RNC Staffer Allegedly Maliciously, Recklessly Defames Pelosi
These issues relate to allegations of war crimes. Dayspring is presumed innocent until proven guilty before a lawful judicial tribunal.
This is a preliminary inquiry into the alleged criminal activity of Brad Dayspring.
Brad Dayspring has either violated his attorney standards of conduct; or he is not an attorney, and he is allegedly making conclusions of law without the required legal training, but getting paid to communication conclusions of law. If proven true, this would be an unauthorized practice of law. Either way, the alleged criminal activity of DAYSPRING as it relates to alleged war crimes warrants Congressional review and examination by the DC Bar and State Disciplinary board.
The information below is for investigation purposes only; and is not intended to be a statement of fact, conclusion of law, nor necessarily a commentary on DAYSPRING's mental competence or his fitness to hold a job.
1. Brad Dayspring is a staffer working indirectly for the Republican Party, formerly assigned to the White House when alleged war crimes were being implemented worldwide. Dayspring's job title at the White House was Deputy Director for Press Advance, where he was associated with White House Press communications, logistics and scheduling.
2. DAYSPRING of Arlington, VA and is associated with POST OFFICE BOX 10648 ARLINGTON, Virginia 22210. The names also registered and associated with this PO Box include "KENNETH MEHLMAN," "PHILLIP EPLING," "CAM HENDERSON," "KIMBERLY FULLER," "MORGAN HOBBS," "RANDA HAYES," "JEFFERY M BRITT" "ERIC BRANSTAD" for RNC Petty cash disbursements, and has acted as a drop box for law firm associated with "AIRCRAFT TITLE CORP" doing business in Oklahoma. It is unknown what connection this PO box has with Abraxis, the CIA, or the rendition program.
3. Dayspring is reported to be originally from Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, where he played hockey, with degree in Political Science [Villanova University, Pennsylvania]. Dayspring is approximately 28 years old, born about 1979.
4. On or about 14 Feb 2007, Brad Dayspring is reported to have issued a public statement in writing that accused the Speaker of Criminal activity.
5. Brad Dayspring knew, or should have known, that the allegations he was making were not qualified, not protected, and were recklessly communicated with the intent that they be relied upon without required consideration for the facts.
6. Brad Dayspring knew, or should have known, that his statements were not protected, and amounted to a deliberate accusation of criminal activity.
7. Brad Dayspring allegedly did not adequately review the law, the evidence, or the fact pattern to determine whether his assertion was appropriate or reckless. This qualifies as having acted with disregard for the truth.
8. Brad Dayspring retracted his statement, which is evidence he knew and should have known the seriousness of the activity, allegations, and unqualified statement of fact.
9. Brad Dayspring conduct brings discredit upon himself, the United States, and raises substantial questions why the White House and Republican party did not use the same attention and interest on alleged war crimes.
10. Brad Dayspring is considered non-violent, but may be a material witness to why US Government officials have not aggressively perused war crimes. He may have evidence showing directly why the US leadership has refused to pursue alleged violations of Geneva.
11. Brad Dayspring should be considered a possible war crimes defendant, witness, and possibly hostile witness for the Republican party. It remains to be understood what type of deal, arrangement, or other non-disclosed agreement there exists between Brad Dayspring and Republican leaders to not raise issues of war crimes; or avoid responding to lawful inquiry into why the US government officials have allegedly not fully asserted their Article 82 requirements under the Geneva Conventions.
Count 1: Alleged Illegal Defamation
12. Brad Dayspring knew or should have known that the US government had a duty to fully enforce Geneva; but Brad Dayspring refused to fully assert the law on war crimes, but did act on issues which he knew were false.
13. Brad Dayspring conduct amounts to alleged recklessness, raising serious questions about the seriousness US government officials had to the rule of law. The conduct of Brad Dayspring paints a disturbing picture wholly at odds with the Attorney General’s assertions that the DOJ Staff had "no time" to review legal matters; but GOP staffers do, contrary to the Attorney General assertions, have the time to make allegedly false, reckless, and misleading accusations about public officials.
Count 2: Alleged Failure To Prevent War Crimes Despite Duty To Intervene Or Remove Himself
14. Brad Dayspring knew or should have known there would be reasonable questions why the GOP was pursuing an illusory legal issue, but ignored alleged grave breaches of Geneva. Brad Dayspring knew or should have known that the time spent on this legal issue over copyright -- which was false and illusory -- is wholly incomparable with the lack of care required of Attorneys as they related to Geneva.
15. Either Brad Dayspring is allegedly reckless in ignoring the attorney standards of conduct; or he is allegedly making legal accusations without the required attorney legal training, amounting to an unauthorized practice of law. This is a serious issue warranting review by the appropriate authorities in the legal community.
Count 3: Alleged Failure To Provide Information to DOJ OPR and Proper Authorities As Required Under US Code and Standard of Conduct
16. Based on information and belief, Brad Dayspring had a duty to report his knowledge of war crimes planning, and failures to fully assert Article 82 duties to the DOJ OPR and proper legal authorities; or, if he was not an attorney, Dayspring was making unqualified press statements that he knew, or should have known, were not consistent with his educational and professional background in the media relations industry.
17. Someone who would have us believe that they "didn't know" anything at the White House has no basis to then use that "experience" at the White House as a basis to secure valuable employment promotions or recognition in private industry or government. Either experience at the White House is relevant as a basis for viewing Dayspring accountable for information he knew, or should have known was related to war crimes activity; or the experience is not relevant and Dayspring's salary, stature, and public standing should be appropriately calibrated to reflect what he would have us believe "he had no idea about."
Count 4: Alleged Breach of Article 82 of Geneva Conventions
18. Based on information and belief, Brad Dayspring had the legal duty as an attorney or knowledgeable legal counsel to fully assert his required oath of office as an attorney as they related to the Geneva Conventions, Article 82.
19. Brad Dayspring is allegedly reckless in failing to fully assert his attorney standards of conduct; or he illegally being paid while meaking non-authorized and allegedly illegal conclusions of law, amounting to an unauthorized practice of law.
Count 5: Alleged co-conspirator with unlawful efforts to not enforce Geneva
20. Brad Dayspring was in a position to advise and counsel Republican leaders. Dayspring knew, or should have known, that his alleged reckless defiance of his attorney standards of conduct would materially reward illegal activity, and not prevent what he had the duty to either prevent or remove himself; or as a policy advisor Dayspring was in a position to, but failed, to adequately guide government officials to fully comply with the statutes.
21. Brad Dayspring allegedly refused to swiftly move on legal issues related to Geneva. Dayspring's swift movement on an illusory legal matter illustrates the Republican leadership, DoJ Staff, and Republican staffers can and do move on legal issues. It remains unclear what evidence Dayspring has related to reasons, thinking, or other things that would explain why Article 82 obligations under Geneva were not fully asserted; or the speed to which the GOP can move on legal issues, but their glacial movement on serious war crimes issues.
22. For the reasons above, the German war crimes prosecutor working in concert with international investigators should consider indicting Brad Dayspring for alleged complicity with, failure to prevent war crimes. If lawfully convicted and adjudicated for these war crimes, Brad Dayspring may be legally executed by a war crimes tribunal.
Notice the RNC Accusations; but demands nobody look at them
Ref GOP failitated entity wants to "avoid" rushing to judgement on GOP staffers implicated in alleged funding to terrorists, while DoD mirrors Dayspring and makes accusations
Ref The Speaker should consider filing a criminal complaint against a Republican Party Staffer.
The Speaker should consider discussing the legal issue with counsel: The alleged false accusation of criminal activity, wholly reckless without regard to the truth or required standard of care expected of the RNC Staff.
This shows the GOP can be mobilized to take action on legal issues. Their problem is they do nothing about war crimes; but are swift to mobilize for illusory problems.
This is another line of evidence for the German war crimes prosecutor to Consider: As with the FISA issues, the American GOP will pursue legal issues if the weather is favorable. The Americans had the legal resources and time, they just refused to assert the law. That is a war crime when it comes to Geneva.
Ref The GOP action on this matter is admissible evidence of what the GOP legal counsel is capable of doing, but what they have allegedly recklessly ignored by way of Geneva Conventions enforcement, compliance, and Article 82 requirements.
The GOP has allegedly accused the Speaker of Criminal Activity. This alleged accusation appears to have been a subsequent crime, and is not legally protected. The Speaker may be a public figure and government official, she is not immune to enforcing the criminal statutes against GOP Staffers who allegedly violate the law.
Here's the rule: Accusing someone of criminal activity without regard for the truth; and recklessly, maliciously done about a public figure is not protected speech, but alleged criminal activity.
It appears the RNC wants to play snot-nosed about legal issues -- selectively ignoring the laws of war, but getting upset about illusory legal issues. The GOP has not explained why it did not put this much attention on things related to war crimes and Constitutional violations.
Pelosi, as a public figure, has every right to use all lawful means to challenge the DNC. It appears, and these are only allegations not assertions of fact:
1. The RNC was reckless in ignoring the facts;
2. The individual associated with the GOP, RNC and Republican leadership issued a memorandum in writing which recklessly charged Pelosi with a crime; and
3. These statements are not protected by any credible defense or 1st Amendment protection.
If the above are proven true, it appears as though someone in the GOP could be lawfully convicted of criminal activity.
I'd like to see the Congressional Staff counsel and DNC put their legal heads together and decide whether they want to pursue legal options of criminal defamation.
Fine, Pelosi is doing something. The RNC has the responsibility to not recklessly issue charges of criminal activity unless they appropriately couch their "facts" in terms of allegations.
Withdrawing a memo is not a solution. The way forward s for the RNC to comprehend: Their reckless disregard for copyright law is materially undermining confidence they can constrain themselves.
If only the GOP put as much interest in enforcing the laws of war as it did with these Congressional tapes, I might take the GOP seriously.
The GOP leadership, given the chance to lead, failed; now all they offer is stupid legal arguments. Give the GOP what they prefer: A legal battle.
Take this to court with the full knowledge that the GOP is the one that recklessly started what it refused to do on issues of war crimes.
Then maybe we might have a discussion what the GOP leadership in the White House is going to "do" about the next ALQueda plot to bomb Venezuelan oil pipelines. Oh, the President only cares about AlQueda if it is doing things that will distract attention; bombing Venezuela is probably something this President wouldn't stop.
This is allegedly reckless disregard for the law, and in no way correctly describes what is happening. The GOP knew, or should have known, that making these statements -- even if they were true -- were unqualified, and wholly unprotected.
The GOP did not, as required, say "allegedly".
There is no "damage" required to show that an accusation of a crime is or is not defamation. Here is the reported statement which allegedly is criminal:
"the blog violated copyright and trademark law on the very first day"
Didn't say "might" or "allegedly"; it was emphatic, certain, without qualification, and definitive; intended to be communicated and understood; was in writing; and made with knowledge that it would be published; and it was published, and signed.
___ If the GOP or the RNC staffers "didn't intend" to do this, then what basis do they have to argue they are competent legal counsel; or can provide credible legal memorandum to the President?
___ Where is the DC Bar and State Disciplinary board on these legal issues?
___ When is the RNC-GOP-White House-associated staffer going to be told, not asked, to appear before Congress to explain their allegedly criminal activity?
Call them before Congress, make them grovel, throw the book at them, and then forward this information to the war crimes prosecutors: GOP will, if it wants, pursue a legal issue. The White House counsel has refused to put the same interest, as required, on Geneva violations.
1. Reckless disregard for the truth;
2. Failure to use skill and legal training expected of a high profile decision;
3. Unqualified assertion of criminal activity, without the required statements of opinion;
4. Failure to properly couch the allegations in the required legal language expected of competent staff counsel who know, or should know, the elements of criminal defamation.
There is no requirement that Pelosi show damages, only that she show the statements were malicious, without regard to facts, and were unlawful accusations of criminal activity.
Stick it to the GOP, and make them explain: Why they spend so much time on non-sense; but when there are substantive legal issues like war crimes, they allegedly are complicit and refuse to assert their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.
Let's get this litigated, on the table, and get the GOP to explain, or reuse to explain:
___ What are they thinking?
___ Why are they making unqualified accusations of criminal activity?
___ Why wasn't this done with the President: Do the same, and charge the President with criminal activity?
___ How can they argue this is protected speech?
___ What is the plan of the GOP-RNC to focus their "concern" on "legal compliance issues" on more important, substantive issues of international criminal law as they relate to war crimes, DoJ OPR, and the attorney standards of conduct as they relate to this?
___ How many complaints have there been made to the DC bar about this RNC staffer?
___ Which GOP staff counsel is involved?
___ Which legal counsel should have, but were reckless in not ensuring these legal issues were appropriately reviewed: That of the alleged false accusation of a crime; but apparent inaction on matters of war crimes legal counsel had an Article 82 obligation under Geneva to address?
___ What is the status of their disbarment investigation?
___ How does the RNC explain "all this attention" on an irrelevant legal issue; but they claim -- absurdly -- "there is no time" to review the FISA issues or matters of criminal law?
___ What is the RNC explanation for having spent "all this time" on this irrelevant issue; but DOJ Staff counsel are know through the open media that they are spending time on non-official business in their DOJ Staff counsel offices when the Attorney General said they were too busy to get FISA warrants?
___ why is the RNC allowing itself to be associated with this reckless conduct that is clearly not consistent with the attorney standards of conduct and rules which apply to US government officials?
Let's put the attention where it is needed: Let's focus on "Jail time" for those in the Republican party who have been complicit with, and failed to prevent as they should have, illegal violations of Geneva! Stop playing nice with the GOP. They mess up, throw the book at them. They've taken advantage of power and their honeymoon.
My personal opinion: Let's get these legal issues before a court. The Speaker has the right to compel the GOP to explain their inconsistent approach to legal issues. The German War crimes prosecutor can review this RNC attention on this issue and ask a simple question: Why should anyone believe, despite this action, that the GOP "didn't have time" to review their Geneva requirements?
The answer, it appears, is that the DOJ Staff counsel, poodles for the RNC, have dug their President into a deeper war crimes hole: Arguing, despite moving prisoners from Eastern Europe, that Guantanamo doesn't meet the full Geneva requirements affirmed in HamdanRef. Congress has no power to abrogate Geneva with the illegal Military Commissions Act.
The issue for Brad Dayspring to consider: Why did you (apparently) charge someone with a crime, but not consider the potential interest the United States government and international war crimes prosecutors might have in the inconsistency between [a] what the standards are; and [b] How the GOP leadership and staff spend their time?
The US government has the time to engage in frivolous issues. Their legal counsel is well aware of Geneva. The problem , it appears, as that there is a staff of enablers who are churning out non-sense, while the laws of war are recklessly ignored.
Brad Dayspring needs to ask whether he's fully comprehending that his fatal assertion in writing has opened the legal doorway -- the horses are entering through the barn door -- and once the public act was documented it cannot be put back into the genie bottle:
___ What are the staff counsel memoranda related to this press release;
___ What should Brad Dayspring have known, working in the White House, was or was not a sensitive subject;
___ What memoranda and other communications did Brad Dayspring have with the White House and DoJ Staff related to this alleged accusation against Pelosi;
___ What outside counsel, formerly assigned to the White House counsel's office, is showing a concern with the turn of events in re the President's Geneva issues?
___ Does the open media have a clue of the right questions to ask?
___ How is the full scope of this legal issue being reviewed in terms of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports [ Details ] -- When did Members of Congress document their concerns to the DoD and DOJ IG; and how were the war crimes issues reviewed by DoJ OPR?
___ Which Congressional Staff counsel has an interest in this issue?
___ How does the confusion related to Brad Dayspring's mail box factor into government efforts to track down funding going from the United States, through the republican Party into the hands of alleged terrorists?
___ What kind of interest might the US Attorneys office have in reviewing this information in light of the recent disclosures of GOP funding to terrorists?
___ Why is there so much attention by an RNC staffer on an illusory issue; but the DoJ Staff, Gonzalez, and the Republicans would have us believe "they don't have the time" to address FISA-Geneva issues; yet, they show concern that prisoners are, after Hamdan evidence the President committed war crimes in Eastern Europe; only to turn around and argue that the Prisoners at their new location are not entitled to all Geneva protections?
The implications of Brad Dayspring's accusation are far reaching. He should be commended for, what it appears, to have exposed a fatal flaw in the White House war crimes defenses. They raise serious questions about:
___ Funding through GOP campaign mail boxes
___ The appropriateness of GOP actions despite the November 2006 election rebuke
___ The extent to which the GOP and President may, in their warped universe, view themselves as having "no option" but to make an absurd accusation to distract attention from war crimes
My concern, as this non-sense continues despite the DNC control of the House, is to what extent the President and others in the GOP might, under the guise of training, orchestrate something more bizarre. Here are the details -- read the whole thing.
Things are getting really goofy in the United States, especially when DoJ Staff counsel, contrary to the White House legal interests, is asserting that Geneva does not apply when we were told it should have.
This non-sense with Iran, accusations about Pelosi, and the RNC sudden "concern" with legal issues appears to be a ruse: To distract attention from the real objective of the public statements -- to distract attention from the President's alleged war crimes, illegal activity, and other things which the GOP knows full well could implicate many GOP Staffers for alleged war crimes.
Brad Dayspring is in a position to provide information, as a former White House press corps person, to give insight into:
___ How did the White House press corps and staff interact with the White House counsel's office and DOJ Staff counsel on legal issues before Brad Dayspring and others provided information;
___ What were the inner workings of the White House staff, from the perspective of someone working with the media, on issues related to White House counsel communication with the press on legal questions;
___ When there was a legal question, did Brad Dayspring and others on staff independently make legal conclusions of law; or did they know to discuss their legal concerns and media questions related to legal matters which specific White House legal counsel;
___ What should Brad Dayspring known, as a former White House press corps person, what the appropriate protocols was for making public accusations related to legal issues;
___ When Brad Dayspring as working in the white House, what kind of discussions did he have with the White House legal counsel's office on various legal issues?
___ Did Brad Dayspring hear of any questions from the Press corps related to war crimes?
___ Was Brad Dayspring aware of concerns the White House counsel's office had with media questions over Geneva issues, alleged war crimes, and prisoner treatment?
___ What was Brad Dayspring's knowledge of media questions, concerns, or lack of satisfaction with the responses the media was getting on legal questions related to Geneva, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, alleged war crimes, Eastern Europe?
___ How do we explain [a] Brad Dayspring's apparent knowledge of some media questions about war crimes, and RNC inaction in Congress on these issues; but [b] the tone, tenor, and attention the RNC is giving to Pelosi on an irrelevant issue?
___ How does Brad Dayspring explain the disconnect between [a] the inaction in Congress on alleged war crimes; but [b] the surprising legal expertise Brad Dayspring appears to have gleaned while remaining outside the legal community, but close enough to the White House counsel's office to believe he might know something about the law?
___ What experience does Brad Dayspring have from the White House press corps that might have been useful in guiding the DOJ Staff counsel in their training to block the media from filing FOIAs?
___ Which personnel associated with the media did the RNC Staffers in the Department of Justice consult to determine their excuses would thwart media FOIA requests?
Alot of effort on something that appears illusory; but a group of people associated with the Republican party who appear to fail to comprehend: We the People know; there is no statute of limitations on war crimes; and the German War Crimes prosecutor knows all about this.
NATO, when the Yugoslavian government refused to comply with Geneva, concluded the Yugoslavian government was no longer meeting its international obligations.
The GOP is hard pressed to distinguish between the Yugoslavians and Republicans on having met or not met their legal obligations.
It appears, despite DNC control of Congress, the American government is not serious about aggressively ensuring the rule of law prevails.
If the Republican Party refuses to end their illegal rebellion against the Rule of law, foreign fighters are hard pressed to avoid doing what the Americans did in Yugoslavia, and illegally did in Iraq: Lawfully engaging the US government in the district of Columbia.
Brad Dayspring should be encouraged to provide any evidence he has of the inner workings of the Republican Party to the US Attorney's office, and make immediate contact with US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald related to any information he may have that would shed light on whether the US government and Republican party is or is not serious about meeting its legal obligations.
Foreign fighters, if they view, as did NATO, that the US is not serious about enforcing the laws of war, are permitted, under the Geneva Conventions, to impose like retaliation on US government employees and directly engaged US government personnel as the United States illegally did in Iraq.
These are serious legal issues related to alleged war crimes which Members of Congress should consider in light of sovereignty, international law, and the 5 USC 3331 duties Members of Congress have to fully assert the Geneva Conventions. This illegal rebellion against the rule of law needs to peacefully end with voluntary appearances before law enforcement in the nation's capital. The time to surrender has arrived.
If the American public does not see this illegal activity end, they should not be surprised if, as NATO did in Yugoslavia, the lawful use of force is employed to compel the American government to assent to the rule of law. It would be preferable if this issue were debated, as opposed to being resolved in the lesser desirable forum: The one this President has shown he is incompetent in managing -- the battlefield.
Ref Walker Orders NSA litigation to proceed; DoJ Staff powerless to block discovery.
RNC Financial Flows
The SWIFT system permits tracking of financial flows. US banks allegedly complicit with the alleged RNC terrorism financing need to explain the software products they are using, and discuss why the US embassies are using this sytem.
___ Which embassy station chiefs were aware of teh RNC funding flows?
___ Which banking personnel on the Atlantic Coast were aware?
___ Which New York bank was involved with the [a] software packages; [b] relationships with the US goverment; and [c] liaision with law enforcement to permit the original routing?
___ How long has this software been in place?
___ What was the basis for the IT companies allegedly linked with the NSA doemstic surveillance to know when to use or not use a tracking sytem?
___ Which people allegedly complicity with the contactor support knew enough about how the NSA tracks financial flows to know [a] how to esbalish something that would not get detected; [b] ensure no bank would report the transation; and [c] evade NSA detection through the SWIFT sytem?
It appears what has happened is that people inside the State Department working with the DoD overseas entities, have established small cells to transfer funding. It looks like there are personnel inside the banking and IT industries that are using information they've gleaned from the NSA contract terms to know how to evade law enforcement detection; send funds through the banking system; then move with confidence that their IT products will not be detected.
IT appears as though the cells which the DoD established with the State Department, with the intent of being used as front organizations, have drifted into the nether world. People inside the RNC who are aware of the contract specifications of the IT products, the SWIFT system, and the funding tracking system, appear to be using that sensitive law enforcement information for objectives that are contrary to their original reasons for having access to that information.
The DoD cells established to gather intelligence using hostile entities appear to have forgotten their original mission: To assent to the Constitution and Rule of Law. I would like the review of the RNC funding flows related to these alleged terror cells to incorporate a review of the protocols, procedures, IT standards, and banking information which RNC personnel would have access to; and how this information was used to send funds so that the NSA would not detect the transfer; or if there was a transfer, there was no action on that information.
It appears the classified information which the Vice President, DoD, and State Department have access to has been compromised; and these performance parameters have been supplied to GOP liaison in the software, banking, and other government entities to thwart detection, cloak illegal activity behind claims of "national security"; and hide illegal activity related to funds transfers for to-be-understood purposes.
___ How is the information the RNC has related to the technical details of the NSA domestic surveillance used by US government personnel?
___ What controls are in place to ensure GOP staffers, aware of the protocols for sending funds and data through the SWIFT system, are not then put into software products designed to mask, hide, and block law enforcement from detecting alleged unlawful GOP actions?
___ What is the plan of overseas auditors to randomly audit -- without notice -- the protocols, software products, and other information US government employees may have produced -- and determine whether the "threat of terrorism" has been used to create a security shield not to protect national security, but to block auditors from discovering indicators related to wire transfer fraud?
___ What method is being used to independently test, validate, and review the software products to ensure that US personnel -- with an understanding of the NSA interception capabilities -- are not able to develop systems which thwart law enforcement detection of bonafide illegal activity by GOP personnel aware of the NSA parameters?
___ To what extent is the GOP not providing members of Congress with information on NSA capabilities because GOP would like to exploit -- for to be understood reasons -- perceived advantages to independently use their knowledge of NSA collection constrains for non-official purposes, or for methods which are contrary to public policy?
___ How often does the Republican Party subject itself to an independent audit to trace [a] information staffers glean from NSA on NSA collection capabilities; [b] the planning cells used to plan for, contract, and organize funds to support warfare; and [c] information related to software development efforts to work around NSA data collection; and [b] knowledge of law enforcement, JTTF, and NSA monitoring of SWIFT banking data to use that information for their own purposes?
___ How is the State Department and NSA personnel knowledge of NSA contracts with Verizon used to exploit those parameters, use that information for non-official purposes, but hide the illegal activity as if it were a classified program?
___ How many "programs" has DoD and NSA allowed to be developed under the guides of "war on terror monitoring" but these programs are simply to test whether the GOP illegal activity has or has not been detected by law enforcement, Congress, foreign powers, and personnel attempting to audit the unusual funding transfers?
___ What is the method to ensure the data systems GOP officials are aware are not being used for illegal purposes wholly unrelated to any national security objective, but for private transfer of funds for illegal activity?
___ How much of the GOP knowledge of the NSA intercept capabilities -- and the limitations they are aware on the data translation, backlogs, and other limitations -- is being used by the GOP to support illegal activity wholly unrelated to a legitimate national security objective?
___ To what extent is the GOP exploiting the "war on terror"-excuses as a mask to justify classifying things, activities, funds transfer, software development, and funding for private banking software not to hide the activity "from the enemy" but to avoid oversight by management, auditors, and law enforcement who suspect the products, operations, and activities are for illegal activity wholly unrelated to national security objectives?
___ Who is assigned in DoD, NSA, and DOJ to audit the classification procedures, and review sample "classified software products" to determine how those products are being used?
___ What kind of sampling codes should NSA consider embedding in software through Trojan horse to ensure that GOP use of these software products has a means to detect how the precuts is actually being used; and determine that the "classified objective" is for nationals security, but not classified to hide illegal activity related to illegal funds transfer?
___ How much of this "war on terror"-excuse is being used as a shield by the GOP to develop, advance, deploy, and use systems, banking records, and software products not for a real national security objective but to hide evidence of illegal GOP activity connected with embassy liaison, banks, software products, and funding transfers?
___ What is the method by which US government auditors are able to track, monitor, and test the extent to which GOP Staff counsel knowledge of NSA data collection limitations is not being used against the public; and that this information is not provided to people in the GOP who have an interested to exploit these known operating limitations for their own purposes?
___ To what extent are the DOJ Staff counsel working with outside contractors to funnel this information, support funds transfers, and engage in illegal activity overseas?
___ What is the method by which the information GOP staff counsel glean during their official duties is not used to create system, software, banking relationships, and other things with the intent of hiding that illegal activity behind a shield of "war on terror"-classification, knowing full well the classification of their activity is with the intent to hide evidence of their non-official or illegal activity?
I would encourage some adult leadership in the Speakers office to have a heart to heart talk with the legislative liaison offices in the various departments.
1. If they are using information they have obtained through their official duties to exploit the information systems and support illegal activity, they can be detected.
2. If they are forwarding the parameters of the NSA domestic surveillance equipment and using that information to guide software developers to mask illegal activity, that can be detected. Overseas interception capabilities are not regulated by US laws; allied nations may legally target US government personnel suspected of being involved with this illegal transfer of data.
3. If US legal counsel are working with software companies to develop contracts, agreements, or other legal instruments that will give commercial entities a playground to operate, but that meaningless oversight is exploited to support illegal activity, that can be traced.
4. Banking associates who are familiar with the software limitations are walking on thin ice if they do not think for one moment that the interrogation techniques used in Eastern Europe cannot be used by US law enforcement against US government officials who have been implicated in supporting illegal financial flows; or who may be exploiting their knowledge of banking oversight and funds transfer tracking systems to support non-official, illegal activity.
5. Firms which rely on previously assigned US government personnel working with the NSC, Homeland Security, JTTF, NSA, or DoJ who are using this information not to support bonafide national security objectives, but who are using the known “war on terror”-classification as an excuse to hide illegal activity can be traced.
Let me remind you who you are up against: The American public who may glean substantial financial rewards if they voluntarily agree to provide information to law enforcement related to this illegal activity.
US law enforcement officials who are abusing the American public when they do report this illegal activity may also be charged with illegal activity.
Overseas collection efforts, outside the US government control, are also able to monitor, detect, and track alleged illegal activity by assigned and formerly assigned US government personnel.
The GOP leadership needs to be very clear with their staffers: If you are using information you have obtained in your jobs to support illegal activity; or you are attempting to exploit that information but hide it behind a phony “national security classification”-ruse, that activity can be independently audited using methods the NSA cannot detect. There are known limitations with the NSA collection that are there to comply with the law; the NSA also has limited capabilities to detect, and decrypt foreign systems which are modernizing. These foreign collection systems are designed not to match the NSA: They are there to act as a check on the US intelligence system, law enforcement, and US government officials.
The error of the GOP was to believe that foreign intelligence collection systems would reveal, in all cases, what they knew the GOP Staffers were doing; and that they would not work with law enforcement using methods the NSA cannot detect.
Congratulations, you have walked into the trap, taken the bait, and you have no ability to destroy the evidence which is protected overseas, outside the US government control, and which is being actively used to guide, direct, and vector war crimes prosecutors.
___ Who is involved
___ What communication systems are they using
___ Which data was transferred to which software companies
___ When did the stiffer get access to this information
___ How was the information unlawfully classified to hide non-official business
___ When did the stiffer learn of the banking tracing systems
___ How was the knowledge of this technical collection system used to develop other methods, means, and procedures designed to thwart that procedure and legal constrain
___ What were the staffers led to believe was a lawful objective to classify
___ How did the stiffer, knowing these lawful classification guidelines, attempt to crate, develop, and manufacture phony activities which were designed to appear to meet these bonafide objectives
___ To what extent were legal counsel in the various departments complicit with this illegal activity
___When the White House counsel’s officer first realized that this was going on, did they do what they should have done; or did they attempt to use outside counsel to crew new excuses to distract attention
___ How was this plan, method, and organization documented
___ When counsel first learned of this, or had indications that this was occurring, did they properly remove themselves?
___ How was the evidence of this illegal activity properly or improperly forwarded to the DOJ OPR for their review
___ What evidence did the personnel attempt to destroy, thinking that the NSA would not detect this activity, not realizing that the overseas detection methods has filled the gap which the US government personnel and contractors though was not being covered?
___ What was the reaction of the GOP staffers when they realized that their funding flows cold be traced using methods they did not realize existed?
___When did the GOP Staff first realize that the overseas collection methods were storing the data the GOP Staff that the NSA was not allowed to collect, detect, store, or use?
___ When did the GOP staff counsel first realize that the procedures, system, and other things used to support this non-official, illegal activity was used to develop contracts, support illegal warfare, or do things which violated the laws of war?
___ What is the level of knowledge the personnel involved have of the Geneva Conventions?
___ When did the staff counsel realize that there was a problem?
___ Did they properly rush to the US Attorneys office and admit: We have no idea that you knew what was going on; or that overseas intelligence had penetrated our systems; we though only that the NSA could or cold not do something; we had no idea you knew for this long we were doing all this illegal activity?
___ When did it first enter the mines of the GOP Staff counsel that [a] the use of official data, method, and procedures; was being used for [b] non-bonafide activities unrelated to official business or national security; and [c] the objective of these procedures was not to advance national security or hide secrets, but to prevent detection of well known illegal activity unrelated to any national security objective; and that the [d] outcome of this illegal activity was to hide evidence of war crimes, advance illegal warfare, and advance the known Geneva violations?
___ Did staff counsel appropriately forward evidence of this known activity?
___ Did the GOP Staff counsel, upon learning of this problem, appropriately comply with their attorney standards of conduct?
___ Did it enter the GOP Staff counsel minds that the Article 82 requirements, limitations, and other things related to Geneva could be applied to them?
___ Did the GOP Staff counsel bother to review the Justice Trial of Nazi Judges and Attorneys where it was shown they abused their legal positions, and assented to illegal activity, policies, rules, and statutes which the Legislature and Judiciary had no power to enforce, respect, honor as they only advanced illegal warfare?
___ Does it enter the mind of anyone in the GOP that the same legal consequences imposed at Nuremberg and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal against civilians for their failure to prevent illegal war crimes when they had the power, duty, and authority to do so because a legal matter which was subsequently adjudicated as a war crime?
___ Does the DOJ Staff, GOP Staff counsel, and others connected with this activity understand that there is no statute of limitations on war crimes; that foreign prosecutors may review any evidence they have lawfully collected outside the NSA; and that this evidence is not within the control of any US person?
Personnel in the US government, cooperating with foreign war crimes prosecutors, continue to provide information on who is involved.
Personnel placed are allowed to lie, and may legally engage in illegal activity. It is incorrect for anyone to believe that your peer – who you believe is engaged in illegal activity with you – is not working for a foreign power; or that they are not fully cooperating with law enforcement in the United States.
Your problem: Has the person you are working with not already run to the war crimes prosecutor, turned evidence, but is pretending to put their loyalty to the GOP before the Rule of Law?
Just when you thought you could not be caught, or that you could do something without detection, your worst nightmare is about to happen: It’s crashing down. Your calls to your attorney have been intercepted using methods the NSA is not able to detected.
Who did this?
We the People. Now you get to learn the hard way what happens when you attempt to mess with Our Justice system; and attempt to undermine the Rule of Law. Your error was to not fully assert your oath; but require We the People to lawfully intervene, and press the Rule of Law to against throat. This is Our Constitution, not yours to ignore.
We the People are lawfully allowed to work with foreign powers to defend the Constitution when it faces an ongoing threat. We the People may lawfully let you walk into a trap. Congratulations: You are about to find out the hard way what happens when We the People are misled, betrayed, and unlawfully abused. The rule of law shall prevail. You chose poorly. It is time for you to surrender, end your illegal rebellion, and voluntarily agree to cooperate with lawful authorities. Choose your forum: The legal process; or open combat. You have no hope of victory. You are known. We can find you. You can be lawfully hunted. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. You are losing. You shall be lawfully destroyed.
You wished this.