Constant's pations

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

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Title 28 and Title 50 Exception Reports

Title 28 and Title 50 Exception reports are a big problem for Members of Congress.

This note goes into the technical details of the statutes, and explain the legal trap Members of Congress find themselves.

* * *

Title 28 and Title 50 Ref

Title 28 and Title 50 are two of the many Executive Branch Reporting Requirements to Congress. The aim of the requirements is to notify Congress in writing if there is a deviation from the statute.

Title 28 deals with the Attorney General notifications; while Title 50 deals with Presidential notifications on issues of war.

Once Congress receives a Title 28 or Title 50 exception report in writing, they are under notice that the statute is not being enforced; or that the Attorney General and President have documented there are known violations of the law.

Once the exception reports are documented and forwarded in writing, the President and Attorney General are not free from further action. Rather, they may be lawfully subpoenaed to explain the nature of the violations; or provide other additional information.

The purpose of the requirements is to trigger the Executive Branch to document something, and make a formal reporting in writing that they are aware of something, or know of evidence, or a course of conduct which does not meet the statutory intent.

Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports must be in writing and delivered to Congress.

* * *

Problems for Congress

In theory, the Executive branch is supposed to follow, enforce, and comply with the law. Ideally, it’s a cat and mouse game: The President tries to violate the law; and Congress, in theory tries to catch him.

Put aside the legal requirements for the moment, and consider public information in the open media. The President has a problem when he gets caught doing something that he is not allowed to do, but it is disclosed in the open media.

The problem are two-fold:

1. The President violated the law; and

2. The President didn't comply with the Title 50 reporting requirement

However, the problem gets bigger once Congress, after it learns of the illegal activity, does not look at the issue.

Congress has multiple problems:

1. Members of Congress knew or should have known, that the law was violated but it did not get a Title 28 or Title 50 exception report;

2. After knowing of the illegal activity through the open media, Members of Congress did not review the Title 50 or Title 28 exception reports and ask why they were not notified by statute

3. Despite open admissions by the President and Attorney General that they were not fully complying with the statute, there was no review as to why the Title 28 or Title 50 exception reports were not document as required; and

4. Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional Employees did not examine the issues related to why the President and Attorney General did not fully meet their reporting requirements on other issues.

5. Members of Congress and Staff Counsel, despite knowing that Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports were not provided as required, did not use the "absence of the required reports" as the basis to request the US Attorney and Inspector General to review the issues, inter alia:
(a) The original illegal activity;
(b) the failure of the Executive/Attorney to Comply;
(c) who inside the Congress knew of the illegal activity but did not do a review of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; and
(d) What other illegal activity Members of Congress know about, but have not said, "There is no required Title 28 and Title 50 exception report."

6. Once the above is done, then Congress has another duty, every two years, to provide a report to the Congressional leadership on the enforcement actions. Once it is known that the Congress did not review the Title 28/Title 50 exceptions, the basis for the March 2007 assertions to the House leadership become suspect.

7. Once it is known that someone didn't do their job, then the issues of Members of Congress certifications on staff Compensation packages arises. Members of Congress are required to certify staff counsel and employees are doing specific things; once it is known that someone didn't do a Title 28/Title 50 review as required -- when it was known there was illegal activity, but it had not been reported -- the problem for Members of Congress under the Statute becomes: What compensation certifications were made but cannot be supported by the known failures of Staff to do the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports.

8. Title 41 sect 22 has a clause which prohibits Members of Congress enjoying a private, commercial benefit to a contract the Member of Congress was involved. Once the Title 28 and Title 50 exception repots are known to have not bee done, the question becomes: Did Members of Congress, knowing there was illegal activity, get a private, non official benefit to remain silent about the known violations of the law? It appears contractors involved in illegal activity (Rendition, war crimes, Geneva violations, FISA abuses) were in a position not provide campaign contributions to Members of Congress if the Members of Congress were silent about the illegal activity.

* * *

When you read the question, "What about the Title 28 and Title 50 exception report" think about the joint problems Members of Congress and the Executive Branch have:

- There were laws that were not followed
- Where there was required to be written evidence there is nothing
- Member of Congress, when they learned of the illegal activity in the open media, cannot point to having timely asked about the known gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports
- Members of Congress, when they do not timely ask about things they should have been given, can be adversely assumed to have enjoyed some sort of benefit for their alleged malfeasance on preventing/stopping/investigating alleged war crimes, illegal FISA violations, or other unconstitutional Conduct.

These become 5 USC 3331 issues for the oath of office, and malfeasance and lack of evidence can be entered into evidence for purposes of adjudicating war crimes and alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Members of Congress, when they take an oath to the US Constitution, agree to recognize all treaties, including the Geneva Conventions, as the supreme law.

The ultimate aim of the Military Commissions Act was to immunize Member of Congress for their failure to prevent war crimes. However, Congress has no power to exercise Article III judicial power. The Military Commissions Act has illegally granted immunity; and Members of Congress know they could be implicated in war crimes. In the langue of the Military Commissions Bill is the provision that the US government will pay all defense costs associated with defending all illegal activity 2001-2006.

The Military Commissions Act illegally rewards Members of Congress and Executive Branch officials for having not done what they should have done:

- Followed the Geneva Conventions
- Reported in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports the plan to illegally capture information used to abuse prisoners
- Investigate and prevent illegal activity
- Ask for assistance from the Inspector Generals and US Attorney when they learned through the open media that there had been illegal activity
- Forward all evidence related to fatal admissions about the illegal activity
- Reviewed why the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports were not filed as required
- Monitored whether the US Attorneys were or were not getting full cooperation in getting evidence related to the illegal activity
- If the President and other refused to take action to prevent illegal activity or did not enforce the law, use the legislative power of impeachment to charge Executive Branch personnel with not enforcing the law and not reporting in writing as required the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports.

* * *

Importance of Foley Ethics Report Ref

Some have wondered why there’s so much attention on the Foley Ethics Report. Bluntly, the report confirms the above: Nothing was done, and the pattern of malfeasance was entrenched.

Once the Foley Ethics Report is compared with the above discussion on Title 28 and Title 50, the problems for Members of Congress compounds: Members of Congress were in a position to get legal advice from Congressional Staff counsel on these issues. Either:

1. Staff Counsel were incompetent and didn’t document the legal issues; or
2. Members of Congress were reckless in ignoring this legal advice

Members of Congress have the duty to know the laws, and enforce them. This is part of their oath, and falls under the “faithfully” performing provisions.

The moment that the issue shifts from the President, and broadens to include Member of Congress' alleged malfeasance, we have to consider: What are Members of Congress getting for this inaction; and how are Members of Congress rewarding others for not doing what they should.

If the Members of Congress have the option to notify the US Attorney and seek assistance from the Inspector General on issues related to criminal law, nothing Members of Congress say or do will mean anything unless they point to a specific letter documenting the Title 28 and Title 50 problem: “There was no exception report as required; but we’ve learned of illegal activity. Investigate and explain.”

Each Member of Congress, regardless political party, can work with their leadership, and forward their concerns through the Ranking Members of any committee to the inspector General. There’s also nothing stopping Members of Congress, after they learn of misleading testimony, from forwarding their concerns to the US Attorney to investigate.

Either the Members of Congress were fully doing their job, and enforcing the law; or they were not.

* * *

Once Members of Congress learn of a problem –- that of something not being documented as it should be; and their Staff counsel not informing them of the legal requirement –- Members of Congress have to explain: Why are they still paying for the Congressional Staff Counsel salaries; why have they not been fired; and how did the Member of congress justify in writing the compensation packages for the staff counsel; and how did the Member of Congress explain their Committees discussion of the enforcement progress of their committee in the annual report.

Once we look at the lack of Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports, and look at the other inaction n—lack of firing of Staff counsel, and no explanations in the Committee reports on enforcement problem – the evidence is not only stacked against the President and Attorney General for the original violations, but also Members of Congress for them not having documented and reported these problems as required by Statute.

Geneva Violations are not only carried out by people who order the abuses and carryout those orders, but also by those who are in a position to stop the illegal activity.

Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports would have identified the illegal capture of data used to illegally abuse innocent prisoners in violation of Geneva.

Once the contractors are implicated in the data capture, abut there are no Congressional Messages to the inspector General, there is a problem.

Fatal to the US government, Member of congress, and contractor argument are three lines of evidence:

1. The refusal by the Qwest CEO to support the illegal surveillance;
2. The open, fatal assertion by the Verizon General Counsel that the NSA may have had access to the Verizon facilities – he did not deny, as he should have done, that NSA was not violating the law; and
3. The classification of the illegal activity in violation of ORCON.

The Foley Report helps couch the above alleged Geneva violations in the context of what Members of congress were most likely not doing – Following up on the Title 28 and Title 59 exception reports; and not brining into the picture in 1995 the US Attorney and the appropriate Committees.

Rather, the bipartisan Foley Ethics Committee Report has done the opposite what the DNC were supposedly voted into office to do: Bring accountability. The Foley Ethics Report does not discuss the pattern of abuse in the context of Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; nor is there any broader examination of the alleged malfeasance in terms of other issues which were similarly not explored: Rendition, FISA, NSA, Constitutional violations.

The concern going forward, in light of the biparisanship on the Foley Ethics Report is what are the Committees going to do with the information; even if they have a subpoena, it means nothing unless they are willing to look in the mirror and call it like it is:

We all screwed up; we did not fully assert our oath; we were reckless is not doing what we should have done; we did not adequately supervise staff counsel; we were negligent in not asking for assistance from lawful authorities; we illegally allowed evidence of unlawful activity to remain classified; we did not rely on the gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports as we should have done to prompt father inquiry; we are complicit in these war crimes by refusing to fully act on the known problems as they surfaced; we were not serious about imposing legal consequences on the President because the full legal review would implicate us for our inaction and complicity with the original illegal activity; we thought we could lie to the American people, but they realized what was going on and worked with the States and war crimes prosecutors to prosecute us and force us to do our jobs with impeachment proclamations; there is no excuse for our not having fully used our legal power to do what should have been done; there was no excuse for us having transferred our legal responsibilities to private citizens who entrusted us with their confidence to protect the US Constitution; there was never any excuse to wait; we could have started this process at any time after the first abuse was known, but refused to organize ourselves to do what we had the power to do; rather than accept responsibility, we jointly agreed to grant ourselves immunity and reward ourselves for inaction by providing funds for our defense before The Hague; rather than accept responsibility for our abysmal performance, we unreasonably continued to absurdly assert that we could have succeeded with our plans if only we had more time, excuses, elections, resources, power, diversions, and agendas; we failed and are unfit to govern; and we should be punished as the law may provide and the court determines.


The Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports are important. They are requirement. The President and Attorney General have to forward these in writing to Congress. These reports were not completed as required.

Members of Congress have been told many times about the illegal activity, but they have not followed up on the Title 50 And Title 28 exception reports.

The implications of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports can be measured by what failed in the Foley Ethics Report.

The issue for the war crimes prosecutors is to consider: To what extent were civilian Members of Congress, Staff Counsel and other Congressional Employees complicit in war crimes by failing to follow-up on the original evidence of illegal activity when they knew, or should have known, that ere no Title 28 exception reports; and did they fully do their moral best to end the illegal activity, ask the US Attorney for assistance, and document their concerns and request for investigation to the Inspector Generals.

Based on the available evidence, the Members of Congress cannot demonstrate they did their moral best to assert their oath. Rather, they substantially fell down, as documented in the Foley Ethics Report, but failed on issues related to Geneva violations, war crimes, FISA violations, and other illegal conduct which undermines the US Constitution.

The Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports are important. They will help the war crimes prosecutors identify who did or did not fully assert their oath to prevent, stop, and prosecute war crimes, as is required under Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions. Failing to prevent war crimes, when one has the power and duty to act, is a subsequent war crime and may be adjudicated with the death penalty.

It appears the reason some are backing off from impeachment is that the Members of Congress fear the full investigation will reveal what Members of Congress did not fully do, and would implicate the Article I and Article II branches in an alleged conspiracy to permit, not stop, and allow war crimes, unconstitutional conduct, and other illegal activity in contravention to their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

The State Attorney Generals have the power to subpoena the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; and the lines of evidence that should exist. State Attorney Generals may lawfully prosecute the President, Members of Congress, and Staff Counsel; they can also direct Attorney Discipline Boards to pen infestations to have implicated Staff counsel debarred; and they have duty to forward the relevant war crimes evidence to the US Attorney and war crimes prosecutors for prosecution.

The Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports are serious lines of evidence related to whether Officials in the US government is or is not serious about asserting their oaths; or whether they would like to continue their illegal rebellion and insurrection against the US Constitution.

They’ve been caught, and the Foley Report has opened many doorways for the war rimes prosecutors and State Attorney Generals to lawfully target and prosecute Members of Congress, US Government officials, and Executive Branch Senior leaders. They have no defense, and they know they could be lawfully executed for war crimes.

We the People know and are fully prepared to defend the US Constitution against the alleged conspiracy related to the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports.

We the People have assistance from lawful, international actors which remain outside US Government control. The rule of law shall prevail.