Constant's pations

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

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Draft Grand Jury, War Crimes Indictment JAMES ROBERTSON, Federal District Judge

This is a draft Grand Jury Indictment against Federal District Judge James Robertson. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

* * *


Nuremburg Justice Trial

Geneva Conventions


Count 1 5 USC 3331

Illegal abrogation of US Constitution; Illegal recognition of non-delegated Judicial Powers By Congress

Count 2 Geneva Violations

Illegal abrogation of Geneva Conventions; Failure to enforce Geneva Conventions; Illegally depriving prisoners of war all rights protected under the Conventions

Count 3 Violation of Separation of Powers

Illegal recognition of unlawful act of Congress. Recognizing an act of Congress related to an already pending legal matter; Enforcement of illegal Acts of Congress; Issuing order enforcing illegal act Congress

* * *


Ref Illegal order.

* * *


The courts reasoning is flawed. Congress has no power to abrogate the Geneva Conventions; and the court has no power to recognize the illegal abrogation which deprives any prisoner of Geneva protections.

Congress may have intended something, but this intention cannot contradict or violate the Geneva Conventions.

The court correctly recognizes the Congress retroactively did something related to pending cases, and made a clearly erroneous legal conclusion: Congress cannot clearly intend to do something that is prohibited and illegal:

- Exercise Judicial powers on a pending legal matter;
- Retroactively pass laws affecting ongoing litigation;
- Retroactively abrogate a treaty obligation

As with Nuremburg, the court not only concludes the illegal laws must be enforced, but illegally rationalizes the illegal outcomes using the flawed arguments of Congress.

Congress has no power to deny Geneva Convention protections, nor compel Courts to not exercise powers which must be exercised to enforce the Geneva conventions: Judicial review.

Congress may have the power to define judicial review, but it cannot prospectively or retroactively abrogate a treaty obligation on matters pending before the court. Such an assertion of legislative power unconstitutionally crosses into the Judicial lane of power.

The purpose of the Great Writ was to apply the law to all people, regardless their origin, either in England or from France as invaders.

The Great Writ is from the 13th Century, 1205, not the 14th Century as incorrectly reported in 8 of 12.

The court is misreading history. Whether the basis for a habeas challenge is between liberty or detention is irrelevant; the writ of Habeas was affirmed in the 1600s when the UK leadership illegally denied courts the power to review prisoner detentions.

What may or may not have happened in the 1600s has no bearing on the protecting of the Geneva Conventions. Further, the events of 1600s do little to trump the 1789 Constitution which asserts that all treaty obligations shall be enforced through the oath of office.

The writ may have been suspended in Britain, but is not relevant on issues related to this case. Congress has not suspended the writ, there has been no invasion, and there has been no insurrection.

Congress has no power to strip jurisdiction on a constitutional protection, especially when there has been no finding of insurrection or invasion.

Contrary to courts findings, Lincoln’s suspension was never legalized. 12 of 22

The court fails to make a finding as to whether the MCA is constitutional, but leaves open the possibility that it may be unconstitutional. This is hardly a decisive ruling.

If and to the extent that the MCA operates to make the writ unavailable to a person who is constitutionally entitled to it, it must be unconstitutional.Ref

The courts analysis is legally unsound, and not consistent with the Judicial Members obligation, as a sworn officer, to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions protections. A constitutional entitlement is a burden on US government officials to respect it existence through the Supremacy Clause in re treaty obligations; not for the defendant to prove that he is entitled to it.

The court incorrectly argues that physical location is relevant to matter of jurisdiction. This is a misreading of the Constitution, which recognizes US jurisdiction to all issues where US officials are present, regardless their location. The Courts have already concluded that Jurisdiction applies to US combat forces located in Cuba; it does not follow that Congress has the power to deny jurisdiction where the Constitution expressly recognizes it applicability: Prisoners of war subject to detention worldwide.

Hamdan trumps Rasul, and affirms the legality of judicial review; the opposite does not follow -- that Congress has the power to deny jurisdiction to matters the Constitution expressly recognizes.

It is flawed legal analysis for any court to assent to an illegal statute to conclude that the court has no power where the Constitution expressly granted and delegated that judicial power: The power to exercise judicial authority over all US officials and persons under their care, regardless their location in the universe.

The Court has illegally assented to unlawful Congressional statutes which explicitly do what the Constitution forbids: Strip the judicial power from the Article III branch, and deny person subject to treaty obligations from all Hamdan-recognized protections.

The issue is not whether someone is entitled to the writ; but whether the Congress has the legal authority to (a) not make a finding of invasion or insurrection; but (2) deny the write without meeting this Constitutional obligation. All prisoners of war through Common Article III, as affirmed with Hamdan are entitled to full judicial powers and protections afforded to anyone else -- the status of the detainee or prisoner is irrelevant. The burden is on the court to demonstrate that the write has been lawfully denied because of invasion or rebellion. The court concluded the opposite, and is not longer making a legally sound argument.

Regardless what did or did not happen in the 1700s in England, the US Constitution was passed after the cited cases; and the Conventions were enacted into law in the 20th Century. Geneva recognizes that prisoners are entitled to all rights; Geneva makes no mention of when it is legal for the Courts to assent to illegal statutes. Where there is silence, there is no delegated power to Congress or the Courts to assent to a lesser standard than is recognized for all people, especially when the court recognizes there has been no invasion or rebellion.

Whether the power or right has been withdrawn is irrelevant; until the Congress expressly withdraws the right on the basis of invasion or rebellion -- which it has not -- the court has no legal authority to deny a right that has not been legally denied; but remains protected under Geneva.

Once prisoners of war are under US military care, they are presumed to be connected to the US law, US Constitution, and Geneva Conventions. All judicial officers must enforce those Conventions and the attached guarantee of prisoner rights, regardless the location of that prisoner of war. Congress has no power to deny jurisdiction to any court when the issues are under US jurisdiction as they do with prisoner control, detention, and trials. To argue the opposite -- that the prisoner is not under US jurisdiction, and can lawfully have heir Geneva rights denied -- belies the reality that they are under US detention being tried for war crimes. Regardless the guilt or innocence of that prisoner, one cannot reasonably argue that a prisoner can be denied of Geneva rights, subject to trial for war crimes by a military commission, but then denied the chance to challenge their detention. This is absurd.

Whether personnel are located in one location or another on slavery is interesting, but has no bearing on the universal obligation of Geneva on the detaining power to enforce; defendants and prisoners have not obligation to prove they are prisoners, but are recognized as being prisoners by their detention. Geneva is a universal requirement, and whether the prisoner is in a nation at war or not at war has no bearing on whether they are afforded all Geneva conventions.

As the court recognizes with Eisentrager, the issue is not the status of the prisoner or their location, but who is detaining them: The United States. This applies with this case. Whether a prisoner of war is held in the US, overseas, or on the moon is irrelevant: The question turns on whether the United States forces are detaining the prisoner. In this case, they are; and it is incorrect to argue the Geneva conventions do not apply on the basis of location -- such a conclusion would contradict the opposite finding of Hamdan and defeat the argument for the US to have removed the prisoners from Europe to GTMO. If it is true that the prisoners under US Care were not subject to protection, the move by the US implicitly argues the opposite: The US Recognized, regardless location, Geneva and US responsibility applies when the US controls the prisoner regardless the location.

Whether one is voluntarily or nonvoluntarily a prisoner is irrelevant. The Geneva conventions require the laws of war to apply regardless the status of the detainee.

The courts conclusions is illegal, and should be the basis for an ethics investigation; subject to review by the German war crimes prosecution.

The order cannot legally be enforced.

* * *

The court got it wrong: Hamdan, which the Supreme Court relied upon, concluded the opposite: Geneva permits prisoners access to legal rights commonly available. The burden of the detaining power exists, regardless where they conduct their operations.

The US Constitution, through the oath of office, is the Supreme Law of the land, and the Conventions are part of the Supreme Law.

Geneva Recognizes Legal Rights For Prisoners

The Military Commissions Act illegally denies to prisoners Geneva protections which are guaranteed, and all US government officials

2 of 22 Court granted Hamdan Habeas; and Supreme Court struck down illegal procedures which defied the Supreme Law.

The case had already started before the Military Commissions Act, which illegally asserts Judicial Power denying prisoners rights affirmed under Geneva and Hamdan. Congress has no power to exercise Judicial Power, and the Military Commissions Act illegally affected ongoing litigation. These precedents prohibit the Congress from doing what it did; and Nuremburg is precedent for prosecuting Judges for enforcing illegal statutes. Ref

Court Illegally Affirms Unconstitutional Act of Congress