Constant's pations

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

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Speaker-Elect Pelosi’s Disingenuous Request For Inputs


* * *

Many months ago, I recall reading then-Leader Pelosi’s fascination with blogs. She was amazed that she could read what people were really thinking. Ref I took that to heart and proceeded to expound at great length what I perceived needed to be heard. Ref Unfortunately for Leader Pelosi, she did not have the good fortune to read everything that I was thinking in that I was momentarily distracted by a few other disingenuous requests for inputs.

Speaker-elect Pelosi and the DNC have, thanks to the awakening of the American public, been elected to control Congress and challenge the godless heathens in the GOP. Despite defeating the GOP, some in the DNC appear to have the impression that the GOP has been wiped from the landscape, and the GOP will play nice, so long as the DNC plays nice.

We’ve also learned despite the President’s alleged illegal activity, the Legislature does not plan to use the power of impeachment to challenge the President.

Having won a mandate to protect the Constitution, I find it absurd for Pelosi to believe this corner of the blogosphere is going to take her request for inputs seriously. I’ll believe the Speaker is serious when I see something new:

___ What’s the status of the Congressional review of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports? [Title 28 and Title 50 Statutes]

___ Do Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have a plan to internally review the lessons of the Foley Ethics investigation, and explore the patterns of willful negligence the Speaker’s Counsel engaged? [ Issues, Lessons ]

___ What is the Speeder’s plan to apply the lessons of the Foley Ethics Report and implement those within her office? Other Info

___ What is the Speaker’s plan to incorporate the lessons of the Foley Ethics Report, and apply them to Members of Congress on issues like FISA, war crimes, Geneva, rendition, and other things that Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional employees (not just the Executive Branch) should have been paying attention to?

___ How will the GAO be brought into the Speaker’s agenda to review Congressional Operations, and provide a meaningful, periodic report for We the People to review and evaluate whether the Congressional leadership is or is not doing its job? [ Sample Performance Audit: GAO Assistance ]

___ What is the Speakers plan to apply the lessons of the Foley Ethics investigation; and ensure that the abuses between 2001 and 2006 (Member of Congress negligence in re FISA, rendition, war crimes, and prisoner abuse) are not repeated?

___ How will good ideas (like providing the public with advance copies of the bills before Congress debates the bill) be institutionalized so that regardless which party controls Congress, We the People are not abused in the future by having unconstitutional bills rammed down our throat without debate, oversight, or questions?

* * *

"People who do not have the aptitude or time to participate in governance should not be in government."

* * *

Going forward, I’m not inclined to believe the Speaker when she relays indirectly through staff that she would like to hear inputs from the netroots. The netroots have spoken: We want accountability.

The way forward is for the Speaker to make it clear to the President: He has two options, Either he and his alleged co-conspirators will face:

1. Judicial Sanctions: He fully cooperates with the US Attorney, and works with the Congress to reveal the evidence within his ranks of illegal activity; or

2. Legislative Sanctions: He’s going to face an impeachment.

I remain unconvinced that the President or the GOP is going to respond. Despite losing the 2006 election, the Vice President indicates he does not plan to cooperate with subpoenas. Perhaps the Speaker may wish to discuss this issue in detail with the US attorney and see whether the US attorney is prepared to do anything to evaluate whether the Vice President, in making his decision not to cooperate with Congress, could be prosecuted.

This Speaker-elect refuses to keep the second option on the table, meaning that there’s no leverage to make the President do what he originally should have done –- permitted the US attorneys to prosecute illegal Executive Branch conduct.

The idea of an impeachment is to give Congress the power to do what the Executive refuses to do: Enforce the law, impose a sanction on people when they fail, as an agent of the executive, to assert their oath, and otherwise engage in malfeasance.

Perhaps it is within the Speaker’s scope of attention that, if the US Attorney is not interest in enforcing the law, she and her colleagues may be interested in working with the State Attorney Generals to prosecute the President.

If that is not within her linking, perhaps the Speaker may wish to open a discussion with The Hogue, German war crimes prosecutors, and other international prosecutors to gather evidence, and do what the US Government jointly refuses to do – enforce the law. I’m all for change. I would hope the Speaker is open to change: Renewed appreciation for the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Excuses.

The way forward, Madame Speaker, is to comprehend exactly what did happen on November 2006. The era of excuses was thrown into the dustbin. Your job is to decide whether you want to use your power for this Constitution, or you would prefer to work with a new system that compels you, with less discretion, to do what this US government has refused to do since 2001: Enforce the law.

I’m all for providing inputs and suggestions. But asking for more suggestions despite ignoring the principle suggestion –- that of holding this President to account –- sends one signal: You’ve missed the big picture.

The lesson of the Foley Ethics Report is for We the People to monitor whether Members of Congress fully assert their oath, use all lawful options, or make excuses to do nothing. In theory, Members of Congress should implicitly exceed this requirement through 5 USC 3331, the oath of office; in practice, the US government pays lip service to whether the oath is or is not fully enforced. This is not acceptable.

Your inaction is secondary. A few of my friends –- numbering in the millions, around the globe -– have taken it upon themselves to do an end run around you, and work directly with the State Legislatures to force you and your colleagues in the House to go on the record: Are you going to assert your oath; or are you going to not do what you should do –- Force this President to cooperate.

The DNC and GOP joint decisions after November 2006 are no longer issues or choices between one party and the other. Rather, by refusing to keep open all lawful options to protect the Constitution, you and the DNC have inspired a third political party which is moving swiftly. It may not be a credible threat in 2006, but there are sufficient numbers to raise reasonable questions whether the days of a choice between the DNC and GOP are over. There’s a third party forming. Non-voters know they have an option; and disaffected members of the DNC and GOP see that there are options: Leadership, not excuses or reckless defiance of the oath of office.

* * *

Leadership means solving problems. The problem, Madame Speaker, is world disgust with the US Government. Something broke after 2001. Some in the DNC would like the world to believe that the minority party couldn’t do anything. I’m not convinced. The Title 28 and Title 50 requirements clearly state that the Minority Party can forward to the US Attorney and IG information requesting assistance or reviews. Whether these were or were not done is not the issue. The way forward is for We the People to get a clear understanding whether all lawful options were used to fully assert your oath; or whether there is another line of evidence that would explain what did or didn’t happen.

The way forward is for We the People to get a clear understanding of your plan to review the lessons learned from the Foley Ethics Report, and get a clear plan from your office to apply those lessons to your operations. I would prefer that your staff keep the requests for assistance to a minimum until you and your staff demonstrate that you are going to force the US Attorney to make a choice: Either

1. They work with your office to prosecute the evidence you have related to alleged war crimes and illegal conduct; or

2. You and your staff use the legislative tools to work with the US Prosecutors and take legislative action.

Those are your options. We the People have other options, including forwarding the same reports to the European war crimes prosecutors; working with our State Legislators and Attorney Generals to prosecute the President; and forwarding evidence of alleged malfeasance by Members of Congress, who allegedly refuse to fully assert their legal obligations as licensed attorneys to state attorney disciplinary boards. As with the Foley Report at the Federal level, State Officials who refuse to review evidence and assert their oath to the US Constitution may face criminal sanctions.

Whether the DNC does or does not believe that “impeachment” is or is not your agenda is of little consequence. My friends disagree. We are going to lawfully work with our friends to forward the evidence of alleged war crimes to the German war crimes prosecutor; and continue to examine to what extent your office, as Minority Leader, knew or should have known about something, but did not fully do what you should have done as Minority Leader per the Rule of Law.

* * *

The statutes are very clear on what the Members of Congress can do. You can, and are permitted to contact the US Attorney at any time with evidence; and you and your colleagues may at any time document your concerns with the Inspector Generals. Ref Before you consider forwarding through your staff requests for inputs, I would prefer your staff create a timeline explaining what information you and the DNC Minority Staff had and how you did provide that to the US Attorneys and Inspector Generals.

Until then, we cannot seriously have a discussion about additional inputs. The November 2006 election was a clear signal: We the People have woken up. Part of that awakening is accepting when the leaders are giving up lip service, or whether they are or are not doing their job. If you are serious about listening, then I would prefer that you do the following:

___ Take the Foley Ethics Report, and generalize the lessons learned in terms of excuses that Members of Congress gave to not do what they should have done; and fully demonstrate how this conduct does or does not apply to all Members of Congress in terms of the FISA, NSA, war crimes, Geneva, prisoner abuses; then show how the Members of Congress and your colleagues did or did not follow-up on the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; and then show that you did document the evidence of illegal activity, and have forwarded this to the US Attorney for investigation and possible prosecution;

___ Consider the evidence that you do have, and forward this information to the German and Italian war crimes prosecutors;

___ Work with the GAO to open all Congressional Staff operations to review, audit, and agree to periodically work with the GAO Leadership to fully document, and organize an oversight plan for Congress that sets an example for the Executive Branch;

___ Implement a training, oversight, and checklist program within the House that will fully document, outline, and ensure that all important issues are appropriately logged, tracked, managed, and timely reviewed to ensure they are not recurring issues;

___ Work with all the Committee Staffs to forward to their websites, and in a summarized form, the notes, memoranda, and summary information that We the People may review in the Congressional record.

It would be appropriate if your staff, when they made requests, or forwarded your comments, to specifically state what they would require; and the nature of how the information will or will not be used.

It is a concern, and I am specifically wary of a request for staff assistance, when it appears your staff and others in the DNC leadership are fully funded to do the tasks that your staff appears to be delegating. If your staff requires additional funding for consultants, contractors, witnesses, and other staff work, feel free to outline your requirements.

However, if the intent of your request for inputs is not, as it appears to be, to genuinely listen to the feedback and concerns about protecting the Constitution – by way of working with the US Attorney to prosecute Executive Branch personnel – they be clear with that.

My concern is that it appears as though your staff is using technology to automate a bad process: Namely a communication problem from the DNC leaders, and Congressional staff to We the People. WE are not here to do your staff work; we are here to engage in oversight of the US Government.

If your staff doesn’t have enough resources to fully document the information we need to make informed decisions, the way forward is not for We the People to do your staff work, and update wikis on Kos; rather, the way forward is to examine what information is currently in the Congressional Record that could be reformatted, improved, made more robust, or do what Kos proposes to do: Act as an online journal for the events of Congress.

Going forward, I would prefer, rather than Members of Congress, Staff, and your office attempting to solicit citizen inputs that you look at governance the opposite way: Your job is to work for us, and your Staff’s job should be to provide the information we need to make decisions about oversight in the Congressional record. It pains me to believe that others, like I may have done a few months ago, may believe that you and your staff are going to listen to inputs, only to have those ideas thrown back as not being in the right format.

I’ve learned a few things about the internet. One of the most insulting things to have happen is when someone announces they want frequent inputs and ideas; only to turn around and whine that someone is posting links to the very information that they’ve requested. But what is more absurd is to review content from these people from 10 years ago, and to discover that they were doing they same thing that they are now complaining about: Posting information, proving links, and attempting to provide assistance.

If something from 10 years ago is or is not relevant, then the lessons from 10 years ago should be applicable to what we are or are not doing in 2006 and 2007. Either we are going to work together to protect the Constitution; or we’re going to be political enemies, and you shall be lawfully-politically destroyed as the Constitution or a New Constitution is asserted.

From this perspective, it appears as though you have (apparently) believed that compromise with the GOP means not keeping legal options on the table. That is your choice. However, our legal options remain, and have always been to create a New Government, New Constitution, and work with international bodies that are willing to do what your staff (apparently) refuses to do: Assert the rule of law.

I would prefer your staff spend less time inspiring the public to do your staff’s work; and more time listening to the fundamental issue: What is the plan of your staff to work with the US Attorney and war crimes prosecutors to turn over all evidence your staff and the Members of Congress have related to the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; and the copies of the memoranda, notes, e-mail, and other documents showing whether you were or were not fully asserting your oath.

Either you were, or you were not. Either you have solid evidence showing you asserted your oath; or you do not. Either you were fully asserting your 5 USC 3331 oath; or you were not. The Foley Report is instructive: A bipartisan committee concluded, despite widespread negligence, there was no violation of the House rules. This is absurd.

The way forward, Madame Speaker is to decide what standards of conduct you want to reward under the 5 USC 3331 architecture; and modernize the House rules to ensure that this negligent conduct is sanctioned and punished, not rewarded with in action and excuses.

For example, take close note of Notes 92 and 94 on the Foley report and look closely at the allegedly material, inconsistent, and no credible Kolbe statements on those two notes. Kolbe says he wasn’t giving the issue much though; yet wants us to believe out of the blue he was talking to a page related to a WaPo matter for some benign reason. The concern is that the report concludes, on the basis of the ongoing investigation against Kolbe, that nothing can be done. I disagree. Adverse inferences can be made.

The way forward is to look at the evidence in the report and specifically challenge the GAO to develop an oversight system that would work to modernize the House Operations. Going further, the real solution isn’t to make this a simple House Precedent in Hinds, but to institutionalize the needed changes in the form of a Modernized Constitution. You are free to work on an Amendment; others are free to draft a New Constitution. Either way, until the good ideas are injected into a system that will institutionalize and embrace them, no amount of planning, information sharing is going to mean anything; those ideas need to go into an institution that will ensure the ideas are going to be permanent, not voted away when another party takes control.

The way forward isn’t to talk about new ideas; but to speak about the modernization that is going to be in place to ensure the abuses We the People and World Community inappropriately endured 2001-2006 never happen again.

I am not confident that the GOP and DNC are jointly prepared to look at the solutions in these terms. I will be convinced the DNC and GOP are jointly serious about protecting the Constitution when I see the following:

___ An open debate on the House and Senate floors of the institutional reforms needed to be included in a series of Amendments to modernize the Constitution

___ A clear plan by the Congressional leadership to work with the GAO to outline the types of Constitutional modernizations needed to fully entrench the needed reforms

___ A clear statement from your staff that you and other in the DNC are willing to listen to new ideas, regardless whether they are from your political opponents, legal adversaries, or those who may have chosen to take up arms against you and your colleagues on the battlefield.

___ A clear plan of what this US government is going to do to settle with the world Community the abuses and unlawful conduct that occurred 2001 to 2006

___ A clear plan of what the US government will do to fully cooperate with War Crimes Prosecutors to gather evidence related to illegal evidence collection used to abuse and mistreat prisoners and American civilians.

* * *

Madame Speaker, you are in a powerful position. But you are not all powerful. We the People are the source of the power that you have. We may lawfully, at any time, without notice, lawfully revoke all powers delegated to you, and lawfully implement a New Constitution.

The disturbing result of the 2006 election is the apparent confusion the US government has with simple notions of leadership. The 2006 election was a clear message from We the People that we expect our elected officials to do your jobs: Assert your oath, and protect the Constitution. How you do that is less important, than keeping that objective at center stage.

My concern is that despite the apparent mandate, the DNC leadership appears to have missed the boat. Rather than take the lead on issues of Presidential crimes, the Congressional leadership has implicitly rejected to needed leverage required to compel the US attorneys to act – that of keeping the impeachment option on the table – and has effectively abrogated leadership, turning over responsibility to We the People to act as a check on Congress.

This is stunning. Congress is there as a representative of We the People. We the People are not here to do your staff work; nor offer ideas that will only be rejected. Rather, if you are serious about listening, the way forward is to take the leadership in Congress for what it is – the opportunity to speak, lead, and direct the 50 State Legislators to work with their Citizens to gather evidence, and jointly present to you indictments and evidence that can be jointly forwarded to the US Attorneys, State Attorney Generals, and war crimes prosecutors for joint prosecution of the President, Executive Agents, and other US government officials who knew of illegal activity, failed to prevent the misconduct, and otherwise failed to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions.

However, if your staff is not willing to do this rather simple task, and make one announcement on this issue, We the People are in a position to make some reasonable adverse inferences:

A. The reason you and the DNC leadership are not willing to use your position in Congress to fully orchestrate a national effort to gather evidence is that you and your staff are allegedly complicit with the illegal activity; and

B. The reason the DNC leadership is not willing to lead, and do what We the People are doing –- forming a third party to challenged the unresponsive GOP-DNC leadership –- is your actions now would be an admission that you did not do between 2001 and 2006 what you always had the power to do: Speak directly to We the People.

I applaud your efforts to open a dialog. However, before I will believe that you are serious about listening to new ideas, I need to see something specific that you are listening to the ideas that are already before you:

1. The power of the impeachment is not delegated to you as Speaker, but to the House, as a body to decide;

2. The Constitution, oath of office, and requirements are there to be used, not explained away;

3. Title 28 and Title 50 are there as options to given Congress leverage to do what the Executive Refuses to do –- document noncompliance with statutes, create lines of evidence, and create an opportunity to have these illegal activities prosecuted.

Perhaps within the mind of the DNC leadership there is the notion that you would like to play politics with the President, make him look bad, and destroy the GOP, and win the White House in 2008. That’s fine. The question going forward is, between 2006 and 2008, what are you going to do to ensure that the blunders of the GOP are not repeated:

- When there was a crisis, there were excuses not to do what one should;

- When there was a problem, the Congress did not step back and make people do their jobs;

My concern is that the signs in 2006 suggest the DNC is essentially doing the same things as the GOP did between 2001 and 2006:

- Asserting an agenda as the basis not to broadly examine joint leadership problem in both committees;

- Not taking the lead on simple matters related to executive illegal activity, but keeping We the People busy with staff work that should be done within Congress
Again, our job is not to be your staff.

You are paid to make decisions about what types of staffing you need to do your job. We the People are willing to work with you, so long as you are willing to put the Constitution first. My concern is that you appear to want to put an agenda before a fully accounting of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports that you and your staff should have documented, and had the power to forward to the US Attorney and Inspector Generals. This does not appear to have been done. Going father, the issue with the Foley Report doesn’t appear credible: It appears as though members of Congress on both sides of the aisle didn’t do something, but a conclusion of no violation is troubling.

* * *

Let’s get to the heart of the issues. Going forward, it appears your staff has communicated to Members of the Kos Community that you would like inputs, ideas, suggestions. Gallantly, the Kos Community has established an informal network, community, and means of sharing ideas on current Congressional Staff Committee Action.

I would prefer the reverse: Rather than We the People having to reconstruct on the internet what your staff are doing; it would be more appropriate for your staffs to funnel the information to a single place in Congress: The Congressional Record. This would mean that We the People are not doing your staff work; and everyone is on the same page. I do not look at the Congressional Record as a paper document; rather, I view it as a central platform to exchange ideas. Each of the Committee Staff on a daily basis could have a deadline to provide summaries on issues, concerns, questions, and requests for specific actions and forward them to the Congressional record.

We the People in turn, could take the single document, and look across the many committee repots and make suggestions as how to better manage the various Congressional Operations.

Indeed, the primary interest of the Founders May have been to communicate information to the public. I find it somewhat amusing that the intent of the Framers has been turned on its head, and We the People are being asked to act as a back-up staff work for the Congressional Leadership. Indeed, to accomplish this approach, it may take some time; the operations may not be clear. However, rather than farm this project out to volunteers, why not make this a formal job description for Congressional Staff, and then conduct a parallel online Congressional Record (Beta Version) to see if the concept would work:

___ Do We the People get better information;

___ What timelines are appropriate to translate testimony into summary reports on Committee Websites;

___ What types of guidelines, checklists, and review sheets could Congressional Staff have at their disposal so they would know quickly the types of information that should be forwarded to this Congressional Record concept; [ Sample ]

__ What are the GAO views on the process; what suggestions do they have to oversee, monitor, and improve the Congressional Record-Public Communication platform; [ Sample ]

___ Is there a simple way to do this so We the People are not burdened with doing things that government should be doing: Staff work.

More broadly, this does not mean that We the People cannot do what is on Kos, or that we should not have independent records of what is or is not happening. My concern is that the proposed outside monitoring system asks us to duplicate something that might more effectively be done the first time if the Staff and Congressional Record were fully integrated into a communications vehicle consistent with the GAO business practices and the internet.

Indeed, if there are problems with the US Congress doing this, then imagine the chaos that would ensure if volunteers were attempting to automate a communication process which seems haphazard.

* * *

Going forward, We the People should establish success criteria for this new Congress, and the Congressional Committee information. It is one thing for the GAO and Members of Congress to jointly agree to something. The way forward is to keep in mind what we’re trying to do: Protect rights, prevent the abuse of power, and protect the Constitution. Until these primary objectives are confronted, and managed, the secondary issues of the DNC agenda hardly seem important.

Indeed, the DNC leadership may view it the other way: That the DNC agenda needs the first priority, and the Constitutional requirements will fall into place. That may be true, but I would like to see something specific. For example, reconsider the Foley report: It is an excellent outline of problems and issues that were well known since 1995, but things didn’t quite go as planned. The Foley Ethics Report isn’t simply about pages, but about whether Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional Employees can be trusted to see the big picture, or make excuses not to follow up. Let’s get specific:

The report identifies many issues that were asserted to have been resolved, yet there’s no issue tracking system in the Speakers Office, However, the final recommendations do not generalize these lessons, but narrowly tailor the lessons in terms of the page Program. This misses the opportunity.

The way forward is to Generalize the lessons, see what reviews and internal management systems were not working – across the board – then create an approach to governance which permanently resolves these issues.

Ideally, the 5 USC 3331 oath of office should have been sufficient to compel people to do what they didn’t fell like doing. The broader solution isn’t to narrowly define the Foley Report in terms of Pages; but to reverse the information and look at the pattern of conduct that was not done despite the reasonable expectation that the 5 USC 3331 oath of office is fully asserted.

Using this approach –- that of inversing the lessons of the Foley report –- we arrive at a new way for We the People and the DNC Staff to interact. Again, We the People are not here as your employees; rather, it is our job to communicate the opposite: What we expect of the leadership in terms of performance relative to the Constitutional issues, oversight requirements, and then when those are addressed, you’ll be left alone to assert your agenda –- which we have the power to reject at any time.

Our job should be to work with the GAO, Congressional leadership, and Committee Staff to publicly establish critical factors of success for the Constitutional requirements, and develop indicators that We the People jointly agree will do what failed in the page Board failure: Things to monitor prospectively to ensure that Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and employees are ready to face the unexpected.

Our job will be to evaluate whether the Staff Compensation packages are credible; or whether the pattern of negligence suggests that members of Congress have been asserting that Staff has been meeting requirements, despite the known failure to do what the compensation packages call for. Our job in these oversight issues is not to translate, document, and act as the administrative staff for the Committees; but to the do the opposite: Oversee the Committees on the following areas:

___ Are the Committee Staff and Members of Congress during open hearings asking the right questions; or are the answers not getting challenged;

___ To what extent is testimony being used as an excuse to delay;

___ Could witnesses be required to provide testimony three weeks in advance in written from so that We the People may do research, forward questions, and openly discuss the issues well before the witnesses appear;

___ Once We the People have had a chance to chew on the testimony, how will our joint concerns be factored into the official testimony, with an opportunity of the witnesses to provide full, written responses for We the People to openly discuss, then forward for more questions;

___ What is the quality of the answers from the witnesses;

___ Are the timelines to resolve issues real, or are they designed to stifle public participation in the debate;

___ To what extent are witnesses sanctioned with credible prosecutions for misleading testimony to Members of Congress;

___ Are Staff Counsel in Congress comprehe4nding their job is to work for We the People; and that they should be the legal experts; and it is a bad sign when We the People have to know the details of Title 28 and Title 50 better than the ABA certified counsel;

___ To what extent are legal problems connected with Executive Staff counsel forwarded to the DC and State Bar for issues of disbarment investigations;

___ Can We the People see that the Congressional leadership is serious about seeking novel ideas and inputs; or is this merely a Congressional-leadership exercise to keep We the People distracted by trivial issues, while the larger Constitutional issues are getting ignored;

___ Are issues which warrant US Attorney and Inspector general investigation getting timely documented, posted on the internet, translated into official memoranda, and become letters which any court of law can review to see that Members of Congress have fully asserted their 5 USC 3331 oversight duties faithfully;

___ Are the plans to resolve the issues identified through the public participation with this modernized Congressional Oversight system working;

___ What are the GAO views on this approach; and what recommendations does the GAO have to make Congress more responsive to the dialog;

___ How will GAO accept the way that the online blogging community works; and incorporate this as a known variable into what Members of Congress will have to interact with, and cannot effectively hope to manipulate, use, or abuse;

___ Is the interaction between We the People and our elected representatives in Congress in the spirit of the founders: We the People have sent you there to do our bidding; and it is a problem when We the People have to know the issues better than the so-called experts we have elected to become experts;

___ How are the lessons learned from other GAO reviews of the Executive Branch being incorporated into what We the People should reasonably expect of the GAO as it interfaces with the Congressional Leadership; and

__ How will the best practices become institutionalized, and become the basis for Members of Congress to work with the State legislators to modernize the Constitution, and ensure the abuses of power between 2001-2006 do not recur?

* * *

It would please me, and I would prefer, before we get into a discussion of specific ideas, for the DNC leadership to come to a clear public position on what did or did not happen with the Military Commissions Bill.

My view is DNC and GOP Members of Congress jointly have a problem with Title 28 and Title 50. Going forward, it is in the interests of both parties to have included language that would provide funding for defenses before The Hague. Indeed, under our System of separation of powers, Members of Congress were allegedly complicit with war crimes; just as Staff Counsel did not timely act to prevent the Foley issues from falling apart, so to have Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and others not fully done their job on issues of war crimes.

It is my view that the Military Commissions Bill, however crafted, was artfully passed with the knowledge that Members of Congress would benefit. It is a concern when the House Ethics Rules prohibit Members of Congress from creating contracts that they will benefit. I view the Military Commissions Bill as an illegal contract, one which members of Congress hope to have a benefit –- namely immunity from prosecution for misconduct 2001-2006, as evidenced by the alleged failure of Members of Congress in both parties to properly document the known Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports. If the immunity were valid, Congress would not have provided funds to defend US government officials, including Members of Congress, before The Hague.

Curiously, in the Foley Report, when one legal decision is made, this was the basis for another branch of government to conclude that nothing was done. Specifically, once Kolbe was found to have allegedly made inconsistent statements at notes 92 and 94, the Committee does not appear to have aggressively reviewed that inconsistency. Rather, the opposite approach was taken: Arguing implicitly that because Kolbe was under prosecution and investigation, the Congress could not get fully testimony, and could find no wrong doing. I view this as being backwards: A better approach world have been to keep the Ethics Investigation open until the US Attorney either prosecuted, or declined to prosecute.

My concern is that the US government approach to legal issues has been with the presumption that things will go right -- however that is defined -- and that becomes “someone else is handling the issue” -- in practice, someone else does nothing. The lessons of the Foley Report, as they relate to the Military Commission Bill is this: once Members of Congress realize that they can be prosecuted by the States or war crimes prosecutors for alleged malfeasance on Article 82 violations (that of failing to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions), the issue turns on its head: No longer do Members of Congress have the power to assert any Article III judicial powers and grant themselves immunity for alleged criminal conduct 2001-2006. Rather, as with Yugoslavia, the assertion of immunity is the basis for adverse prosecution by war crimes prosecutors; or adverse combat operations.

Rather, as long as anyone remains a target for war crimes prosecutions, especially in light of the illegal assertion of judicial power by congress for Criminal conduct, all Members of Congress will have to explain –- as did the Foley and Speakers staff in re Foley -– where they were, what they were doing, and what did or didn’t happen.

The present approach asks us to do exactly what has been a sore point in re the Executive: Rather than holding the leadership to account, a few lower ranking people in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have been punished. Again, under the US system of shared powers, the policy making responsibility is jointly shared by Members of Congress and the president.

If anyone is going to face any discipline, as Foley did in re Pages, the leadership in both parties need to be held to account for what did or didn’t happen between 2001 and 2006. Thus, I conclude the Military Commissions Bill has done more to undermine US security than enhance it: Insurgents view the US, as NATO viewed Yugoslavia, as not being serious out the rule of law.

In turn, until Members of Congress are willing to cooperate with the war crimes prosecutors, there should be little assurance that the Congress is going to exercise the needed oversight of the President; and they will seriously consider substantive constitutional inputs from We the People. Rather, as with Foley and Kolbe, as long as Members of Congress are allegedly implicated in the failure to investigate war crimes, they’ll never be in a credible position, as Kolbe was, to aggressively oversee the President.

This bring us back to impeachment. Madame Speaker, it appears from this corner of the blogosphere that “taking impeachment off the table” is a reward for the President having (illegally) granted Congress immunity for failed oversight between 2001 and 2006. This is not lawful.

The President may only grant pardons after prosecution; pardons do not immunize people of the crime, they only pardon them for the punishment. Similarly, Congress and the President do not have joint or separate powers to assert Article III judicial powers only delegated to the Courts. Congress has no power to decide whether conduct 2001 – 2006 should or should not be immunized; only a court can make this decision, especially on matters that are already underway.

Going forward, 2007 and beyond, Congress may choose to do this. But Congress cannot change the evidence, nor rewrite the law as it applied to Congress, Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, or their friends in DOJ For what was or was not done 2001-2006.; These are matters of criminal law.

The way forward is to examine whether the US Attorney is going to assert these legal issues, and request the Military Commissions Act be overturned as unconstitutional, or whether The Hague will conclude that, as did NATO in re Yugoslavia; or whether the US government will, in the face of alleged defiance of Geneva and refusal to have full enforcement, face like retaliation by foreign fighters.

Regardless the supposed combat superiority of the US military, US forces are not winning in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Congress has the power to raise and support n army; it also has the job to remove from office someone who is not doing their job.

This President, I am concerned, is using the mess he crated in Iraq, as the quick sand to divert Member of Congress attention away from the Constitution, and create the false impression that this is something for Congress to solve. Indeed, it may be; but if Congress does have a role to solve this problem, then it also has a legal duty to be accountable for where we are: What was or was not done 2001 to 2006. Either

1. Congress has a duty to solve a policy problem, and is legally responsible for what did or didn’t’ happen prior to 2007; or

2. Congress has no legal responsibility for what did or didn’t happen, and should leave the problem to the Executive Branch.

However, this Congress wants it both ways, much to the pleasure of the President: Despite asserting that Congress has no legal responsibly for the bad things 2001-2006 (alleged complicity for failing to prevent, or investigate war crimes as they have a 5 USC 3331 duty); Congress would like to pretend it has a legal duty to do something going forward. Perhaps it does.

But the solution isn’t’ to do the President’s job; rather, the role of Congress is to decide whether the President can or cannot do the job.

Just as We the People are not here to do the staff work of Congress, Congress is not here to solve the Article II problems. If you are going to solve the legal problem, then you will have to explain why you did not act earlier; and if you are going to say that Congress has a duty to resolve the issue, the question becomes: Where were you in resolving the Title 28 and Title 50 legal issues.

Madame Speaker, rest assured, it is well known that you’re in a no-win situation. That is why a few of may friends –- number in the millions –- have taken it upon ourselves to do what you and your colleagues in Congress have allegedly refused to do: We are openly working with the German and Italian war crimes prosecutor to forward evidence of war crimes; and we are actively working with the State legislators and Attorney Generals to prosecute the President; and force you as Speaker to make a decision whether you are for or against the rule of law.

House Rule 603 recognizes the inherent right of We the People to work with our State Legislators to draft percolations asking Congress to investigate. You have stated that impeachment is off the table. Perhaps you may view the Constitution that way.

However, a careful reading of the Constitution does not grant you, Madame Speaker, any power to impeach or not impeach. The power is only delegated by We the People to the House as a legislative body. If it is your decision that no one is allowed to vote for impeachment, you will have to make a credible argument that you have not induced others to change their votes for other promises.

“Do Americans want impeachment?” is the wrong question; the right question is whether This Congress wants to be trusted to protect the Constitution; or whether you will be compelled to protect a New Constitution. It has been drafted. Madame Speaker, you have been denied the power to have any input.

* * *


The US government exists for one reason: It is a tool of We the People to prevent the abuse of power, and protect rights. When that government fails, it must be lawfully changed. When the government is unresponsive to the mandate for change, then the entire framework of government can be lawfully changed.

Going forward, this Congress is on probation. There is always an election every two years; regardless whether this Congress does or does not have 2008 Presidential Ambitions is irrelevant. The number one priority of this Congress is to assert the 5 USC 3331 oath; and fully protect the Constitution.

The Congress has the burden of proof to demonstrate it is for this Constitution. The way forward is for the Congress to comprehend the lessons of the Foley Report; and accept that the pattern of negligence allegedly crosses both political parties; and this alleged malfeasance is evidenced by the lack of evidence, where there should be, of Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports. The courts may find, where evidence is lacking, that someone in Congress did not do what they faithfully promised to do, as required 5 USC 3331.

The German and Italian War Crimes Prosecutors, in conjunction with the State Attorney Generals and State Legislators have implicitly agreed to do what the US Government refuses to do: Assert the rule of law. There are two general options the US government has on legal issues:

1. It can enforce the law through the judicial system, and use the US Attorneys to prosecute cases; or

2. It can impeach.

This Congress has already shown, despite the FISA, NSA, Constitutional, and Geneva violations, that it is not willing to publicly forward to the US Attorneys evidence related to illegal conduct.

We have no prosecutions; there is no planned impeachment. The US government has effectively communicated to the world: It is not serious about written law and is not legitimate. This is a serious matter. We the People are guaranteed an enforcement mechanism to assert the rule of law -- this is the definition of a Republic. Without law enforcement through either the US Attorneys or impeachment, there is no enforcement, no Republic, and no guarantee. This is illegal.

We the People, to protect the Constitution, have options. We may make the adverse inference that nothing is being done, and forward these concerns to the State Attorney Disciplinary Boards, and the State Attorney Generals. They in turn may investigate the issues this Congress and US Attorneys have either ignored, not reviewed, or have asserted are not crimes, despite the Geneva violations.

Either Congress works openly to translate the information and evidence before the Committee hearings to the US Attorneys for prosecution; or –- because the impeachment is off the table –- We the People have to conclude there is malfeasance, and other legal options are required.

Madame Speaker, you are hereby informed that you remain under investigation for your alleged complicity with Geneva Violations. As Congressional Staff counsel were informed in re Foley in 1995, legal issues have political consequences. You no longer have the power to say that impeachment is on or off the table; it remains on the table. State Attorney Generals have the power to prosecute sitting Presidents and Members of Congress for their failure to ensure the State’s right to a Republican Form of Government. How you proceed is up to you and your legal counsel.

Until the legal issues with the President are fully confronted, neither the GOP or DNC leadership going into 2008 has any credible basis to argue that they are going to lead. This Congress has communicated to We the People that the president’s alleged war crimes, and other institutional failures which permitted-enabled is illegal conduct, will not be examined with the express question in mind: Is this President fit to remain in office.

The Senate has no power to decide whether the House will or will not impeach. Whether the President will or will not be removed from office has no bearing on whether you, Madame Speaker do or do not choose to fully assert your oath and do what the US Attorneys have refused to do: Enforce the law through all legal options. The power of impeachment is not yours to deny; it is only a power We the People may deny.

Your job will be to explain, going into the 2008 election, why inaction on Presidential misconduct is preferable; and why inaction, as was rebuked in re Foley, is preferable. We voted for a change, not for the same outcome, but with a new flavor: The same do nothing Congress in re the Rule of Law.

My friends and I are able to communicate using methods which the NSA and your legal staff are unable to detect, intercept, and get advance warning. Involved are citizens from around the globe with one objective: To lawfully assert the rule of law, protect the Constitution, and ensure that this Constitution is fully enforced. The war crimes prosecutors is well aware of the alleged war crimes evidence related to the Contractors; they are aware of evidence indicating evidence has been illegally captured and allegedly used to abuse American civilians and prisoners; and the Foley issues are well understood. Staff Counsel in the DOJ and Congress are allegedly implicated in the alleged conspiracy to violate the Supreme Law. The evidence is well known, documented, and has been protected in secure locations outside the US government control.

These are issues of war crimes. Foreign fighters are also permitted under the laws of war, to lawfully reciprocate and commit like abuses against those who violate the laws of war. The aim of this provision within Geneva is to act as a check on abuse of power. Bluntly, as long as the Congress chooses to asset that impeachment is off the table, foreign fighters have the Constitutionally protected right -- through the Geneva Conventions -- to engage in like abuses against US government officials, combatant commanders, and contractors engaged in illegal conduct around the globe.

Madame Speaker this could easily end if you would simply let the facts fall where they may; and recognize you have no power to prevent a Constitutional Confrontation in the House. The Confrontation started once the President and Members of Congress jointly agreed to engage in rebellion against the Constitution in 2001.You will be asked to choose whether you wish to find facts; or do something else. You are free to choose what you desire.

As long as the rule of law is not allowed to prevail, foreign fighters shall lawfully assert power against the combatants overseas and further decimate them. This Congress voted for illegal warfare, did not stop it, and has permitted the abuses to continue. Despite illegal appropriations which violate the Article 1 Section 9 restrictions against spending things for illegal things, this Congress has chosen to not shut down the illegal funding.

Because impeachment has been proffered as a negotiating point, foreign fighters have refused to engage in settlement and peace talks. They see that America is not serious about the law, agreements, or obligations. The way forward, if you decide you are serious about the rule of law, is to freely assent to Article III jurisdiction on all legal matters. If you and others in Congress pretend that the legal issues of the President cannot be confronted, and the US Attorneys cannot review the matters, or that you and otters will not make a fair showing of the Title 289 and Title 50 exceptions, you have sent a clear signal that you do not respect the rule of law.

There are two forums to resolve issues. One is the court. The second is the battlefield. US combatant commanders, overseeing forces raised and supported by this Congress, have at best, been stuck in a quagmire; at worst, the Congress has shown to the world despite violating the law, the Congress is incompetent in raising and supporting combat forces. Congress, not just the US government and President, has been defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Congress does not wish to take the issues to Court. Congress is communicating that it would rather suffer more combat losses on the alternative forum –- the battlefield –- than fully assert the 5 USC 2331 obligations in the Article III forums. You have no power to immunize yourself and your colleagues in Congress using Article III powers.

The evidence has been secure. The Foley Ethics Investigation identifies by name the Staff Counsel who have been allegedly reckless in performing their duties; and the communications between staff counsel and the Executive Branch have been disclosed inadvertently in the Foley Ethics Report. This permits the German war crimes prosecutor to expand discovery, and lawfully target you, your staff, and your colleagues in Congress, along with Congressional Staff, on issues which related to Geneva violations:

___ What did you know;

___ Did you fully assert your oath;

___ Did you fully do your moral best to identify the illegal conduct;

___ What was or was not done when the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports were given; and

___ Once the illegal conduct was first disclosed in 2001, where is the evidence Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle forwarded information to the US Attorney and Inspector General for investigation.

Legal options, where one has the duty act, become obligations to fully assert, not pretend they do not exist.

As with the Foley Report, the results do not look good. But this isn’t about a page or a page Board. These are matters of war crimes. The lawful sanction, as was imposed at Nuremburg and the Tokyo war Crimes tribunal on civilians who were in a position to do something but did not, was the death penalty.

It appears the DNC refuses to keep impeachment on the table because the President has agreed to not prosecute Members of Congress for failing to stop him from doing what they had the power to prevent: War crimes. These are serious matters.

As with the 1974 Nixon Grand Jury, the US Attorneys well know the problem: We the People well comprehend the legal issues, and the involvement by US Contractors in the illegal interception of data; and how this illegally acquired data was allegedly used to illegal abuse prisoners, transport them, and illegally kill them. The contractors are talking. The counsel is worried. And their communications have been intercepted. The German War Crimes prosecutor has the evidence, as does the NSA, and the US Attorneys.

What the GOP or DNC hope to accomplish between now and 2008 is of little interest. Indeed, you and the DNC leadership may have an agenda, but you also have an oath to the US Constitution, and through that to the Geneva Conventions and to the State to guarantee them a republican form of government.

You are outnumbered. The evidence is against you. We the People have more options, and the law is on ours side. Your peers have a problem. This has yet to begin.

You and Members of Congress are in no position to negotiate, ask for, nor request anything. We the People are in a superior position. We always have been. We always will.

* * *


It would please me, and I would prefer your staff to quietly work with the Congressional Record and Kos to jointly develop a communication system between your leadership, the Committees, and the publications.

I would prefer that you and your peers in Congress fully cooperate with the questions from the German War Crimes prosecutor on matters related to alleged negligence by Members of Congress in both parties.

I would like to see a formal report outlining how the Foley Ethics Committee Report is going to be reaccomplished, especially in light of the many patterns of conduct as they relate to FISA, Geneva, Constitutional Violations, and other illegal activity both the DNC and GOP are allegedly complicit in not stopping, as permitted and required under the Geneva Conventions.

I would like to have a detailed report available on the internet for inspection by the German War Crimes prosecutor explaining in detail the plan of the US Congress to fully cooperate with the war crimes prosecutor, and include points of contact that will act as your agent, and speak for you before The Hague and Tribunal.

I would like to see an explanation of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; and a discussion of where the documentation is related to the Inspector Generals and communications to the US Attorney.

I would like to see a copy of the notes, memoranda, and staff counsel remarks you, the DNC and the GOP jointly engaged prior to the illegal passed of the Military Commissions Bill which illegally granted immunity to your peers and alleged coconspirators for war crimes 2001-2006. These notes are not privileged; they are matters which have been disclosed, and are admissible, as the notes from Yugoslavia were admissible. Without the information We the People are in a position to make adverse inferences, inter alia:

___ The US government has illegally, jointly agreed to engage in an insurrection and rebellion against the Rule of law, US Constitution, and Geneva Conventions;

___ The US government led by specific staff counsel have illegally asserted Article III judicial power to retroactively grant immunity for known war crimes that Members of Congress and the Executive Branch knew about, failed to prevent, and have failed to fully assert their 5 USC 3331 oath of office;

___ No one in either the GOP or DNC parties is fit to provide White House leadership in 2008;

___ No one in either party can point to any credible plan, oversight, review, or examination of any pattern of conduct to communicate to anyone that they have a vision of what needs to be remedied, much less enacted as President to prevent this abuse of power from recurring; and

___ The only lawful check on the US government remains sustained combat losses on the battlefield.

* * *


Next time one of your staff has the wild idea that they want inputs or suggestion, it would please me if they could point to something that would show they are serious about listening. I listened to you once before, and was summarily told I was not brining anything to the table. You now have three states with House Rule 603 poised to act, and a few of my friends working to launch more proclamations into your arena.

If you believe that your agenda is anything, but your conduct defies your oath, you have made a serious error. 5 USC 3331, Title 28 and Title 50 are all that is needed to examine what has or has not been done.

You have a major problem, and your staff counsel knows fully well they are stuck. Here is a checklist of what I would like to see in a timely manner. You'll note that this repeats an expands upon the above:

___ War crimes prosecutions: What is the plan of congress to fully support war crimes investigations against Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional staff for their failure to timely remove themselves from legal matters they knew, or should have known were illegal

___ GAO audit of Congress with published reports: What is the plan of Congress to work with the GAO to conduct a periodic, public performance audit of Congress and outline a framework to modernize Congressional Operations, management, and oversight of its internal affairs?

___ Explanations at depositions under oath and penalty of perjury what has been going on with the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports, as referenced at this list of statutes;

___ Detailed comments by the GOP and DNC leadership, Congressional officers in both parties, and Staff counsel on what evidence, information, and data archiving system is in place to store, track, and monitor legal issues related to FISA, NSA, Geneva, war crimes, prisoner abuses 2001-2006;

___ A public plan to forward the ethics depositions to the US Attorney And War Crimes prosecutors for their review;

___ A plan to forward all information to the US Attorney, war crimes prosecutors in re alleged war crimes, or other alleged illegal conduct in re (a) Prosecution; or (b) Impeachment

___ A clear plan, if impeachment is not going to be exercised by the House, of how Members of Congress will work with the (1) State Attorney Generals; (2) war crimes prosecutors; (3) US Attorneys; and (4) Federal Grand Juries to present for prosecution of US officials;

__ A clear plan to forward all information about alleged Executive, contractor, and Congressional conduct in re war crimes to the war crimes prosecutor and state attorney bar and DC Bar for review for purposes of disbarment;

__ A clear plan of the US Congress to cooperate with the modernizations of the US Government to ensure the events 2001-2006, and associated abuses of power are never repeated by the US government;

___ A clear plan by the US Congress to settle the legal and military issues with the Iraqi people; and publicly settle and resolve all legal issues with the world community in a manner that will not inspire anyone in the US to assert, as did Hitler after WWI, that the US has been victimized, nor lay the foundation for a return of more abusive forces at the 2008 or any other future election.

___ A clear plan of what the Congress plans to do to stop focusing on the distraction of Iraq, and compel a decision whether the President can or cannot lead;

___ A clear pan of the Congress to stop delegating staff work to We the People, and appropriately hire competent staff counsel who will not repeat the errors of alleged recklessness well documented in the Foley Report;

___ A clear, convincing plan that will communicate to We the People that the US Government can be trusted with the power we have delegated; and that you will honor your 5 USC 3331 commitments, even if this means providing evidence of peer misconduct to war crimes prosecutors;

__ A clear explanation how, if the issues of presidential abuses are not examined, how anyone running for President in 2008 can claim they have a solution, or can provide leadership over a system which will not examine the issues

___ A clear explanation how, in light of the Foley Report which revealed new thing we did not know but were “open secrets,” why We the People would not benefit by a similar consolidated, single report in re the President as to his fitness for office; and what should be done “next time” this happens

___ A clear showing that the lessons of the Foley Report have been generalized, and applied across the board to all Congressional Committees when it comes to issues of oversight, communication, reporting, issue tracking, documentation, and law enforcement; then demonstrate the lessons have been fully implemented and applied to Members of Congress, Staff counsel, and Congressional Employees in terms of the alleged illegal activity: FISA violations, Geneva Violations, Constitutional Violations, and a fully report which the German war crimes prosecutor can review in her office at any time without any restrictions.

___ Make a compelling case that the modernizations to the US government and Constitutional System are fully entrenched, and include a system of governance that will fully ensure that the abuses 2001 to 2006 never recur.

___ Make a clear and convincing case that changes in staff assignments, personnel assigned, or changes in party control will have no bearing on whether reforms, modernization, or changes to the Constitutional system will or will not be enforced; rather, all methods to prevent the abuse of power and protect rights shall have more creative and compelling methods to work regardless the abuses, misrepresentations, or outright lies any Congress and Executive may jointly manufacture.

Until We the People receive the above, we will be well positioned to make adverse inferences:

- Members of Congress, US Government officials, Staff Counsel in the Article I and Article II branches of government are not faithfully doing their 5 USC 3331;

- The Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports are material and show, or should show, that Members of Congress were reckless in not preventing, documenting, and investigating war crimes as they had the power to do;

- Members of Congress and the President have jointly agreed to assert powers not delegated;

- The House has illegally granted non-delegated power to the Senate to decide when officials may or may not be impeached;

- The US government has no plan to lawfully prevail in the court room or the battlefield, and has no legal or resource foundation to prevail in either forum;

- The House has no plans to cooperate with the US Attorney or War Crimes prosecutor because they are complicity with failing to prevent, stop, and funding Geneva Violations;

- The delegation of staff work to We the People is designed to act as a smokescreen to keep We the People busy on matters Congress is paid to do;

- Members of Congress would like to automate a bad process and poor communication; rather than have Staff counsel forward all relevant information to the Congressional record, they would prefer that We the People put pieces together, and Members of Congress and their Staff are not doing their jobs;

- The Foley Report is the tip of the iceberg on alleged Member of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional employee malfeasance in re Geneva, FISA, and Constitutional violations;

- The US Congress has no plans to work with the GAO to modernize the system of governance in the Congress;

- The US Congress has no plans to work with the GAO and War crimes prosecutors to ensure that Congressional operations identify, mitigate, and properly document war crimes related evidence and misconduct which Members of Congress have allegedly failed to prevent;

- Congress has no plans to choose between prosecution or impeachment; it has chosen to take one option of the table, and remain silent and allegedly complicity with the failure to do the other;

- There is no plan to create checklist, check sheets, review appears, or other training manuals that would assist Members of Congress and Staff counsel from allowing 2001-2006 abuse from recurring;

- There is no Member of Congress-generated success criteria for how the US Congress will or will not demonstrated it is doing its job; and this success criteria, even if it were to exist, has not been credibly coordinated with We the People, as should reasonably be expected;

- A third party, other than the GOP and DNC, has been inspired to provide leadership, and protect the Constitution.;

- Committee Chairmanships cannot be assigned on the basis of who controls the Congress, but what percentage of the seats a party controls – a third party, based on their representation in Congress, should be given X% of the time to chair any given committee;

- There is no credible plan in place to ensure the Constitutional requirements or governance reforms are enforceable requirements – the abuses of 2001-2006 were insufficient catalyst to inspire a timeless solution which would prevent the abuse of power and violation of rights regardless the level of Congressional complicity, malfeasance, or excuses for negligence;

- The Congressional compensation packages, which Members of Congress have asserted in writing as being legitimate, are not consistent with the duties Staff Counsel and Congressional Staff are able to perform unsupervised; this disconnect should warrant a downward revision of compensation, and an increase in training and oversight for Congress;

- A new method of governance is needed to disclosed the flawed operations which Congress has failed to reform in-house, modernize, audit, or remedy but for Oversight by We the People;

- The way forward is to develop criteria that will examine the scope of Committee questions, quality if solutions;

- There is no plan to resolve the management issues in Congress, as identified in the Foley Report;

- The requests for assistance to the Inspector Generals and US Attorney have not been sufficient, adequate, or consistent with the 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

* * *


The US government is on probation. Congress has a lot of work to do. You agenda’s number one item is the Constitution. It is not appropriate to delegate staff work to We the People.

If Members of congress are serious about considering ideas or reviewing solutions from We the People, start with the Constitution and Statutes. Those are Our Will. When you demonstrate you can comply with the law, perhaps you request for other assistance might be taken seriously. For now, you have well demonstrated you would like to ask for ideas not to listen, but to induce people not to call you what you are: Allegedly complicit with war crimes, and incapable of governing within the rule of law; nor successfully raising an army to prevail on your preferred forum for dispute resolution: Combat.

A government that refuses to assent to the rule of law is not longer legitimate. It may be lawfully replaced by something that is more responsive to the needs of We the People, better protects rights, and prevents the abuse of power. This US government has failed. The leadership knows it cannot solve these problems. Asking for assistance is disingenuous.

You are advised to seek counsel. The German war crimes prosecutor has expanded the inquiry. All 535 Members of Congress are alleged war criminals. The State Proclamations calling for impeachment are on the way and you will be compelled to vote, on the record, whether you want to know facts, or do what Foley’s enablers did: Nothing. The world no longer has confidence in the US government. The US government is outnumbered. Choose the rule of law, or you shall be lawfully destroyed.