Constant's pations

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

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Brad Berenson Issues Absurd Statement in re Kyle Sampson

Is Brad Berenson's Client Kyle Sampson Retarded for Hiring Brad Berenson of Sidley Austin As Outside Counsel?

Notice the similarity to Elston's letter: Incomplete denials are admissible; cannot be shielded for war crimes prosecutors.

Ref Brad, get real. This statement makes no sense.

Bereson's statement forms the basis for adverse inferences; and expanded, probing, exhaustive inquiry by unconstrained Grand Juries, war crimes tribunals, and We the People. There is no statute of limitations on adjudicating war crimes. The inquiry can be long, exhaustive, and beyond what counsel might be able to shield behind any claim of secrecy, privilege, immunity, or defense.

Berenson's statements appear to be fatal to Kyle's legal position. The statement raises the issue of whether Kyle might bring a malpractice suit against Sidley Austin for alleged reckless statements fatal to Kyle's legal defense before Congress, a war crimes tribunal, or other judicial bodies.

Amazing: Berenson was allegedly involved with war crimes by the White House counsels office; and as outside counsel stands to reap substantial profits by providing a legal defense to his peers implementing the illegal policies the White House counsel's office was implementing.

It is a bad sign when alleged war criminals are rewarded for not having fully done what they were supposed to have done when they had the power to prevent, stop, and remove themselves from alleged war crimes planning, policy making, implementation, and reckless failure to prevent when legal counsel had a duty to prevent those War Crimes.

___ How much money does Sidley Austin hope to get from the US Treasury for their defense of Kyle Sampson in re alleged war crimes? [ Language directing US funds to Sidley Austin for Kyle's war crimes defense. ]

___ What role did Berenson or Sidley AUstin have in crafting this reimbursement language for Kyle's war crimes defense?

___ When did Kyle and other DOj STaff counsel work with outside legal counsel to develop reimbursement language the knew would support their peers in the legal community for the original decision not to fully enforce the laws of war; or use evidence illegally gleaned from AT&T and NSA to support illegal prisoner abuse in Syria?

___ Why is the United States rewarding counsel for their alleged recklessness in preventing war crimes; and not punishing then for having not done, the fist time, what they should have done: Fully asserted their Article 82 requirements to ensure the 5100.77 laws of war program was not violated in transferring prisoners of war for illegal abuse to Syria?

US Attorney language, "Permitting" the AG to violate the Constitution, was slipped in "without anyone knowing."

___ Who is Sidley Austin covering for on questions related to who played stupid on this language in the Military Commissions Act?

* * *

Here is a quick list of some of the many, fatal problems with Brad Berenson's statement about Kyle Sampson.

1. The evidence before us suggests Kyle was fired.

2. Arguing over why he was or wasn't fired is meaningless. He's gone, but still there at his desk. People who resign leave, they don't linger around.

3. The e-mails show your client engaged in conduct that appears to violate the Constitution. IT does not matter that Congress "allowed" your client to do anything. You client should have known that his actions were arguably unprofessional.

4. It's meaningless to "deny" something that may or may not be relevant. It appears as though your client has misled people; and has allegedly withheld important information related to criminal activity he should have reported to the DOJ OPR.

5. Your "explanation" why he resigned is arguably frivolous, absurd, and well below that of what might be expected of competent counsel.

6. If your client really did feel as though he "let down" anyone, why is he not willing to take full responsibly for what happened? Your release, Brad, indicates that your client is not happy; is not satisfied; and that he is asking for your legal staff to engage in a pre-litigation media relations effort. Your client is the one that is paying for this. You aren't doing this because you're a "Nice guy."

7. Your statement of what your client hoped for is irrelevant. Brad, as you well know, intent is not relevant. The issue is what happened, and did the Congress get misled despite the written evidence your client should have foeseeably known existed. It is irrelevant that your client may have hoped for something. The net result is the only issue: Was your client reckless in performing his duties; did he or did he not fully assert his oath; and does he or does he not have a credible explanation for whether he did or did not fully assert his oath to prevent war crimes, illegal conduct, and other grave braches of Geneva.

8. Your client has fatally documented a plan which expands the German War Crimes prosecutor vision well into what the White House counsel's office does, plans, and how it operates. These memos have been fatally disclosed. It is impossible to invoke privilege for matters that are substantially related to alleged illegal activity including rendition, prisoner abuse, and unlawful warfare.

9. It appears you client's idea of "appreciating" something is to put his oath of office behind his legal activity. Your explanations make no sense. Your client was making e-mails before they were disclosed; Kyle's e-mails suggest a course of conduct that was deceptive, contrary to his legal requirements, and wholly inconsistent with that expected of a highly trained attorney regulated by the states.

10. Your client in no way can have it both ways. First he pretends that he is taking the fall for Gonzalez; but now that Gonzalez isn't cooperating, your client cannot argue that he was trying to convince Gonzalez of anything. It appears the opposite happened: Your client appears to have been taking direction from Gonzalez and the President, as evidenced by the inexplicable question Rove has out of the blue.

11. Your explanation of why your client resigns are not credible.

12. Arguably, the Attorney General’s involvement is the issue. Whether you client did or didn't attempt to do something is secondary to the e-mail evidence which shows what he was doing.

13. You statement fails to discuss the accusations. whether the accusations are unfounded is meaningless. Your statement does not address anything specific. Your statement fails as a credible basis to successfully engage with the media to credibly affect public perceptions. It appears your office has an interest in couching the issue and avoiding prisoner abuse, DOJ Staff counsel involvement in those allegedly illegal plans, or your White House counsel peer alleged involvement with illegal NSA data used to transfer prisoners to Syria for abuse.

14. Your client is alleged to be complicity with illegal activity the German War Crimes prosecutor is investigating. Your denials do not address the alleged involvement your client has in those alleged war crimes; prisoner abuse; illegal kidnappings; or use of US contractor support aircraft to transfer prisoners of war for illegal abuse in Syria, Eastern Europe, and other locations to be determined.

15. Contrary to your assertion, Brad, these were not "replacements." These were firings, they were not appropriate, and the basis for the firings belies any reasonable oversight standard.

16. The allegations are on the table. You have failed to defend your client against a reasonable question.

17. Your client appears to be involved with illegal appointments which unlawfully use a process which goes around the Constitution. It is irrelevant what the Patriot Act "permitted": Unconstitutional conduct and procedures cannot be enforced. The attorney standards of conduct an oath require the Constitution to be protected fully, not explained away as a partisan issue. Your client appears to have materially breached his attorney standards of conduct, assented to illegal warfare, and not fully asserted his oath to prevent the President, Congress, and Attorney General from illegally circumventing the Constitutional requirements in the Constitution.

18. You assert this subject has been well discussed. If true, then there is no basis for you or anyone to claim privilege on what you assert is a "well discussed" issue. You cannot have it both ways Brad on privilege: Either your client was involved with something that warrants review; or your claims that the issue is classified and privilege are merit less. Your client is alleged to have been complicit with war crimes; there is no statute of limitations; and if there have been any open discussions that were "well known" then you cannot claim that the issue is classified, secret, protected, or cannot be examined. Privilege fails once that deliberative process, however related or unrelated to illegal activity, has been disclosed.

19. Your burden is to prove that your client's assertion is valid. You have provided not documentation to support any assertion. If this is a well known discussion, then it is your job to provide that information to justify confidence in your statement. There is nothing. You cannot, as was done with Iraq WMD or prisoner abuse, assert that there is a "new war" to justify hand waving, while pretending that Geneva was something else. Geneva does not permit any inhumane treatment or abuse. Arguably, you were reckless in not fully asserting your oath as White House counsel and reporting to DOJ OPR your alleged complicity with war crimes and your allege failure to prevent prisoners form being illegal transported. Your fatal assertion about your knowledge of these prisoner transfer to nations publicly adversarial to the Untied States is evidence that you were aware of the issues; and your open comment on these issues means that you have breached the requirement that the privileged matter never be disclosed. Case law does not support the assertion that a disclosed subject can be rehidden or forced back into the burning barn.

20. Your client cannot claim that his "defense" relies on secret information. You cannot do that: These are events related to open discussions which are in the e-mail. It is not appropriate to claim that your client can "only defend" himself if he has access to classified information. No, your client is allegedly in receipt of classified information on US Attorney indictments, and your client allegedly used that information to unlawfully retaliate against one of the prosecutors going after your peers in the White House counsel's office and intelligence community.

21. Your claims that the discussions are "well known" are meaningless drivel. Even if the conversations were "well known," your client cannot rely on evidence that appears to be linked with illegal activity; not can he expect that alleged illegal activity to be hidden. If, as it appears, your client is relying on illegal activity -- and its apparent unlawful classification under ORCON -- to hide evidence, that isn't going to work. The open e-mails suggest your client is lying; and that you are creating a meaningless defense to the core questions: Is your client a competent attorney; or should be they be disbarred for their alleged failure to fully enforce Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions which require all attorneys to fully assert their oath.

22. Your statement fails to explain the 5100.77 requirements Kyle should have known because of his discussions with Griffin. Once Kyle is shown to have discussed these issues, or should have discussed them with legal counsel, then your client is either reckless in not fully reviewing the Geneva implications of illegal warfare and rendition and prisoner abuse; or despite Griffins 5100.77 knowledge, he failed to ensure that the AT&T intercept data was not used for illegal data.

23. Your statement does not explain how the NSL process was circumvented.

24. You fail to explain why, if there was nothing wrong, DOJ OPR was blocked from reviewing the alleged illegal AT&T information provided to DoJ.

25. You fail to explain why NSLs were issued without the required warrants.

26. You fail to explain the time cards showing DOJ Staff counsel were not "too busy" to work on FISA warrants; or why personnel assigned to the terrorist threat unit were goofing off when your client allegedly said he was "too busy" to follow the law; enforce his oath of office; and conduct oversight.

27. Your statement fails to explain what your client was really doing while this prisoner abuse your office in the White House counsel's office allegedly knew about but failed to prevent.

28. Your statement does not explain why the Attorney General’s idea of "saving faces" is to block the DOJ OPR from reviewing your client; or why your client appears to have not forcefully moved to ensure Valerie Plame's name was cleared; or why your client appears to have not raised any concerns or completed any review of the security issues as he should be reasonably expected to have done in re the DOJ OPR.

29. Your statement does not account for your clients apparent reckless disregard for the DOJ OPR responsibilities, nor explain your clients whereabouts when DOJ OPR was blocked, what role your client had in thwarting a lawful investigation; or how an issue of "classification" -- like this mass firing -- was a ruse to hide other illegal conduct connected to the white House counsel's office related to war crimes prisoner abuse, FISA violations.

30. Yours atmen does not address the FISA violations and efforts the Attorney General was engaged in pretend that FISA did not apply;

31. You do not address why Constitutional requirements related to Habeas are not fully enforced;

32. You fail to explain what your client was really doing if he, as you suggest, wasn't doing anything wrong. Your statement doesn't add up. IT makes no sense. It appears to be desperate drivel by legal defense who have a personal stake in the outcome: That of suppressing information that has already been allegedly linked with war crimes, and the German War crimes prosecutor has a reasonable basis to demand expansive inquiry.

33. Your statement fails to account where your client was while the White house counsel's office was working with intermediaries, NSLs contractors, and others to thwart the Constitution, FISA requirements

34. Your statement doesn't explain what your client was doing while war crimes information was surfacing in Guantanamo; or what your plan was to prevent the courts to review information which Hamdan said needed to be reviewed.

35. Your statement fails to send any signal that your client is competent, has fully asserted their oath, or has any interest in fully meeting their attorney standards of conduct

36. Your statement is not convincing that your client has nothing to worry about; or that they are going to have a credible defense against alleged war crimes.

37. Nobody can believe that these issues were not brought to their attention; or that they were not focused on the issues. DoJ has an internal tracking system which the legal counsel know to discuss; and hits board and filing system is well known.

___ How do you explain your explanation that this wasn't an issue that was "focused" on; yet your client has e-mails showing that the issue was getting attention; and that he did have the time to send e-mails?

It defies reason that in a modern technological age that you would believe that leadership in the DOJ were so incompetent and reckless that they had no idea about something that was supposedly well discussed; yet they would know enough to go around the issue and avoid Congressional oversight on this issue. That shows one thing: They knew the requirement; and actively thwarted it, avoided it, or hoped to do something that would avoid action. To avoid an issue, one has to know what the issue is. Your assertion that someone wasn't "Focused" on an issue is absurd.

38. The appeal to confusion is not credible. Rove asked the question about the US Attorney firings for a reason that appears to be linked with a real problem related to the DOJ OPR review of the AT&T and NSA investigation. The only way that Rove would ask an issue on US Attorneys was if there had been another discussion which your client would like to pretend did not exist: That between the President, outside counsel, the Attorney General, and the NSA contractors. These issues are related to allegations of war crimes.

39. Brad Berenson, it appears this denial is more about your desire to pretend the issue is not about you, or that you were not involved. The information you have released is considered a fatal denial in that it does not address the issue, but raises material questions about your involvement in the White house counsels office with issues you and your client appear to be complicity: Illegal use of NSA resources to target classified communications in the Department of Justice; then releasing that information to contractors for analysis by the GOP; then subsequent use of that illegally captured data to retaliate.

40. Why is your client talking about classified information the US Attorneys had not released to the Attorney General on the status of investigations?

41. Why was our client concerned about developments inside the FBI, but your client should not have had operational information related to the pending arrest of the targets of that investigation?

42. Who inside the NSA contracting community was giving you client and GOP copies of the intercepts related to the US Attorney classified activities?

43. Why was your client using information that arguably was only gleaned through illegal methods -- related to sensitive law enforcement information which was classified and had not been released -- to engage in subsequent planning?

44. Who on the AT&T contract was directed by your office in the White House counsels office to provide classified information related to DOJ activities to the Attorney General’s Chief of Staff and GOP to use that information to retaliate against US Attorneys for fully asserting their oath?

45. Why is Fleishman Hilliard on contract and concerned about the NARUS STA revelations connected with AT&T?

46. Why is AT&T, your client, concerned about the discloses of the NARUS STA and the involvement of Boeing in the transport of prisoners using this information?

47. How long do you expect to claim privilege on issues Reynolds says must be linked only to national security?

48. How do you expect to claim privilege on issues which the public now knows are related to illegal firings, retaliation, and illegal use of classified US Attorney indictment information for purposes of advancing non-lawful objectives?

Brad, you have no case. The White House counsel’s office has fatally released information showing there is an alleged criminal enterprise; and that they were using information related to classified information which they should not have been using, nor have been given access. These are issues of war crimes. You as counsel appear to fail to comprehend what the German War Crimes prosecutor knows.

49. What your client was or was not focusing on is meaningless drivel. We have yet to have a fully accounting for what the DOJ was or was not doing on warrants, NSLs, FISA violations, or the rendition program. The other preparation related to the US Attorney firings may or may not be what your friends in the White House counsels office want to hear.

50. Your client’s e-mails suggest that your public release of information is misleading, designed to affect Congress, and could for the basis to impeach you as a witness in a war crimes investigation. Your written statement is not protected; it is not part of the legal process; nor has it been issued to a court. Your statement appears to be designed to mislead, raises questions about your motivations to issue this drivel, and raises substantial questions about what you appear to have failed to do while you were in the White house counsels office; Immediately remove yourself from war crimes planning, policy making, Geneva violations, and other violations of the Supreme law.

51. Your statement raises substantial questions about your competence as an attorney. You appear to be offering nothing but drivel. What you and your client are focused on appears to be the very issue you assumed nobody would find out about: Alleged AT&T involvement in supporting transfer of information to the GOP and White House for use of illegal purposes not limited to prisoner abuse, kidnapping, and unlawful violations of Geneva.

52. Your client’s preparation appears to have been well beyond war crimes issues, but the real problem he has in not being able to convince his legal counsel to issue a public release that warrants serious consideration. This kind of drivel is absurd..

* * *

Original Berenson Statement

"Kyle did not resign because he had misled anyone at the Justice Department or withheld information concerning the replacement of the U.S. Attorneys. He resigned because, as Chief of Staff, he felt he had let the Attorney General down in failing to appreciate the need for and organize a more effective response to the unfounded accusations that the replacements were improper."

"The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing this subject since the election was well-known to a number of other senior officials at the Department, including others who were involved in preparing the Department's testimony to Congress. If this background was not called to Mr. McNulty or Mr. Moschella's attention, it was not because any of these individuals deliberately withheld it from them but rather because no one focused on it at the time. The focus of preparation efforts was on why the U.S. Attorneys had been replaced, not how."