Action Alert: Subpoena President's Work Flows For US Attorney Direct Appointments
This is an action alert. It relates to the US Attorney Firings.
While you are reading this, keep this in mind: You are reading information that shows you were to look for evidence of war crimes, illegal activity, and other unconstitutional conduct by the President of the United States.
Key phrase: "This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress." Ref
What I Need You To Do: Raise with your friends and Members of Congress who are looking at the US Attorney firings this key word: "Work flow."
Search for this through all files: [ frAggics ]
Ref Failure to produce papers related to work flows actionable by grand jury.
Ref: Recall the DHS internal news system; DoJ and White House have the same types of things, and use this to communicate, plan, and share info.
Illegal, Unconstitutional Activity Not Linked WIth Lawful Delegations of Power
Ref The President has no lawful authority to delegate to anyone the duty, right, obligation, or authority to implement illegal procedures which circumvent the Senate's role in confirming nominations with the appointment process. All records related to any Exeuctive decision, order, plan, or procedure to impelment this Unconstitutional activity are illegal; and cannot be lawfully proteced by any claim of privildge. Privildge is waived once the activity is related to illegal decisions; and the activity is after an illegal decision.
A. President has no power to hide any record related to this illegal activity;
B. All plans created to implement this unconstituional actiivty which circumvents the Senate cannot be hidden.
C. Ref Constitution does not delegate any confirmation power to the President, only the Senate. The Presidents plans, delegations, and procedures to usurp this power cannot be protected: It is illegal to hide evidence of unlawful activity unsing priviledge.
Key phrase: "This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress." Ref
___ When will the DOJ General Counsel memorandum related to the Work Flows be made available, as required under Title 5? Ref
Key phrase: "This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress." Ref
The information below has been confirmed to exist. These issues are related to post-decisions [meaning, "after the President made a decision"] so they are not protected by privilege.
We're not dealing with Executive Privilege. Rather, once there is a work flow created we're talking about something very different: A ministerial act which must comply with the Constitution. All administrative actions which are part of any workflow must be legal, and cannot circumvent the US Constitution, as the AG-direct-appointments do. Again, to restate: The issue you are reading about is evidence that the President has approved illegal workflows which were designed to circumvent the Constitution, and ignore the GOP Senate in the confirmation process.
If you have a legal duty under the Geneva Conventions, are an attorney covered by Article 82 of the Conventions; or are in DoD subject to 5100.77 who have a legal obligation to immediately stop what you are doing; and report this evidence now to proper authorities: This is evidence related to the President’s involvement, direction, and oversight of illegal war crimes.
Workflow: This is a series of steps assigned to an administrative assistant to process paperwork, do an important legal review, or process an important document. The administrative people know where the files are, which documents are assigned to which work flows, and have insight into how the approved plans are filed, and where things are. Workflows are used to organize work. They are like a master schedule. People can look at a list of workflows to look at who is doing what; and how a particular coordination package is moving between DoJ and the White House. All tasks that the President and White House counsel are formally reviewing are part of work flows. Where there are gaps in the workflows Congress may make adverse inferences that illegal activity has been removed; or tasks that are not consistent with the Constitution have been deleted.
Checklist: This is a series of steps taken to move paperwork between DOJ and the White House. Goodling most likely is aware of these checklists.
Administrative review sheet: This is a checklist that shows who, on a given administrative task, has approved, coordinated, or commented on a particular document.
Work flow documentation: Once a procedure for reviewing a document or conduct an administrative task has been decided, this final version of the plan and coordination is reviewed, signed, and approved by the President and his staff. The final documentation will show when the President approved the work flow, who reviewed and approved the coordination, and provide sample checklists to implement the work flow and the policy.
Executive Order related to implementing a program: This is an order from the President providing guidance how a program, activity, or other activity will be implemented. All Executive Orders shall be consistent with the Constitution. Executive Orders that violate the Constitution, or implement unconstitutional activities are illegal, unenforceable, and contrary to public policy.
ORCON: "Original classification": It is illegal to hide evidence of illegal activity, or unlawful work flows by classifying them.
Backup Important Discussion: Please click and read this
The documentation showing which workflows to ask for are associated with codes inside the DOJ. Goodling would know about these Workflow codes as she was liaison between DoJ and the White House counsel.
The e-mails show that the President, Attorney general, and White House counsel approved the workflows designed to implement the unconstitutional direct-appointment process.
Key point: Before the workflows were approved, someone had to review the plan to implement step 4, and outline a procedure. This procedure is in a checklist; has been loaded to a computer, and there is documentation show who, by name and office, signed off on this coordination plan.
The coordination plan is created first as a draft working document of generic procedures to follow. Then, when the work flow plan is applied to an actual US Attorney direct appointment, the checklists and templates for this task are applied for that specific situation.
Someone inside DOJ and the White House developed templates to support these workflows; and has confirmed that the templates and checklists needed to implement step 4 of the US Attorney firing plan were ready, and available for use.
As you go through the e-mail, continue to take a broader view: The issue isn't the e-mail, but the procedures and work flows which have been documented. The real evidence of the illegal activity isn't in the e-mails, but in the staff coordination packages, templates, checklists, and workflows which have been created.
These documents are post-decision meaning: They are not protected by privilege. These are ministerial duties and tasks which must comply with the Constitution. All Presidential orders, directives, and guidance to "classify" this evidence are illegal and unenforceable. All White House and DOJ Staff know, or should know, that any effort to hide a coordination sheet related to an unconstitutional act of the President is illegal.
Please as your friends to talk to their Member of Congress and Congressional staffers in the House and Senate Judiciary, to ask for a review of the following:
___ Where are copies of the workflows used to support the coordination process for the direct US Attorney appointments?
___ Who created, signed off, and coordinated on the workflow documentation supporting the discussion, decision, and explaining what tasks were to be completed as part of this workflow?
___ Where are the review sheets, coordination comments, and other things related to this post-decision administrative support?
___ Where are the copies of the work flow schedules, tasks, and other events that would support the President's approval of the AG-direct appointments?
___ When did the President sign off, approve, review, and make comments on the work flow process?
___ Who had comments, after the President made his illegal decision to circumvent the Constitution, related to the means by which this illegal workflow process would be implemented?
___ How were the above illegal workflow procedures applied to other areas including rendition, prisoner abuse, Geneva violations, NSLs, FISA violations, and other war crimes this President has approved, not stopped, and blocked DOJ OPR from reviewing?
___ Who knows about the workflows?
___ When did Goodling plan to discuss publicly here knowledge of this coordination between the White House and DOJ Staff on issues of workflows, checklists, and other administrative support required to implement the unconstitutional direct-appointment process?
___ When does the Senate plan to audit the President’s work flows he uses to coordinate illegal programs between the White House, DOJ, and DoD?
___ Where are the DOJ IG, DoD IG, and OMB on reviewing these work flows supporting the direct-appointment process?
___ Which contractors working for DOJ, DoD, and the White House in the IT and administrative support areas are directly or indirectly part of these workflows, procedures, plans to organize, store, retain, and manage administrative tasks related to these illegal workflows?
___ What are the names of the SEC-registered auditors who conducted an audit of these internal controls in the United stats government and US corporations who have implemented the procedures, plans, checklists, and work flows need to support this illegal, unconstitutional activity?
___ Where are the working papers of these auditors?
___ What were the comments of the boards of directors to the internal auditor report when the corporate offers were told of the internal control problems related to not fully complying with the constitution?
___ What is the plan of DOJ IG to publicly discuss the issues of Presidential approval of workflows used to approve, implement, coordinated, and oversee the use of illegal NSLs which did not comply with FISA or the Patriot Act?
___ Which DOJ staff counsel assigned to the Attorney General were not following the law, and have been identified by name has having coordinated on these workflows during the DOJ IG and DOJ OPR reviews?
___ Which auditors assigned to DOJ IG and the White House audit teams have been recently linked with lobbying, transition of funds, or other legal services provided to the Department of Justice, White House, and other US government agencies?
___ Who has known about these illegal procedures, not reported them, had a duty to report them under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Attorney Standards of Conduct and 5100.77 laws of war program, but have been silent and did not provide a timely report of workflows used to support illegal activity and war crimes?
___ What evidence does Goodling or any other DOJ Staff counsel have that they timely reported to DOJ OPR their information that the workflows did not comply with the Constitutional requirement, and illegally circumvented the Senate?
___ What is the Status of the DC Bar and State Disciplinary Board review of staff counsel who have known about the illegal workflows used to support war crimes and unconstitutional activity?
___ When does the President plan to provide all copies of these administrative coordination sheets to Congress so they can independently review who developed these illegal procedures to implement activity which did not fully comply with the Constitutional requirement that the Senate be involved with the appointment-nomination process?
___ Why as this information not bee provided by White House counsel Fielding to either the House or Senate Judiciary Committee?
___ What is the reason the auditors did not increase audit scope in re Statement on Accounting Standard 99 which requires audit scope to increase in the wake of revelations of fraud, illegal activity, and other personnel transitions?
___ Does DOJ IG and DOD IG not have a good reason why they should not be impeached for their alleged reckless failure to increase audit scope of these workflows once it was known that the President and others were coordinating on Geneva violations, NSL violations, FISA illegal activity, and prisoner abuse under rendition?
___ How does the Congress and President and Attorney General account for the gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports which should show who was not enforcing the law; but had approved procedures which did not comply with the Constitution or Geneva Conventions?
___ Once Members of Congress 2001-2007 were aware of the gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports, what evidence do they have to show that they fully asserted their oath to find out who approved these illegal workflows designed to circumvent the Constitution, violate the laws of war, and implement illegal activity?
___ Who in the legal community dares to assert they should remain an attorney after laughingly asserted that administrative-ministerial acts after a decision to abuse prisoners cannot be reviewed, especially in light of the known White House counsel knowledge of the illegal prisoner abuse issues in Syria?
___ Which White House counsel were part of the information flows who approved, coordinated, and did not stop illegal activity as documented on these workflows?
___ When did the NSC Staff counsel plan to discuss with Members of Congress their knowledge that these workflows between DOJ and the White House supported war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other illegal Geneva violations against prisoners of war?
___ Which leadership in the NSC have known about these workflows, but did not change the orders, procedures, and guidance to fully comply with the Geneva Conventions and US Constitution?
___ Which clauses in which OMB A-76 contracts include specific gag orders on contractors not to discuss their support, involvement, and coordination with this illegal activity as it relates to rendition prisoner scheduling, aircraft maintenance, NSL processing, intermediary coordination of warrants, or other breaches of FISA and/or Geneva?
You are on notice that you are reading evidence that the President has documented his decision to violate the Constitution. It is likely this same illegal procedure was used to implement, plan, and avoid detection of war crimes.
The issue is not simply what is in the e-mail, but what administrative documents, checklists, schedules, and work flows were created to implement the illegal, unconstitutional plans to ignore the US Constitution, violate the law, and implement programs which ignored the Geneva Conventions.
The above relates to more than the US Attorney firings or unconstitutional conduct, but the means by which Geneva violations and war crimes were coordinated between DOJ Staff counsel, DoD and the President of the United States.
Please urge your member of Congress and friends to mention to the media, their friends, and everywhere on the internet: The evidence of illegal activity is in the workflow coordination packages which the President approved.
Part of the President's plan to directly appoint US Attorneys, and circumvent the Constution, required an important step: COnfirmation that the US Attorneys had resigned, and that there was a resignation letter. Once this resigntaion letter was received, under the Patriot Act, the President would then grant permission to the AG to unconstituitonally directly appoint someone only the SEnate could appoint.
HEre is a sample work flow which shows the President, Attorney GEneral, and others were working along a specific checklist and plan to meet these requirements to violat ethe Constution:
From: Harden, Cyndi A
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:13 PM
To: Beeman, Judy (USAEO); West, Nicole (USAEO)
Cc: Smith, Mauri E
Subject: WF 1117121 - resignation letter from USA Kevin Ryan ExSec assigned this workflow to SOUSA yesterday with a two week due date. Even though the USA is not leaving until 4/27/07, the AG would like a retirement letter for his signature prepared within the 2-week time frame. Please pass this email/information on to those who will be preparing the retirement letter.
___ Why should we believe Sampson's assertion that the AG had a "problem" with teh direct appointment in Dec 2006, yet AG in Jan 2007, was requesting a resignation letter for the direct appointement process?
AG Gonzalez should not be requesting a resignation letter if he had a "problem" with the direct-appointment. Gonzalez should have not cmoplied with the procedures in the plan which he, WHite House ocunsel, and the Persident approved; and were coordinated with Legal, political, and communications. Contniued reuest for a resignation letter in Jan 2007 shows the AG intended to continue circumventing the Senate and violate the Constitution. All workflows related to this resignation-letter process are evidence of alleged conspiracy by DOJ Staff and White House counsel to violate the COnstution.
The President and Attorney GEneral failed to ensure the work flows fully compplied with the constitutinal requirements.
Problem for AG in 2007
This evidence shows the AG was fully supporting the direct-nomination process, because he was part of the signature-approval checklist in this workflow. This was to the Attorney General, and contradicts Sampson's assertion that the AG opposed this procedure. This evidence shows, fully two months after AG Gonzalez supposedly left the imrpession with Sampson that he had a "problem" with the direct appointments, the AG was part of a workflow to implement this process.
The instructions to implement the illegal direct-AG appointments included the following langauge:
"The United States Attorney should prepare letters of resignation to the President and the Attorney General stating the date and time of the proposed resignation."
WORKFLOW ID: 1117121
DUE DATE: 01/23/2007
TO: AG [Attorney General]
DATE ASSIGNED ACTION COMPONE & ACTION REOUESTED
01/08/2007 Executive Office of United States Attorneys
Prepare response for A signa e.
. . .
Paula Stephens: 202-616-0074
Sample Control Sheet For the Coodination of Alleged Illegal Activity
Department of Justice
DATE OF DOCUMENT: 03/08/2006 WORKFLOW ID: 970765
DATE RECEIVED: 03/15/2006 DUE DATE: 03/30/2006
FROM: The Honorable Paul K. Charlton
U.S. Attorney, District of Arizona
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85004
TO: Acting DAG (cc indicated for ODAG Mercer & Elston)
MAIL TYPE: Priority VIP Correspondence-Policy/Issue
SUBJECT: Requesting that the Acting DAG allow the District of Arizona to go forward with a pilot program that would, where reasonable, require agents to record confessions. Attaches a letter to all Special Agents in Charge in the District of Arizona that sets out the general rule for the recording of confessions, either overtly or covertly at the discretion of the interviewing agency. Encloses several FBI cases where because of the FBI's failure to tape confessions, jurors acquit or prosecutors must plead down cases, that would otherwise be won, or result in more severe sentences had the FBI recorded the confessions.
ACTION COMPONENT & ACTION REQUESTED
Executive Office of United States Attorneys
Prepare response for DAG signature.
INFO COMPONENT: ODAG, FBI
EXECSEC POC: Barbara Wells: 202-616-0025
Problem For Congress
All DOJ workflows related to illegal activity for direct AG appointments, have the following code in the workflows of the DOJ.
FILE CODE: CONG
___ What is the plan of the House Ethics COmmittee to review which Members of Congress have known about this illegal direct appointment procedure which circumvents the COnstution, and have received documents form the White House or DOJ rellated to this illegal acdtivity, but did not review the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?
All of the Above Supported This Approved, Coordinated Plan
Note, the plan called for the President to approve the recommendation; and this plan had been coordinated with political, legal, and communications in the White House.
Selection, Nomination, and Appointment of New U.S. Attorneys . Beginning as soon as possible in November 2006, Office of the Counsel to the President and Department of Justice carry out (albeit on an expedited basis) the regular U.S. Attorney appointment process: obtain recommendations from Senators, other state political leadership, and other sources; evaluate candidates; make recommendations to the President; conduct background investigations; have President make nominations and work to secure confirmations of U.S. Attorney nominees.
Nothing in the plan, as documented, deviated from the President's involvement with this illegal, unconstitutional planning to circumvent the GOP controlled Senate.
___ Why, if the GOP was planning for permanent GOP control of the US govenremnt, was the President not letting the GOP Senators participate in governance?
GOP control only means Presidential control of the GOP, not GOP Senator involvemenet with this control. The "republican control" of the Government was a sham; it was Prseidential control of the Senate, in their effort to make GOP Senators a rubber stamp.
GOP Caselaw Tip
"has always been the rule," = GOP lawyer excuse not to correctly cite the case or admit the case is inapposite; or as applied is unconstitutional and a war crime.
Objecitve of GOP
The goal wasn't to have better US Attorneys, but to remove the GOP Senators from having any input to their Constitutional roles.
This was an excuse to ignore the statute which says that a US Attorney, until there is a replacment appointed by the Senate, remains the Attorney GEneral, Gonzalez and the President wanted to do two things:
1. Have no time between the resignation and the appointment;
2. Direcy appoint, to block the GOP Senators from having any input, in contravention to the COnstitution.
Until the Senate confirms the new nomineee and appoints ment, the resigned-US Attorney remains in place, acting as the US Attorney.
The average number of days between the nomination of a new U.S. Attorney candidate and Senate confirmation has been 58 days for President George W. Bush's USA nominees (note - the majority were submitted to a Senate that was controlled by the same party as the President) and 81 days for President Bill Clinton's USA nominees (note - 70% of nominees were submitted in the first two years to a Senate controlled by the same party as the President, others were submitted in the later six years to a party that was not).
___ Why couldn't the Preisident wait for 60 days to let the GOP SEnate do its job?
___ What was the "Rush", as with Iraq WMD, for the President to ram a decision down the throat of the GOP SEntors, and not let them exercise their judgement as Senators representing their states?
___ Was there something in the President's mind, despite his open inabilty to plan combat oeprations in Iraq, that puts the President in a superior position than the GOP Senators to independently think, analyze a problem, and decide what to do?
___ What was in the mind of the President to beleive that he could make decisions, without GOP Senate input, to what the Constitution requires?
___ Is there any evidence this President or his legal counsel, despite the Geneva conventions, are able to undertand their legal duties unless the GOP Senators rise to the occaision, remind the President of the legal requriements, and confront the President?
___ How long did the GOP Senators plan to rubber stamp illegal warfare, war crrimes, rendition, prisoner abuse, and not take any action to prevent Geneva violations?
___ What entered the minds of the GOP Senators to make them believe they would enjoy being circumvented from doing their job: Not just being a rubber stamp, but not allowed to use their rubber stamp?
___ HOw much power did the GOP Senators plan to give up, not assert, and let the President unconstitutionally usurp before the GOP Senators said, "Wow, maybe we should start doing our job like we took an aoth to do"?
Your GOP Senators working for the President, not We the People or the US Constitution. Heck'uva job, GOP Senators!
These Are Excuses Used to Thwart Individuals, But Do Not Apply to Congress
Key phrase: "This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress." Ref
The President's plans, work flows, and procedures described are not lawful and unconstitutional; therefore, they are not exceptions and must be disclosed per Section 522 (b). None of the exceptions listed apply. The information has not been lawfully classified; nor is it related to national security, but illegal activity. It's illegal for the President to classify this information under any Executive Order. Activity that is illegal is not "solely" related to personnel affairs or rules; but something else which cannot be protected.
a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:
(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public—
(A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;
(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;
(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations; Ref
(2) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying—
(A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases;
(B) those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal Register;
(C) administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public; [Changing the Constitution without an amendment affects the public]
(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format, which have been released to any person under paragraph (3) and which, because of the nature of their subject matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; and
(E) a general index of the records referred to under subparagraph (D);
All agreements this Congerss made with DoJ to keep records related to law enforcement secret are not enforceable.
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information
(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,
Here's the key exception, which applies in re the CIA litigation in re Lam:
(1) Whenever a request is made which involves access to records described in subsection (b)(7)(A) and—
(A) the investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law; and
(B) there is reason to believe that
(i) the subject of the investigation or proceeding is not aware of its pendency, and
(ii) disclosure of the existence of the records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,
the agency may, during only such time as that circumstance continues, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section.
By disclosing -- illegally -- the fact that the US Attorney was investigating the CIA, the DOJ in effect, said, "Because the target of the investigation knows, we cannot release the records." That's circular.
We're asking for the records because the government is acting llegally; and the DOJ Staff counsel are recklessly ignoring thier oath of office requiring them to follow the COnstution, not ignore it as they are doing here.