Draft War Crimes Indictment Col. Morris Davis

This is a draft war crimes indictment against Col. Morris Davis. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty before a competent International War Crimes Tribunal. Ref

* * *



Authority

Justice Trial, Nuremberg

Allegations

Count 1: Violation of Attorney Standards of Conduct

1. Morris Davis is an attorney with the Department of Defense serving as a prosecutor at the Guantanamo facility.

Count 2: Violation of Prosecutor Standards of Conduct

2. Davis working with others violated the attorney standards of conduct to put into effect grave breaches of Geneva.

3. Davis and others violated their attorney standards of conduct.

Count 3; Conspiracy to enforce unlawful statutes

4. Davis had a duty to refuse to enforce unlawful statutes. He breached this duty in violation of Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions.

Count 4: Illegal effort to block enforcement of Geneva Conventions

5. Davis well knew the Geneva conventions under 5100.77.

6. Davis and others attempted to dissuade, block, and thwart counsel from enforcing their Geneva obligations and actively blocked opposing counsel from performing their duties. Davis' conduct is a grave breach of Geneva.

Count 5: Illegal efforts to deny prisoners of all Geneva Conventions

7. Davis and others in the DoD worked to thwart, delay, undermined, and dissuade defense counsel from perform their duties.

8. Davis and others hoped to implement illegal violations of Geneva and deprive prisoners of their rights to a fair trial.

9. Davis as lead prosecutor knew the US had a duty to implement the Conventions, but as a prosecutor he breached his obligations in not fully asserting his oat.

Count 6: Illegal effort to disparage opposing counsel with intent to block law defense of war crimes

10 Davis and others hoped to block enforcement of Article 82 requirements.

11. This effort put into effect unlawful plans to deny prisoners their Geneva Conventions.

12. Davis knew of should have known that the statements he made out of court were not protected; and that as a prosecutor he was impermissibly attempting to prosecute the case using illegal, inappropriate, and unlawful method to coordinate a media strategy.

13. Davis conduct amounts to a breach of his Prosecutor standards of conduct.

Count 7: Illegal effort to interfere with duly appointed legal counsel providing Geneva Conventions defense

14. Davis did attempt to block opposing counsel.

15. The conduct amounted to a grave breach of Geneva.

16. Davis' aim was to illegally interfere with an opposing counsel.

17. Davis knew the charges were frivolous, but breached his Geneva obligations.

18. Davis' conduct brings discredit upon himself, and the Untied state legal profession.

Count 8: Illegal effort to support efforts blocking Article 82 Enforcement

19. Article 82 is the standard of conduct imposing on counsel a requirement to enforce Geneva.

19. Davis breached this requirement.

20. Davis has worked with others to implement war crimes, fail to prevent war crimes, and closely work with the DOJ Staff and DoD management to beach Geneva.

21. Davis knew or should have known that this effort to violate Article 82 was reviewable by the Judicial System. This threat of disbarment proved irrelevant.

Count 9: Illegal conspiracy to work with others to refuse to fully assert ones oath of office as a prosecute and an attorney resulting in Grave Breaches of Geneva, and violation of Attorney Standards of Conduct

22. Davis error was his decision to continue prosecuting illegal acts of congress he knew or should have known were violations of the laws of war.

23. Davis fell below the standard required of him as an attorney and prosecute.

24. Davis worked with others and illegal conspired to put into effect an illegal effort to enforce statutes, policies, and illegal plans he knew or should have known impermissibly allowed violations of the laws of war.

25. Each of these actions violated the attorney standard of conduct and Davis' duties as a prosecute.

Count 9: Grave breaches of Geneva warranting disbarment from the legal profession.

26. Despite the passivity of disbarment and precedent of Nuremberg against judicial officers, nothing appeared to affect Davis' commitment to implementing these war crimes.

27. Davis' conduct brings discredit upon the American legal profession, and he fails to meet the minimal standards requiring reporting to the DOJ OPR of his misconduct.

28. Davis shows he is committed to illegal activity, has in no way adjusted his action, but has impermissibly accelerated is efforts to illegally implement additional grave breaches of Geneva.

29. Despite public disclosure of the events, Davis did not adjust his determination to continue implement illegal polices he knew, or should have known was a violation of the laws of war.

* * *

Summation

This summarizes the allegations. There is no accusation of a crime. Col Morris Davis is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Col Morris Davis has been instrument, a key play, and a key advisers to policy makers within the Department of defense, and American government to put into effect unlawful procedures, plans, and laws which support and do not prevent war crimes.

Morris Davis is a licensed attorney and a prosecute. His duty is to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions.

Morris Davis has an Article 82 Geneva requirement to fully enforce Geneva.

Morris and others illegal conspired to put into effect, block, and prevent counsel from defending individuals as required in the Geneva Conventions. Morris is well familiar with the Attorney standards of Conduct, 5100.77, and as in a position of high trust, competence, and was influential of key policy makers enacting these war crimes.

The courts take a dim view of one of their own undermining the rule of law. Morris is an exception. He was well positioned to now the Nuremberg requirements, and was instrumental in deciding how these illegal orders would be implemented in court.

Morris and others in the Department of Defense have illegally support unlawful efforts to interfere, block, and prevent counsel from performing their full Geneva Conventions requirements. This course of Conduct which Morris is intimately involved, supporting and has refused to stop is permitting grave breaches of Geneva.

The conduct of court officials is subject to public review, and oversight by the legal community. A highly placed court officer of this caliber can be expected to have exceeded his duties, well understood the laws of war, and professional conducted himself.

Morris has brought discredit upon the American legal community, undermined public confidence in the Justice System, and cause irreparable harm to the American international standing.

It is a serious matter when a member of the legal community with this experience ignores the precedents of Nuremburg, and works with others to implement, carryout, and continue war crimes. The justice system is designed to act as a form to adjudicate whether prisoners are or are not guilty. Morris and others have been instrumental in corrupting this process.

These are serious matters. Normally we might conclude that Morris was eligible for some sort of supervision. However, as a lead prosecute intimately familiar with White House procedures, Morris was recklessly in implementing illegal polices and statues which he skew, or should have known were grave breaches of Geneva.

Following the Nuremberg trial justices and counsel who failed in their duties to prevent war crimes were adjudicated. The court reasoned that legal counsel who were in a position to advise, consent, and prevent this activity through their close association with the policy makers, that they were guilty of war crimes.

This situation her with Morris is different. Unlike Nazi Germany where the world was mobilized to fight an abuse, Morris and other took it upon themselves to commit crimes, but pretend they were justified. This is incorrect. Because Morris and others well knew the consequences for war crimes, but ignored that, and implemented their plan, they show contempt for the rule of law beyond what the Nazi judges and layers imagined.

Morris case is different. He has the wisdom and experience to have learned from the Nuremberg precedents. he chose to ignore those lessons. This is very serious. Even the prosecute of a war rimes trial seems lost on Morris; and the possibly that he could be disbarred for this conduct was of no effect.

The Attorney Discipline system well promulgates standards of conduct. Morris had a duty to refuse to impalement illegal orders; and refuse to obey what were unlawful orders. Col Morris Davis chose to illegally follow these orders he knew or should have known could not be defended, justified, ratified, or accepted as lawful.

Davis well knew 5100.77, Nuremberg, and the laws of war. He was reckless in breaching his attorney standards of conduct, and in failing to exercise due care in his responsibilities as an officer of the court. There is no lawful basis for Davis or anyone to have argued these Acts of Congress were lawful; or that they could be prosecuted, enforced, or adjudicated; or that the orders related to these illegal acts were lawful. Davis has no defense to justify confidence that he rasonably relied on orders which civilians, untrained on the laws of war, knew enough were unlawful and braches of Geneva and war crimes. There is no excuse.

Based on information and belief, the above pattern of conduct if adjudicated as a war crime is a serious matter which warrants imposition of the reasonable consequence known to all prosecutors for having committed, implemented, and failed to prevent grave breaches of Geneva: The death penalty.