they did this.

* * *

These are serious issues when, like Iraq, Members of Congress are told, asked, induced to believe they have to rush along a timeline, and legalize something that is contrary to the Constitution.

The broader pattern of conduct is not simply the information that may or may not do something. Attached with “the program” is the broader system which must be, but was not, legal:

- A system of oversight and management which must comply with the law, and ensure the activities are lawful
- A system of compliance, audits, and sampling which reviews the operations and ensures the activity is lawful
- A system of reviews, evaluations, and monitoring that assesses whether the program is or is not lawful; and ensures that the laws are followed, not explained away
- A system that carefully mentors the activity to ensure the laws are followed
- A system that provides reports to Congress – as required – and Members of Congress fully participate in the Title 28 and Title 50 reviews
- A reasonable system to request changes, and adjustments to the laws
- AN enforcement mechanism to ensure there are meaningful sanctions for violations of the law
- A litigation, prosecution, and oversight system that ensures the consequences are applied, not simply promised.

Across the board, the entire system of NSA oversight, internal checks, and other things that the President and Members of Congress had a legal duty to enforce: Failed.

Passing new laws is meaningless. Moreover, “legalizing” the program does not begin to address what failed: The willful decision by many people to not do what they should have done: Comply with the warrant requirement. They had the chance to get an exception; could have requested changes in secret; had the option to secretly agree to lawful changes. They refused.

Members of Congress have a problem. The illegal activity started before Sept 2001. Yet, the Members of Congress are silent on their Title 28 and Title 50 reviews; no memoranda to the Inspector Generals; and silence on their notes to the US Attorneys. That is not impressive.

The warrant requirement is there to prevent abuse. We the People fully comprehend the problem: There has been illegal abuse of power, violation of trust, and the US Government has jointly agreed not to do what it should – protect the Constitution.

The State Attorney Generals have been the only ones, along with a few brave citizens like Mr. Cowie in Maine, who have dared to assert their oath and protect the Constitution.

___ Why does the US government’s promise in the Constitution – to ensure there is an enforcement mechanism to preserve a Constitutional system – remain up to the States to enforce

___ Why isn’t the US government obligation to protect the Constitution something that the House rules effectively enforces

___ Who’s talking about legalizing something that is abusive

Leaders will protect the Constitution. Cowie and the State Attorney Generals have the power to prosecute a sitting president, the vice President, and members of Congress. Members of Congress have done little to suggest they are immune to their legal problems. They would rather twist their toes in the sands of Iraq, than admit they failed. Utter recklessness.

It is absurd to suggest that the warrants were discretionary. They were clearly stated, and the Qwest CEO had enough information to reject what the NSA offered.

___ What threats were Members of Congress subjected to which the Qwest CEO ignored or was not subjected

___ Were members of Congress, despite writing memoranda as Senator Rockefeller did, having us believe that they had no idea what was going on

___ How do we explain Members of Congress, supposedly experts in the law, actively supporting illegal abuse which violates Geneva

The lesson is simple: This US government cannot be trusted to do what it promises in its oath. The way forward is for this Congress in November 2006 to create an immediate, credible solution that will solve this problem: How will the abuse of power, and clear Constitutional requirements be enforced, not explained away.

The same crew which looked at the Congress and Constitutional requirements as discretionary in the Iran-Contra affair returned, did the same, and Congress is doing nothing. We the People have options: We can implement this New Constitution.

Congress is silent.

___ Does Congress comprehend We the People can fully grasp a reasonable, lawful alternative to the present state of affairs

___ Does Congress comprehend that they’re on probation, thin ice

___ Does Congress comprehend that We the People have lawful options to assert eh law and impose Our Will on Members of Congress through lawful state action, war crimes prosecutions, and disbarments

___ Does Congress comprehend the We the People can make adverse judgments about (a) the adequacy of oversight; and (b) the credibly of the proposed solutions and alternatives.

Whether Members of Congress in November 2006 do or do not comprehend this is irrelevant. They have the legal responsibility to quickly find staff counsel who will educate them on the laws, not claim ignorance. Congress’ duties are clear: They are to assert Article I powers to protect the Constitution. They promise to do this faithfully. Faithfully is well established in case law to be something that removes discretion, and binds the Members of Congress to action, not inaction; compelling a supreme focus on the Constitution.

We the People can make adverse inferences:

___ What is the “other loyalty” Members of Congress had to induce them not to do what they should

___ What is the “other loyalty” Members of Congress had to induce them not to review the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports

___ Is there any track records that the Congress, when it knew or should have known of the illegal activity, did what it should have; or used all lawful means to assert its oath

___ Is the full spectrum of the activity in the illegal program revealed; or did the Congress ignore the illegal/ineffectual aspects

___ How were Members of Congress redirected onto something else; when they were redirected did they dare to refocus the briefers on the questions that were not answered

___ When the hearings and briefings were not responsive on legal questions, what information did the Member of Congress provide to the US Attorneys, inspector Generals, and otherwise document in ranking member reports to the Congressional leadership

___ Were there minority reports drafted to explain the full legal issues and concerns

___ How quickly are the results being drive without reviewing the legal issues

___ To what extent has the Congress committed to an arbitrary timeline, and agreed to not review illegal activity, violations of the law, and other admitted unconstitutional conduct

___ To what extent are members of Congress using the “ruse to resolve an issue”, but have ignored the lingering problem

___ Which illusory deadlines have been challenged

___ Does Congress take the time to see the common source of the information related to this artificial timeline

These issues remain on the table, issues We the People in November 2006 shall lawfully grind into the collective noses of the 535 Members of Congress between November 2006 and November 2008. We are many: Over 300 million. They are few, only 535. We are doomed to succeed. They are doomed to have very sore political noses.

___ WHO knew about the illegal activity, but said nothing?

___ How was the illegal activity in this activity used to support illegal activity in other areas

___ How has illegal activity been illegally shielded through unlawful classification of illegal conduct, violating ORCON

The US government has not well demonstrated it is focusing on the full spectrum of legal issues related to “the program.” It is merely focusing on the excuses to ignore; not the legal duty to faithfully do the opposite: Protect the Constitution, prevent abuse, and protect our rights.

We the People can find new leaders who will do this; and create a new Constitution that will compel this.

* * *

___ Is Congress setting the agenda; or making excuses, permitting non-lawful, and Article II powers to set the legislative agenda.

___ Is Congress making excuses to assent to arbitrary timelines; and not conducting required reviews prior to those arbitrary milestones and deadlines

___ Do Member of Congress take timely act when they have the power and opportunity to take action

___ Did they find a lawful way to assert Article I powers; or did they offer excuses for their having failed to document their legal concerns with the US Attorney, inspector General, or in an exception reporting from the Minority

___ Have Congressional reviews been (incorrectly) narrowed to review what Congress did or didn’t do, without reviewing what the President and executive branch did or didn’t do

___ What explanation, if any, does an individual Member of Congress have for not following up on the original disclosures of illegal activity

___ Why is there no Title 28 memoranda; and nothing from Members of Congress related to their documented concerns with the active decision not to enforce the law

___ How were the concerns with the illegal activity documented to the US Attorney

___ What action, memoranda, or exception report can the Member of Congress point to indicating they requested additional information after the President and Attorney General revealed, did not deny, and otherwise failed to account for the unconstitutional conduct.

* * *

The burden is on the US government to justify confidence. We the People may make the adverse inference that when US government officials are silent on these legal matters they are presumed to have not done their job; and we may lawfully find new leaders to replace those who refuse to demonstrate that they have fully met their legal obligations of their oath of office.

Indeed, the rules of evidence are reversed. The government has the dual problem of proving it has done it’s job; and where it fails, We the People may make the adverse inference that they have violated the law. We the People do not have the burden to produce any evidence: We may make the adverse inference, based on their inaction, that the evidence does not exist where it should; and the oath has been ignored where it should not have been.

The DNC-RNC have jointly used the reaction of We the People – silence, inaction, or no reaction—as an illegal excuse to compromise on their legal requirements. This is not appropriate. Members of Congress freely chose to take the oath of office; it was not our mandate that they would promise something that they could not do. The Members of Congress have the duty to assert their oath, or resign. Members of Congress have chosen an illegal middle ground: To neither do what they should, nor do what they ought.

Congress and the President do not have a holiday, nor the time to wait. They remain in charge in November 2006. We the People remain in a position to increase oversight, compel evidence, and make adverse inferences in November 2006.

Waiting is not an option. Act and results must be consistent with the Constitution in November 2006. Waiting is an excuse to accept more illegal activity and more non-sense. Congress has no real choice but to confront the issues now. Waiting is over.

___ Is Congress talking about non-classified aspects of the activity

___ What is the reason Members of Congress did not document the questions they were not allowed to ask

___ What is the explanation Members of Congress have for not talking about the non-classified aspects of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports

___ Was there no one on the Congressional Staff counsel who comprehended Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; and the legal obligation of the Congress to enforce this statute

___ What excuses has the Congressional staff counsel in November 2006 given for not fully enforcing this mandatory oath of office requirement: To find out why the President has not followed-up to explain the failure to provide the mandatory Title 50 reporting requirements; and the Attorney General’s failure to provide the Title 28 reporting requirement

___ Is Congress calling the President’s bluff: If the President and the GOP assert that the leadership in the White House will “coast along doing nothing of substance until 2009,” why is the President needed?

___ Why is Congress doing the President’s job: Cleaning up the mess this President made

___ If the President is going to be around until 2009, doing something of apparent value, what plan does this Congress have to ensure the President, while he remains in office, does not continue to do what he’s already done: Violate the law, acted as if the law will not be enforced, and refused to comply with the exception reports in Title 50

___ Is Congress getting lost in technical details, by design; or is Congress able to rise above the smokescreen and clearly point to the illegal activity: There were warrants required, but they were not obtained; and there were statutory obligations, but they were not enforced

___ What explanation, if any, does the individual Member of Congress have for ignoring, not recognizes the abuses: Violation of the Constitution, defiance of oath of office

___ Which patterns of conduct is the President not addressing

___ How have the cursory reviews, rushed oversight, and recklessness related to other disasters lead to the Congressional hearings

___ Do Members of Congress comprehend the relationship between (a) the failure of the initial oversight; with (b) the subsequent violations of the law; and (c) the subsequent excuses to ignore the violations and the failed oversight.

* * *

Title 2 of the US Code links to specific reporting requirements to the minority leader, currently Leader Pelosi.

___ What is the explanation that the Executive, despite these mandatory reporting requirements, cannot point to what was or wasn’t stated.

___ Once Leader Pelosi was aware, prior to November 2006, of the illegal activity, what effort did she make as majority leader to determine what plan, if any, existed to comply with the reporting requirements to her

___ How were her concerns that the President and executive branch personnel were not adequately providing her as Minority Leader the required information undocumented and forwarded to the US Attorney, Inspector General, and introduced into the Minority Report on the effectiveness of Committee oversight and statutory enforcement.

___ When Leader Pelosi was aware of the President’s fatal admission that he did not comply with the mandatory FISA requirements and did not secure warrants, how did the Speaker reconsider the information that she had been given as Minority Leader

___ Was there ever any consideration that the disclosures had not been adequate

___ How did Leader Pelosi plan to review the Title 50 and Title 28 exception reports

___ Once Minority Leader Pelosi was aware there had been illegal activity, how did she reconsider the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports between January 2001 and November 2006

___ Who was involved in the review of the Title 28 and Title 50 submittals to the Congress

___ Was there a reason that Leader Pelosi did not document her concerns that (a) the President had admitted to unconstitutional conduct; (b) the President did not comply with Title 28 or Title 50 in reporting that illegal conduct; and (c) There was no sufficient Committee report related to the difference between (1) what the President was required to do; and (2) what the Congress was interested in monitoring by way of Title 28 and Title 50 requirements

* * *

The President’s fatal admissions; the Qwest CEO’s refusals; and the pattern of FISA and Geneva violations is widespread.

___ Where are the Title 28 and Title 50 reviews?

The Watergate Grand Jury memoranda of 1974 well discusses the risk We the People might dare to question the legitimacy of government: Once it was known the extent to which the US Attorneys and Department of Justice knew of illegal activity, but failed to act on it, was not a speculative concern, but a real, documented risk.

___ What efforts has the Congress made to work with the US Attorney to ensure the Grand Juries reviewing this matter are fully supported in their work

___ What does Congress propose to do when the full scope of the illegal activity, and Member of Congress complicity with that illegal activity is disclosed

___ Do Members of Congress have any credible reason to believe, suggest, imply, or aver that the 1974 DoJ Grand Jury report in no way matches anything that may be of interest to We the People in November 2006?

___ What is the basis for Members of Congress to suggest that the 1974 Grand Jury report in no way has any relevance to the scope of evidence We the People may conclude should have been disclosed long ago, but was not

___ What is the plan of Members of Congress in November 2006 to resolve the evidence mounting against them indicating that they were (a) complicit with war crimes; (b) filed to timely review evidence of illegal activity; (c) did not follow-up on the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports

___ Is there any plan in November 2006 by either party to competently address the legal issues confronting the same legal issues which the 1974 Watergate Grand Jury discussed: The credibility of the American justice system

___ Why should anyone believe in November 2006, that Congress will be able to do more in a few short days that it has otherwise failed to do since 1974: Consider the legal implications when We the People discover the full scope of the illegal activity; and the failure of the individual Members of Congress to assert their oath

___ Was something magically going to happen to Members of Congress between November 2006 and December 2006 to produce the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports

* * *

The way forward in November 2006 is for Members of Congress to explain what new legal tools they will crate to prevent the abuses. Legalizing the abuse is not an option. Court oversight is needed.

___ What plan does Congress have to ensure the operations of the President are adequately prosecuted, not simply legalized as some in Congress have called for

___ Why is there a rush to legalize something that is contrary to the Constitution

___ Despite the clear laws and requirements, how can anyone take any Member of Congress seriously when they refuse to see that their Article I powers and tools – legislative acts – are fully enforced

___ Why should other nations, foreign fighters, or insurgents take American power seriously when Members of Congress fail to show that the American model is any better than the disasters other nations are forced to put up with: Lawlessness

___ Do Members of Congress comprehend that they have supported appropriations for illegal occupations in Iraq, but they have not timely done anything to end funds for what is not consistent with the Geneva Conventions

___ Why should Americans or foreign fighters take the will of Congress seriously when Members of Congress can point to not serious effort to ensure the laws of war, US Statutes, or other Title 28/Title 50 legal requirements are being enforced

* * *

There is a larger issue. One illegal program supports another. Congress has conveniently pretended that each Executive division – DoJ, NSA, CIA, DoD – is somehow different. Some are engaged in war crimes; some are engage din illegal FISA violations; others are engage din illegal rendition. However there’s no apparent consideration for the possibility that all the illegal activities, currently defined as “different programs,” are actually part of the same illegal activity: Unlawfully captured informant is used to illegally target American citizens for unlawful interrogations, targeting, and detentions.

___ What plan does the Congress have, if any, to review the pattern of illegal activity, spanning many agencies, as a single problem or pattern of conduct

___ Is it not reasonable to conclude that the Committee Assignments, on the basis of Executive Department, will unreasonably isolated the issues to each Executive Agency

___ Why is there no plan in November 2006 by any Member of Congress in November 2006 to look at the pattern of abuse as a single set of illegal activity which spans many committees and many executive branch agencies [The repeated date is intentional]

___ Why do Members of Congress want to keep the oversight separated into many committees

___ How will the Executive Branch be credibly overseen if the pattern of abuse moves information illegally captured by the NSA, into DHS, and then is used by the DOJ to target DOD assets against Americans.

___ Can the Congressional leadership in any party in November 2006 explain why there is any merit to the Committee System, based on agency-level conduct, when the pattern of conduct has a single common denominator: The White House and president

___ How are the various committees going to separately trace the patterns of abuse linked with one clerk in the oval office, while keeping that information separate

The idea of oversight is so that We the People can review the information.

___ Is it the plan of the White House to compel multiple reviews of the same activity, and flowed We the People with multiple lines of evidence to confuse the issues

___ Would it not be better to simply orchestrate all the Congressional hearings on a single calendar so that We the People can effectively monitor whether the US Government is or is not adequately ensuring the lessons from one committee are or are not flowing to another Committee

The net result is the same: Rather than have a single committee lawfully targeting the President; we have multiple committees. Let’s assume this continues.

___ What method will the Committee Chairman use to ensure the information gleaned from one committee is timely incorporated into the lines of questions of another.

___ To what extent is the Congress leaning on We the People to ensure the US government effectively communicates matter of law, fact, and evidence between the Committees

___ To what extent is the Congress leaning on the media to report the information that the US Government should have as a single line of inquiry

It is absurd to suggest the US government is effective when it is not the US government that is doing the work: It’s We the People who are putting the Pressure the Committees to ask the questions, review the data, and maintain currency on the legal issues.

This Congress has shown a lackadaisical interest in the legal requirements it has. The issue of whether someone was in the minority or majority party is meaningless: Both parties had legal tools to use, but cannot show they’ve documented their concerns.

___ Why should anyone believe in November 2006 that the same Members of Congress, -- who defied their oath, refused to assert their legal powers, and did not follow up on Title 28 non-reports – will know the law any better in January 2007.

__ What is going to magically appear on the horizon to assist the Congress, which has otherwise shown a poor comprehension of the law and US Constitution, to suddenly take an interest in what it despises: The Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; and the failures of Congress to timely compel the President and Attorney General to explain the problems.

The same crew which asserted the Attorney General lied has apparently done nothing to forward their concerns to the US Attorney; and cannot point to any memoranda which will force the DOJ OPR to do its job.

___ Where’s the memo to the US Attorney, Senator Feingold?

___ When was the US attorney brought into the nexus of your supposed concerns about the non-compliance with the law, Leader Pelosi?

___ Where is the documentation to the Inspector General on these patterns of abuses, Senator Specter?

___ Once Members of Congress discussed in the House Judiciary Committee the possibility of impeaching AG Gonzalez, how was this evidence and concern documented to the DoJ IG, US Attorney, and the DOJ OPR

___ Does any Member of Congress have any evidence to suggest they’ve outlined their concerns for the Texas State Bar to review Gonzalez’ suitability for office

___ What is the plan of the US Congress in November 2006 to forward the known violations of the Geneva conventions to the German war crimes prosecutor

___ Do members of Congress have a plan to not provide evidence, nor not fully cooperate with questions from the German war crimes prosecutor related to issues of rendition, Geneva violations, and other violations of the laws of war?

* * *

The problem the US government has is that it cannot point to the “great” aspects of an illegal program, when the activity is the worst of American principles: Recklessness. These are clear requirements. Members of Congress cannot point to a stellar track record of having enforced the law. They can point to many reports which went nowhere.

___ What is the plan to ensure the minority party has the legal power to assert its oath of office

___ What is the plan to ensure the minority party has the chance to ensure that the US Attorneys and DOJ OPR, when they are thwarted by the President and DOJ Leadership, do have a reasonable assurance that something will be done

___ What is the plan of Congress in November 2006 to ensure there is something on the horizon – in December 2006 – which will timely address the problem of “what is to be done to ensure a majority party cannot violate the Constitution, and thwart lawful assertion of the minority party’s oath of office”

The problems with the abuses touch many areas: Katrina, FISA, rendition, 9-11, Iraq WMD, Patriot Act, GTMO, and Abu Ghraib. The common theme is 9-11. Yet, the illegal activity started before 9-11.

Each of the activities was illegal, the Government was not doing it right, and there were illusory timelines with phony evidence. The plans were inadequate. The oversight and management was meaningless. The resources were insufficient. There was a failure to debate based on facts.

Despite these known problems, Congress jointly agreed to continue funding through illegal appropriations in violating of Article 1 Section 9 funds that were for what they knew, or should have known were for illegal activities.

This American government has rested on the laurels of the WWII legacy, but its results are at odds with what are in the Constitution. The Members of Congress knew, or should have known the results were along non-mandatory timelines. In November 2006, Members of Congress know the US government did not exhaust all non-military options as it was required to do prior to invading Iraq. Richard Pearle in Vanity Fair reminds us of this fatal decision, arguably evidence of war crimes – requiring an imminent threat, not illusory timelines as the basis to order American combat troops into the battlefield.

Congress has the sole power to declare wars. The President can make wars.

___ What’s is the plan of the US government to ensure the laws of war are respected, not explained away

___ Does the US government have any intention to focus on the Geneva conventions which prohibit abuse; or is it relying on non-sense reasons to pretend that some abuse is OK, just as long as we pretend it isn’t’ torture

___ How do Members of congress who are Judge Advocate Generals justify supporting the military Commissions Bill which they knew, or should know, permits illegal treatment of Prisoners

___ What is the plan of the US Congress to timely respond to legal requirements which have been well stated in the Hamdan decision

___ Is there anything in the US Congress agenda in November 2006 to prohibit the US Department of Justice treating the US Constitution as if it were a debatable point before the US Courts

The purpose of government is to assert the rule of law; not do the opposite as the arguably reckless, def3cive war criminal s in the DOJ Staff have done: Pretended that requirements were discretionary; then pretended that the oath of office does not bind them to the alleged war crimes they illegally included in memoranda.

___ What is the plan, if any, of Members of Congress, to timely ensure that defective legal counsel in any branch of government are timely reviewed, monitored, and screened when they are linked with alleged war crimes, abuses, and illegal violations the Constitution

___ Is it the intention of Congress, despite inaction since 2000, to suggest they have no plan to effectively monitor staff counsel who advocate war crimes, Geneva violations, and unconditional conduct

___ What is to be said of the volume of evidence which the DoJ Staff know about, but have not dared to release to the public

___ Is it the intention of the Congress to pretend the risks the Watergate Grand Jury discussed in 1974 are not possible, will not happen, or not something the public will consider

___ What is the explanation of the Congress for the apparent disconnect between (1) the well documented legal risks mentioned in 1974; and the (2) the lackadaisical attitude Members of Congress take toward the Constitution in November 2006-11-26

___ Is there any basis for anyone to credibly assert that the events of 2006, and the risks discussed in 1974 are any different?

___ Do the explanations make sense; or are they more of the “it’s different”-mantra this US government has collectively created, fed, and swallowed since 2001.

This is what’s different. We the People are 300 million. What’s not different is Congress is still only 535. You are outnumbered. We the People have the power, and may or may not wish to continue delegating the abused, non-asserted, and violated powers.

It is November 2006. The GOP is still in control. The laws are clear. The illegal conduct is known.

___ Where is there any leadership in the GOP to do what they have a duty to do?

___ Who in the GOP or DNC is pointing to any plan in November 2006 to fully assert their oath

___ Can any Presidential candidate in 2008 credibly argue they are fit for leadership when their legacy from November 2006 is: Inaction, excuses, malfeasance, war crimes, reckless defiance of their oath, refusal to ask questions, no evidence of having followed up on the Title 28-Title 50 violations?

The candidates in both parties have a very difficult job: We the People are fully prepared to wage another campaign starting in November 2006. The laws, Constitution, and reasonable standards of conduct are clear. We the People – all 300 Million of us, will be two years old regardless whether we do or do not do anything. We might as well make each day a constant reminder to those who do not take their job seriously: We the People shall take seriously what Congress refuses to protect – Our Constitution.

* * *

Let’s consider what Congress might propose, if anything, in November 2006, as an alternative to the present institutional failures it fully endorses. Consider whether Congress is focusing on distractions, or solutions.

___ Is the real scope of the resolution embraced

___ Are there real forms implemented to prevent recurrence

___ Is Congress proposing to legalize something that remains unconstitutional

___ Is Congress focusing on real issues, symptoms, or excuses

___ Is the individual member of Congress looking at legal issues of their peers in Congress; or are they giving excuses to do nothing

___ How is the US Attorney, State prosecutors, and war crimes prosecutors brought into the nexus

___ Do Members of Congress in both parties show greater loyalty to their peers; or are they effectively working with the war crimes prosecutors to gather evidence about which Members of Congress knew of the war crimes, but refused to investigate and end the illegal appropriations.

___ Is the law being enforced in November 2006; or are Members of Congress offering excuses, “Our oath doesn’t matter in 2006; we might think about it later. Don’t bother us.”

Perhaps the Members of Congress do not fully comprehend their legal problems before the War crimes prosecutors.

___ Is the fear within the Congress translating into non-sense statements by Members of Congress

___ How quickly are Members of Congress rushing to embrace more illegal excuses to insulate them from accountability

___ Is anyone in Congress absorbing the reality that 300 Million Americans outnumber the reckless 535 members of congress who allegedly are complicity with war crimes; have refused to do their jobs; and in November 2006 have no credibly defense to insulate themselves for what they allegedly failed to do?

___ Are the Committees making references to the US Attorney

___ Is the lack of evidence and non-existence of the reporting requirements discussed, followed up, and appropriately forwarded to the war crimes prosecutors

___ Do Members of Congress comprehend that they are suspects in a war crimes investigation

___ What excuses, distractions, and illusory crisis does the Congress point to overseas to rally We the People to another distraction, hoping to dissuade some from gathering evidence of continued war crimes, Constitutional violations, and 5 USC 3331 violations

__ What excuses are Members of Congress issuing to not enforce the law against heir peers and those who knew the laws of war, or should have known them, but reused to enforce it

___ Are the excuses of the Members of Congress who have legal backgrounds compelling; or are you gagging on your spit listening to their drivel, excuses, and non-sense to believe that illegal activity is something other than what it is: War crimes by American leaders who believe their legacy from WWII would insulate them from accountability for all time

___ To what extent are Members of Congress relying on the crutch of “what did or didn’t happen in Germany during WWII” to explain away the correct labels of those who continue to engage in apartheid, abuse, misconduct, Geneva violations, illegal warfare, and violations of the US Constitution

___ Do Members of Congress give more excuses why the American Indians are not given a correct accounting for their trust funds

___ Do Members of Congress comprehend that the Iraqi insurgents look at the American Indians as a likely outcome for what can be expected to continue to happen to the oil trust funds: Mismanagement, inadequate accounting, and reckless refusal by the US Government to properly ensure that people illegally abused have been adequately cared for despite the US Government conduct to the contrary

* * *

Members of Congress have a credibility problem. They enable illegal activity. The way forward is fro Congress to outline their resolution. They are incapable of agreeing what is to be done: they refuse to look in the mirror at the problem; nor wish to hold the President to account for what has happened. Absurdly, they argue they are fit to replace the President.

___ What do the replacements propose to remedy?

___ How can anyone in the United States credibly argue they have a solution when Congress – the apparent source of all divine wisdom – is incapable of resolving this issue, contemplating a solution, and is devoid of leadership that might hint of something resembling a credible defense of the US Constitution against Members of Congress who have illegally joined the President in a rebellion against the rule of law.

The way forward is to deny the US government the option to enable anyone to violate eh law. The illegal activity is an excuse. Many people in the Executive Branch knew the law and ignored it. Many had the chance to do it lawfully, but they refused.

The standards and procedure were clear. They had the chance to follow the secret procedures, do things behind closed doors, and get approvals – but they didn’t. Despite the power to use secret procedures, that wasn’t good enough.

Those involved with the illegal activity also had the means to comply with the known requirements; had the discretion not call on anyone for assistance; had an untamed access to the checking accounts; and could grant any sum of money to solve any problem. The common legacy is: Incompetence, excuses, lack of results, and an abysmal failure.

The WWII Greatest Generation must be proud of the legacy they’ve created: A system which is no better than the failed system destroyed in Nazi Germany. Same results, same abuses. The only difference is that We the People refused, for the most part, to cooperate.

___ What is going to prevent the NeoCons from finishing what they believe was just, if only they had enough resources

___ What is going to compel the Members of Congress to assert their oath, even when the most absurd insults are being hurdled

___ Is there any evidence the US government can be trusted to remain in its represent form and still ensure it remains loyal to the US Constitution

___ What institutional reforms does the Congress have in November 2006 to remedy the problems they are well aware

___ Is there any evidence Members of Congress have a clue what is to be done; or are they as oblivious to solutions as they are to violations of the law

There were many excuses to not comply with the laws. They are frivolous. The Qwest CEO refused, and was not (apparently) harmed.

___ What is the excuse of the other alleged co-conspirators in Congress and the Executive branch

___ Is there something you can point to that would point to a valid reason for putting something other than the rule of law as your primary interest?

Your excuses are meaningless. The results speak for themselves: Utter defiance of your oaths, failures to assert yourselves, and no evidence to suggest that you’ve taken your oaths of office seriously.

2008 is not far. November 2006 is at hand.

___ What is your plan: To use the 2008 election as an excuse for inaction

___ Do you plan to act in November 2006

___ Will you use the eternal threat of elections as the eternal excuse to make excuses

We the People have options. We can lawfully compel you to do your jobs. 300 Million of US. Only 535 of you. You may have fooled us on 9-11, Iraq WMD, and the other excuses.

___ What’s your argument to justify confidence that you can continue fooling We the People

___ Where is your plan to remedy your defective oversight within Congress

___ Those who have been sitting the shadows whining that you were in the minority, where is your plan to solve this mess

___ Is there a viable plan to ensure this does not happen again

___ Does the leadership in any party comprehend the thinness of the political ice they stand

* * *

Nothing stopped any Member of Congress from reviewing the non-classified information. The Title 28 reports, or lack thereof, from Gonzalez to Members of Congress should have triggered in the minds of at least one Congressional Staff counsel that there was a legal requirement to do something.

___ Who received the Title 28 memoranda

___ Which State Bar is this Congressional Staff counsel assigned

___ Once the Minority Leader Pelosi was aware of the fatal admissions of the President, how was the Congressional Staff assigned to her office organized to review the Title 28 “non-report”

___ Can anyone in Congress point to any legislative activity, review, discussion, or other legal conferences where the rude reality as put to paper: War crimes, if not stopped and investigated, will attach a liability to the Staff counsel who refuse to assert the rule of law

___ Where was the speech on the floor of the Senate

___ Where was the public call to the US Attorney’s office to bring an end to Geneva War crimes

___ Can the Congress point to anything that would inspire any confidence that any of these Members of Congress comprehended what they were voting for; the illusory timelines; the questions not asked; and the failure to end what was illegal – continued appropriations for things that were not lawful.

___ Where is the minority report outlining the concerns

___ What is the plan to put these concerns into effect; or are there partisan, arguably illegal options being asserted to justify inaction, non-review, and a failure to assert ones oath of office

Notice the speed to which Congress attempts to sweep the wide, pervasive, and voluminous evidence under the rug.

__ What “language” do they pass to legalize inaction

__ What do Members of Congress pretend exists or does not exist as a requirement to review, respond, and assert their oath

___ What reasons, if any, does Congress give to not do a review in November 2006

A complete review in November 2006 would show Congress, after it reviewed information, did not follow-up on the Title 28 problems; and that the US Attorney, Title 50 problems, and minority reports to the Inspector General were insufficient to assert the rule of law over those who agreed to illegal conduct.

___ What is the plan of this Congress in November 2006 to face the issues it has refused

___ What is the plan to ensure there are follow-ups

___ Despite clear laws that are not enforced, what is the plan of Congress to ensure these excuses are not given weight?

We the People have an option. It is called a New Constitution. This Congress in November 2006 cannot explain their way forward nor does it have a plan.

To suggest the issues were “classified” misses the point. The program could have been discussed in the context of what was or was not reported in a classified Title 28 exception report. That option was not contemplated, used, or enforced.

It’s also illegal to classify unlawful activity. Congress cannot explain, despite what it knew or should have known was unlawful conduct, why it continued to pretend the illegal activity was appropriately classified.

___ How does any Member of Congress explain their silence on illegal activity

___ How does any Member of Congress justify honoring a secrecy oath to keep quite about illegal activity; but put that illegal agreement over their primary oath to the US Constitution.

No excuse. The promise to keep quiet about illegal activity was never enforceable, and all Members of Congress knew or should have known that this was an absurd agreement. You had never taken a secrecy oath to illegal activity; you only took an oath to 5 USC 3331: To the Constitution.

___ Where is the signed oath to keep illegal activity secret

___ Where is in on file in any office in Washington DC, or anywhere, an oath to smoothing other than what is enforceable under 5 USC 33331

Senator Roberts had reservations, but he can’t point to a Title 28 report; the Qwest CEO had reservations and told the NSA, White House, DOJ, CIA, and intermediaries to jump in a lake.

___ Is the reflecting pool outside the Washington Memorial not big enough

___ Did the new memorial to WWII reduce the needed size of the space Members of Congress needed to madly dash into the reflecting pond

* * *

The DNC and RNC have jointly agreed to do nothing. One party pretends to be a victim; and the other party pretends to ignore them.

We the People have options. Going forward from 2006, the leadership in both the DNC and GOP are on joint notice that your joint agreement to allegedly engage in this illegal rebellion against the Constitution has run its unreasonable course.

The evidence of your alleged complicity, inaction, and refusal to assert your oaths is wide, pervasive, and compelling. Where there should be except reports, the leadership cannot point to competent documentation; where there should have been concerns, there appears more to be whimpers of complicity. Where there should have been an oath, there was an illegal agreement to put up with what was illegal. Not impressed.

We the People can make Congress face things it will not; can compel the Members of Congress to tackle issues it refuses; and can compel the US legal system to do what the Watergate Grand Jury feared: inspire confidence in the American legal system.

The excuses to legalize any unlawful FISA-NSA activity has no legal standing. All Congressional discussions related to this unlawful activity shall be entered into evidence. None of the discussions on the floor of the Congress are privileged; they can be entered into evidence to show who was or was not asserting their oath.

Each Member of Congress has the freedom to say what they want. This does not mean you have the freedom to be silent on matters that you know, or should know, are illegal, war crimes, unconstitutional, unacceptable.

___ What is the plan for Members of Congress in November 2006 to ensure that the legal requirements remain at the top of the agenda

___ What is going to compel Members of Congress in November 2006 to assert their oath; speak out; and make it clear they are on the right side of the law, not the wrong side of history.

We the People shall do what Congress refuses: Impose the rule of law through lawful force – through the justice system, and bring to full vision the specific justice system the Watergate Prosecutors feared might be lost. It remains alive.

Lawful use of force involves the creative application of power We the People. Lawful use of force is linked with the imposition of an oath, and a requirement that all Members of Congress certify in writing that they fully, faithfully plan to assert that oath.

If the Members of Congress refuse to take their oath, they are not given the opportunity to fail. They are asked to leave.

Once that oath is taken, We the People – all 300 Million of us – may lawfully target for prosecution all 535 Members of Congress, gathering evidence, and lawfully coordinating our oversight with the war crimes prosecutors, US Attorneys, and Sate Attorney Generals.

We are many. You are small, finite, and powerless. The law is on our side; you have defied the law, not asserted your oaths, and are given another chance in November 2006 to do something to remedy this problem.

___ What is the plan of Congress to cooperate with the independent investigation outside Congress to review this malfeasance

___ Has Congress contemplated a schedule that they plan to recognize outlining when they will or will not be available for interviews

Congress has no choice. We the Pele can lawfully forward all evidence to the US Attorneys, war crimes prosecutors, and state attorney generals. Members of Congress can be issued a subpoena at any time, compelled to explain their 5 USC 3331 compliance, and be the subject of the very investigations they should have started in 2001.

We the People are not the play things of Congress. WE the People impose our will through Congress, on Congress, and into Congress. The Grand Jury from Watergate understands the issues and the evidence. We the People are ready to hear the truth in November 2006, not “maybe later” when the weather is favorable.

Defective leaders who do not plan to follow the law will abuse others to compel compliance with the same non-sense and abuses.

The same crew that abused power in the Iran-Contra affair returned; they remain in Charge in 2006; and this Congress – despite the power to compel an investigation in November 2006 – does nothing. That is botched leadership. They’ve put themselves above the law, ignored standards, made excuses to go along with nonsense plans, and achieved reckless results. The conduct did not border on war crimes: It was criminal conduct during times of war: 5 USC 3331 violations, and continued appropriations for things they did not review as they had the legal duty to faithfully do. Inaction is not an option. 42 USC 1983 is a barrier to immunize Members of Congress for their conduct; the reverse is not the case – they do not have immunity when there is no evidence they fully asserted their oath. The lack of evidence of Members of Congress having asserted their oath is just as important as the original violation and war crimes.

___ Does Congress not have an explanation why this non-classified related oversight was not done?

___ Why hasn’t the existed of this classified evidence been at least mentioned in public

___ Was there no plan in November 2006 to discuss the volume of information unrelated to Member of Congress complicity with war crimes

___ When does Congress plan to confront the problem: Evidence of Member of Congress war crimes has been illegally classified

We the People know. The information is not lawfully classified. It is evidence of criminal conduct.

___ What agreement does Congress have with the President in November 2006 not to review certain conduct in exchange for Members of Congress not examining other conduct

___ What duty does the President have to enforce the law against the Members of Congress that he refuses to assert because, in exchange, they have jointly agreed not to enforce the law against him

___ When does the Congress in November 2006 plan to accept We the People well comprehend the natural consequences of this illegal agreement: Illegitimate government, that can lawfully be replaced within one that is legitimate.

___ How will the broad spectrum of conduct, not just “the program” be effectively managed if only the “benefits” are discussed, but the illegal activity is ignored

___ Does Congress contemplate the full range of White House and executive branch media strategy to wage a legal defense outside the courtroom

The laws are clear. The standards were known. The oath was freely taken.

___ What excuses is Congress offering to suggest they do not have to follow the law, not assert the Constitutional oath, and not assert their Article I powers against the president

___ Who is claiming they have power to speak for the Congress, when We the People never delegated the power to anyone to speak for Congress

___ Who is claiming that a legal option which We the People delegated to the Congress to check Executive Abuses can be denied by a single person

___ Who is suggesting that a power delegated only to a legislative body can be revoked by a single person

___ Where is the Constitutional change or amendment anyone can point to suggesting that We the Pele have delegated the power to impeach a president to the whim of a secret committee of one interested in the 2008 Presidential election, not in protecting the Constitution in November 2006.

___ Where is the Amendment giving any single person the authority to refuse to assert the rule of law against the President who has engaged in war crimes

___ Where is the authority of any single Member of Congress to prevent We the People from examining the evidence of war crimes, 5 USC 3331 violations, or Title 28 and Title 50 violations

We the People never delegated this power to anyone, we only delegated it to the Legislative branch. No one speaks for Congress. Congress speaks for Congress.

___ What is the leadership afraid of if the law is asserted equally against all

___ Does the Congressional leadership believe that there is an advantage to doing nothing, despite the legal requirement to act

___ Where in the 42 USC 1983 case law can any Member of Congress point to suggesting that inaction is protected, when the 5 USC 3331 requires action

___ Where in the 42 USC 1983 case law is there anything that protects anyone for doing nothing?

It doesn’t exist. As Addington did with the Iran-Contra report, the DNC-GOP leadership pin Congress is selectively cherry picking the laws to arrive at the convenient conclusion: Inaction, no enforcement, and pretending that options are off the table.

Next time you want to mention that something is “off the table” recall the Constitution: It is your oath, it remains on the table. The issue is whether your oath to the Constitution is on the table, or conveniently pitched in the trash with your version of the Constitution.

We the People: 300 Million, highly motivated, competent, able to engage in oversight, We the People have a plan and options.

Members of Congress: 535 alleged war criminals, no leadership, no plan, and incompetent.

You lose.

* * *

Consider what Congress has as its central problem. Its only real powers stems from making laws; and jailing people if they refuse to cooperate with investigations. This power is meaningless when it is not asserted or enforced.

___ What is to be said of a Congress, despite the law, it refuses to enforce it?

___ How does Congress, on any given day, decide which laws to ignore, which to enforce, and which to pretend do not apply?

___ Does the Defective Congressional Staff counsel point to the moon, put its finger in the air and conclude, “Hmmm…favorable weather, we can continue our rebellion. WE the People will not notice.”?

___ Why will passing new laws mean anything?

___ What outcome, other than the present disaster this Congress has assented to, does Congress propose might be a different outcome?

___ What is specifically going to happen to generate a new solution, new result, or something resembling a complete protection not the Constitution?

Congress is still in charge. It is November 2006. They have no plan. They already have a plan: It’s the Constitution. They ignore it.

___ How will Members of Congress timely prosecute, enforce the law, and assert their oaths next time this happens?

___ What is going to prevent the same people, who were not lawfully destroyed after the Iran Contra affairs, and remain wandering the halls of Congress drinking Addington’s Kool Aid, from returning as Hitler did after WWI?

___ What magic solution is going to put this abuse of power to an end

We the People have a lawful solution. They are called lawful war crimes prosecutions, with the punishment of the death penalty.

That option remains ON THE TABLE: November 2006.

___ How many members of Congress, who knew or should have know the statutes, have illegally agreed not to assert their oath

___ How much evidence has been collected, but not forwarded to the war crimes prosecutor

___ How many Members of Congress and their defective, lazy staff counsel have refused to assert their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

* * *

Any abuse of power this Congress imposes on We the People, all 300 Million of us can lawfully unit and reciprocate.

This Congress has no power, nor competence to impose martial law. Katrina was a disaster; Iraq is a mess; a few somewhat loosely trained Taliban in Afghanistan has got the US government on the run.

___ What chance does 535 alleged war criminals in Congress have against 3000 marginally motivated Americans, somewhat informed of the law, legal options, and the ability to gather evidence?

None. November 2006.

___ Do Members of Congress comprehend they can be prosecuted for not protect the Constitution, not doing what they should, and assenting to illegal violations of the law, and refusing to remove themselves fro ma rebellion that allocated money for illegal things?

___ Is Congress ignoring the problem because it doesn’t want to account for cursory reviews, no documentation not the Title 28 violations, and their illusory timelines

___ How many cursory reviews has Congress assented to

___ How many times has Congress pretended that the Constitution is debatable, when it is not

___ How many illusory timelines has the Congress agreed to illegally

___ What has the net result of those artificial timelines been

___ What is the solution to prevent that abuse of power from recurring

___ What will be done to better screen information

___ What will be done to better ensure that the ruses of one party are not permitted to hijack the Constitution, and defy it as if it were an enemy

___ What will be done to better verify the basis for action

___ What will be done to ensure that all peaceful options are fully exhausted before We the People are told, not asked, “there are not other options.”

___ What will be done to ensure the US government focuses real issues

___ What will be done to ensure that the Congress does not rely on manufactured excuses to violate he law of war, US Constitution, Geneva Conventions, and US Statutes.

___ What will be done to ensure that We the People are not used to do someone else’s bidding, when others have refused to exhaust all their options; and have refused to accept reasonable peace terms on their borders.

We the People are not the slaves to former slaves. We are We the People, the source of all power, and we may lawfully employ our power to assert our will upon anyone who defies their oath, their promise, and their asserted loyalty to Our Constitution.

* * *

It is November 2006. The number one priority for this Congress in November 2006 is to focus on the solution to protect this recurrence.

This Congress chooses to given excuses. We the Pele have a plan and may lawfully impose that plan whether the Congress chooses to cooperate or not.

This Congress has no credible plan to ensure the violations of the law do not continue.

___ Does Congress Approach the issues with an eye toward solutions; or is it offering only excuses not to assert power

___ What is the reason Congress prefers unlawful solutions as opposed to what it promised: The protection of the US Constitution.

The adverse inference: Congress faces no meaningful consequences for engaging in passive or active insurrection and rebellion against the US Constitution.

We the People retain the inherent right to lawfully remove from office those who defy their oath; cannot solve problems; and put “something else” before their oath.

The 2008 election has started. This Congress, in November 2006, has no plan to win. It plans to continue to do what has brought failure.

Congress has chosen poorly. We the People shall prevail. The rule of law shall destroy those who defy the US Constitution. We the People—all 300 Million of us -- have two years to lawfully grind the political noses of each of the 535 Members of Congress noses in the Constitution. It continues.

They wished this.