Draft War Crimes Indictment Senator Gordon Smith
Alleged War Criminal Gordon Smith is presumed innocent until proven guilty before a lawful judicial tribunal.
This is a draft war crimes indictment.
Please forward your evidence to the German war crimes prosecutor.
[Information may be updated without notice]
Ref Report of inconsistent approach to procedures.
Ref Audit scope criteria. [SAS99]
One of the indicators used to evaluate whether audit scope should increaser is the person's level of arrogance.
Ref Inconsistency similar to another RNC staffer: High attention on the trivial; not attention on important.
Ref McCain asserts problems well known, but no action.
Ref Case study: Rice shows she's able to think through issues; but procedures not correctly applied to Geneva.
Ref Title 28 and Title 50 Exception reports.
1. Gordon Smith is a United States Senator from the State of Oregon.
2. Staff counsel communicated a meeting requirement.
3. Title 28 and Title 50 are notification options available to the Senator to report war crimes related information, or seek assistance.
4. The Staff indicated they had the ability, means, and opportunity to observe a situation, act, and take action.
5. This approach does not appear to have been taken with the President, Senate leadership, or other Executive Branch personnel.
Count 1: Alleged failure to assert oath of office
6. Gordon Smith was in a position to exercise judgment, apply standards.
7. Smith's policies, procedures, and protocols were not uniformly asserted as they related to Geneva.
8. Smith had a 5 USC 3331 duty to fully enforce Geneva but failed to show he consistently asserted his oath.
Count 2: Alleged complicity With Grave Breaches of Geneva
9. We incorporate all paragraphs above.
10. Smith, assigned counsel, and staff communicated by their open actions that they had legal options but failed to use them.
11. Smith had a 5 USC 3331 duty to apply standards, abut failed.
12. Smith breached the duty required of him of his oath of office.
13. Smith knew, or should have known based on the statements of Senator McCain that there were problems. Smith fails to reconcile the difference between [a] what his staff did; vs. [b] what he is alleged to have known he could have done, but did not do.
14. Smith had the legal option to issue Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports, but fails to provide any evidence he timely documented his concerns, or forward his observations and concerns to the IG, or US Attorney.
Cont 3: Challenged Failure to Prevent violations of Geneva
15. We incorporate all paragraphs above.
16. Smith had a duty to prevent violations.
17. Smith knew, or should have known that civilian leaders such as himself who were in a position to repent war crimes had d duty to act.
18. Smith well demonstrated that he was in contact with legal counsel, knew standards, had options, and was willing to meet personally with people to review issues.
19. Smith failed to apply these options to the President.
20. In doing so, Smith illegally assented to breaches of Geneva, and failed to act stop and prevent war crimes as required by his oath of office. These failures breached his legal duties he knew, or should have known existed as a United States Senator.
21. Based on information and belief, Smith's conduct raises serious ethics issues related to 5 USC 3331, his Geneva obligations, and his duty to prevent, investigate, and stop war crimes.
22. Smith's staff showed there were policies in place; there were options; and there were legal procedures. We recommend the war rimes tribunal consider the appropriate penalty on a civilian leader who failed to prevent war crimes when they were aware of the activity; or they were reckless in not investigating as Smith staff indicated that the senator is willing to do.
23. It appears Smith was reckless in not uniformly applying the known procedures to important issues of war crimes; these were well known; and many others knew that the illegal activity was not be stopped as it should have been.
24. If convicted of any of the above war crimes, it is our view that the war rimes tribunal impose the sentence afforded by law.
25. Precedent of Nuremberg and Tokyo did impose on civilian leaders who had the power to prevent, but failed to intervene, the death penalty.
26. The law appears to have been an insufficient catalyst to assert his oath. The appropriate remedy for the war crimes tribunal to impose for these allege breaches of Geneva is the death penalty.
Your office remains under investigation for your alleged complicity and assent to unlawful American warfare. When personnel attempting to discuss benign issues with your staff were rebuffed, this sent a few war crimes investigators scrambling.
The error is for government officials to impose requirements, and when those requirements are met, to have that compliance used as the basis to punish. This is not acceptable.
Your staff has no legal basis to compel anyone to be polite. Your burden is to review to what extent your staff conduct has unreasonably abused people who in no way warranted that abuse. Your job is to explain why this treatment was not imposed on the GOP leadership for their alleged complicity with war crimes.
Reasonable oversight of the President includes requiring the President to document information in writing, and comply with requirements. Your staff has well communicated that they are able to do this. The error is to have imposed this requirement on We the People, but not the President.
The legal system has a process of "opening the barn door." Once someone asserts a standard, or compels one to entertain an issue, the opposing party -- in this case a war crimes prosecutor -- may lawfully inquire into that public act.
Your staff has fatally made public acts which a war crimes prosecutor can review. Of interest is the unusual similarity your staff has with another effort of Brad Dayspring, Senator McCain, and Secretary Rice. We incorporate by reference all questions.
I would like to commend your staff and Brad Dayspring for having well shown that US government officials are able to be arrogant, rude, demanding, and willing to ask for assistance. Why this approach was not taken with the President on issues of war crimes is irrelevant. Your staff shows this option was available, possible, could have been used, was used, but was recklessly misapplied to the wrong problems.
Indeed, it is appropriate to contrast the strange curious turn of events:
___ Why is a Senator able to quickly mobilize resources to dissuade public questions; but that effort is not directed at the President by way of challenging his illegal war of aggression?
___ Why should we believe that your staff has "no idea" hat to do if they suspect they have evidence of illegal GOP activity or Presidential war rimes; yet within seconds your staff knows what to do?
___ Can you explain why your staff apparently has a fast response on public question -- that of abusing people; but the record does not support a fast response on the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?
The general lesson is that just as Senator McCain would have us believe that "this problem has been known for a long time, but nothing was done," your office has communicate the same thing: You can detect something, and then act.
Please discuss with the war crimes prosecutor how you can possibly argue that you had "no idea" about things; yet when two ladies make benign questions, your staff shows that it is alert, able to move, responsive, and able to use the telephone.
___ How do you explain the fast reaction on something that is trivial?
___ How do you contrast that action with the (apparent) lack of action related to war crimes, grave braches of Geneva, and other things Senator McCain said the Congress has known for years?
The issue is not whether our staff is or isn't abusive. The question is why, despite an ability to mobilize quickly on something that is not relevant, why your staff and you would have us believe that you didn't have an ability to focus you attention on the President and inquire into his illegal activity.
The contrast is noteworthy and of interest to the war crimes prosecutor. Indeed, the pattern is forming, and appears consistent:
1. A senator is able to claim that problems were known, but nothing was done;
2. A senator’s staff is quickly acting to abuse civilians; but they would have us believe that they were too stupid to do anything about the President’s war crimes and illegal planning well coordinated with war criminal in the Senate
3. Staff counsel in the RNC quickly react to illusory legal issues; but they turn around and claim that they had no idea about Geneva and couldn’t possibly have known what to do.
I would prefer you and your peers in the Senate to comprehend the rebuke We the People sent the President, GOP, and Senate in November 2006. This was a rejection of absurdity and nonsense. Your staff has well demonstrated that your office, you, and the leadership in the US government are unreliable. Where there is evidence of criminal activity, there is no evidence your staff has done what they should; rather, the opposite appears to be the case.
No citizen should have to remind you of your job. You have a 5 USC 3331 oath of office to fully assert your oath. When you constituents arrive and the comply with your procedures, then you shall serve them. Your error is to pretend that We the People will not know; or that we are unable to see patterns crossing multiple jurisdictions and different chambers and departments.
The pattern is consistent. This is of interest to war crimes prosecutors:
___ Why is the trivial getting so much attention;
___ why are issues of war crimes getting no attention;
War crimes prosecutors can review the DHS funding, associations with the start department, and review the funding flows in and out of the various financial institutions. It is curious that the GOP funding has been linked with the insurgency. we leave it for another day to review to what extent your staff may be aware of things which have been used to support their illegal activity.
Let's start at the beginning:
1. What is the reason why your receptionist is not being responsive?
2. Please discuss the reasons that your receptionist would be evasive on a simple question?
3. Was your receptionists advised that she might be audited by people doing undercover work for the Department of Justice or war crimes prosecutors?
4. Can you explain why your receptionist appears to have been nervous, uncooperative, or able to comply with instructions that she was issuing?
5. Why was your receptionist giving instructions; but when those instructions were followed that was the basis to then punish them?
6. Do you understand what a SAS99 fraud indicators is?
7. When your staff counsel was aware of illegal activity by the GOP, did they as required report that information to law enforcement; or is there conduct by some of their legal peers that they have not timely provided to the Oregon State Disciplinary Board?
Your 5 USC 3331 responsibilities are ones that are review able by any court, and foreign jurisdiction. Where the US government officials are deemed to be in violation of the law; or they have undermined the Constitution, that is the basis for war crimes prosecutors to expand their review.
Your legal problems began the moment that your staff did something that the American leadership has refused to do: Hold people accountable. Your staff did the right thing, but against the wrong entity: We the People. The expertise and determination your staff showed should have been directed toward the President, his alleged co-conspirators, and the others in the GOP who remain under investigation by war crimes prosecutors for grave breaches Geneva.
Your obligations go beyond Oregon but are international. The Iraq ware is a serious issue, especially when there have been grave breaches of Geneva.
Perhaps the Senator may wish to reconsider the actions of our staff in light of your 5 USC 3331 obligations to fully enforce Geneva.
___ Is there something about the American war crimes in Iraq that you and your staff are sensitive about?
___ Is there something about Iraq that your staff doesn't want mentioned?
___ What does your staff propose to do to prevent the House from discussing Iraq?
If you don't like people complying with your procedures, then don't issue them. People are in your office to conduct business. You are not.
We leave it for another day to decide whether you and our staff will or will not remain in office through lawful defeat.
___ What is the basis for you to argue that you should remain a Senator?
___ If you are remove lawfully from office, is your receptionist going to get transferred to another office?
No Senator who is this arrogant deserves any respect. You have no power to compel We the People to grovel. The Senate has the responsibly to awaken to the November 2006 rebuke: The GOP, Senate, and President are on the wrong side of the law.
It is not permissible for Senators to lecture We the People of what we "should" r should not do. We the People sent a clear message: This will change.
You should have more respect for We the People. You have (apparently) refused to end you alleged illegal rebellion against the Constitution; and have allegedly recklessly brought discredit upon the Senate and the United States Congress.
Training is not something that is left to the winds. Training is duty We the People take seriously. I would prefer your and your staff demonstrate respect before demanding it; We the People have shown respect to the Rule of law, but that respect has not been balanced by an equal measure of good respect by the GOP, Senate, or President. Your office has no legal authority to compel what it does not demonstrate; We the People rebuked you.
Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and others who show a pattern of abuse, are subject to increased audit scope per SAS 99 under Generally Accepted Government Accounting Procedures [GAGAP]; and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards [GAAS] . The audit results may be disseminated to anyone. Performance audits are sometimes a preliminary inquiry into legal issues.
We the People may freely discuss or not discuss anything. When your office abuses people, demeans them, or treats them with disrespect, then you should not be surprised why foreign fighters hold the US Senate with contempt. Your peers refuse to end illegal warfare, but you fail to take reports from We the People.
The error is for you to not have shown the same level of interest to reports of the President’s illegal activity. Your staff shows that you desire to meet directly with people to personally review matters; or that your staff personally review matters. This stated concern does not appear genuine; but we accept it as true for purposes of holding you accountable for not having applied that standard to the President, and personally reviewed the mattes of war crimes. At best your actions appear to be delaying tactics, not sincere desires to review matters as you should on matters of war crimes. The reasonable adverse inference is, when you were informed of illegal activity of the President, you did not, as the case here, demand that you personally met with the President as you could have done.
The error is for your staff to publicly assert a standard -- that of compelling a face to face something -- but, shockingly unable to show that there was a same level of interest to meeting the President on issues of war crimes. It is irrelevant whether you are not the GOP, DNC, or another party. Your staff conduct indicates that you have a standard and should have met it with respect to the President; or your staff was lying and has brought discredit upon the Senate and Congress.
These are serious issues of ethics. They are not trivial. They raise reasonable questions about the inconsistency your staff has shown to one set of standards; but the imposing of standards against those who had not taken the oath.
Surely, where your peers has a legal standard, a reasonable Senator such as yourself should have imposed a like standard on your peers; this would be expected under 5 USC 3331.
___ How do you explain your staff asserting that you or others wanted to "meet" with someone on a issue you had reliable reports; but there is no record that you raised issues of war crimes with the President?
___ can you explain why your staff communicates clearly, quickly, and openly that it wants to meet to discuss issues; but the same cannot be said of your 5 USC 3331 requirement to fully assert Geneva?
The error is to punish We the People for engaging in constitutionally protected speech. Approaching your staff provided more than a glimpse into the thinking of the American leadership; it tells the war crimes prosecutors of the legal options and tools Members of Congress had to get information; and whether they did or did not uniformity apply that standard in all cases.
The error is to have We the People arrested for attempting to discuss an issue. The same can be said of war crimes prosecutors when Senators refuses to cooperate and answer questions about inconsistent staff conduct on Geneva.
___ How do you explain quick action to solve problems; but nothing on issues of war crimes?
___ Is there a reason that the Senator, despite evidence of war crimes, did not assert his 5 USC 3331 oath of office, and direct the full power of the US Senate Committee to review this matter?
___ Where are the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports as they relate to war rimes, NSA, and FISA illegal activity?
At the Tokyo and Nuremberg war crimes tribunals, the issue of civilian leadership guilt or innocence hinged on whether the civilian leadership did or did not do their best to affect policy and end war crimes.
This Senator has well demonstrated to the war crimes prosecutors of the options ,power, and interests that are possible. The question which the war crimes tribunal may never get a straight answer: What reason did the Senator have for not fully doing the same on things slightly more important related to Grave Braches of the laws of war?
Based on information and belief, and the speed with which counsel and staff moved to consult authorities, it appears you staff well knows things related to procedures; rules, and standards of conduct. The question is whether you comprehend that those same standards can be applied to you and your staff in the form of an ethics investigations, war crimes tribunal, or subsequent 5 USC 3331 invasion by the States. Yes, Members of Congress may be legally prosecuted by State officials for their alleged complicity with war rimes; and their failure to have fully asserted their oath of office to end and prevent war crimes.
Standing for freedom means letting We the People enjoy the freedom to communicate. When lawful commendations are stifled, or illegal activity is not stopped, that leaves a bad impression with foreign fighters: That America's idea of freedom is the power to abuse; but not the freedom to permit lawful feedback related to that impressible activity.
It appears some GOP Senators have let the US constitution impermissibly fall into disrepair; and they have not consistently met to discuss issues with the President. Rather than making We the People run around, perhaps the Senate may wish to do the same with the German war crimes prosecutor: You're free to lecture them about what you should or should not have done. Arguments is a sign you're not accepting responsibly for your problem and is not credible legal course.
Senator, you and your staff are advised to seek counsel. Your information has been forwarded to the German war crimes prosecutor. We the People expect full cooperation. These are serious issues of war crimes. If you show respect for the rule of law ,perhaps the war crimes tribunal may consider that when they adjudicate the allegations, evidence, and defense.
Senator, you are innocent of war crimes until proven guilty.