Constant's pations

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

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Gonzalez and Sampson Contradictions Fatally Raise Disbarment Issues

The ABA has rules covering supervisory counsel, reporting requirements, and other standards of Conduct. Violation of these rules is serious business. Misconduct by attorneys substantially undermines confidence in the legal profession.

The American legal profession is a self regulating organization which relies on attorney predication in the model rules to maintain professionalism with in the legal community. The evidence before us suggests the Attorney General and DoJ Staff counsel, responsible for enforcing the law, have materially deviated from the professional standards of conduct an unlawfully retaliated against prosecutors for US Attorney decisions to prosecute criminals who are in the Republican Party.

One reason for having Senate involvement in the US Attorney appointment process is to give We the People the chance to evaluate whether nominated staff counsel are or are not sufficiently independent and able to exercise their attorney standers of conduct without supervision.

Ref: Brad Berenson -- what have you done for the Constitution lately; or are you just a mediocre lawyer doing nothing? [Watch the Bill Maher clip.]

* * *

DoJ's problem is that the Attorney General and subordinate DoJ Staff counsel appear to be substantially violating the Attorney Standards of Conduct, but there has been no timely report to DOJ OPR by either the AG or staff counsel of this publicly asserted, non qualified deviations and allegedly illegal conduct.

This forms the basis to question the leadership and legal supervision with the Department of Justice. Gonzalez statements, whether they are true or false, raise questions warranting Attorney Disciplinary Board review.

Either Gonzalez is telling the truth about Sampson and Sampson has lied to Congress; or Sampson is telling the truth and Gonzalez has engaged in criminal defamation. It doesn't matter who is lying: The alleged illegal conduct was not reported timely to DOJ OPR for their review; nor has the attorney general, as required, provided a statement to Congress in writing of his decision not to enforce the criminal statutes against Sampson for his alleged fraud upon Congress.

Ref We are guided by one principle: The notion that candor before Congress is a requirement, not discretionary. People cannot contradict each other, but have us believe both are right. Someone has failed to provide a proper accounting. Either both or one of the attorneys has violated the law, committed fraud, or not met their legal obligations under the Attorney Standards of conduct. Neither the Attorney General nor Sampson has provided us with any information. We are forced to make adverse inferences.

Ref The personnel have substantially not complied with their Attorney obligations, made misleading statements, not provided evidence, and made out of court inconsistent statements. The actions of the White House and DOJ Staff counsel reflect poorly on them and their commitment to the rule of law. These actions warrant review by the State disciplinary boards.

Ref Berenson's affiliation with the White House counsel is admitted into evidence as a motivation for him not to fully comply with his attorney standards of conduct: Branson’s has an interest in couching issues which do not include illegal activity Berenson is allegedly complicity: FISA violations, illegal prisoner abuse, and failures to report this illegal activity to properly authorities within the legal profession

Ref The President and Gonzalez have retaliated against US Attorneys who did not violate their Attorney Standards of conduct. The retaliation is no different that DoD's Stimson effort to dissuade Guantanamo defense counsel from fully enforcing the Geneva Conventions.

Ref Conversely, the President and Attorney General have illegally rewarded US Attorneys for their violation of standards of conduct applicable to prosecutors; and have provided valuable promotions and rewards to those who have substantially wavered from their required legal obligations under their oath of office.

Ref Fatal to the core issue with the US Attorneys -- that of circumventing the Constitution to emplace partisan loyalists -- is the concept of oversight. Information related to Gonzalez and Sampson would not be subject to review by the Senate if the unconstitutional direct appointment process remained in place.

Ref In contravention to the attorney standards of conduct, the DoJ Staff has not provided all information as required or requested by Congress. The discussions prompting Rove's question about the US Attorneys has not been substantially validated by any evidence, raising the Prospect Fred Fielding as White House counsel has not provided all information related to Rove's discussions with the Attorney General and President. This is a secondary issue for the Attorney Disciplinary Board to review in re Fielding and the adequacy of the original White House counsel data delivery to the House Judiciary Committee.

We enter into evidence Rove's question but the lack of information in the e-mail evidence to explain the conversation. This is admitted as a deliberate withdrawal and noncompliance with the House Judiciary request; and decision not to comply with all data requirements and attaches to Fielding.

- -

Ref Fatal to Sampson's credibility is the AG Gonzalez assertion that there have been misstatements. AG Gonzalez knows that if this assertion is false, then Gonzalez could be sanctioned. We admit into evidence the assertion by the Attorney General that Sampson has materially misled Congress, and provided inconsistent statements.

Ref Attorneys can be sanctioned for untrue statements toward others.

Ref either one of them has engaged in criminal activity; or both of them have. The problem is that neither has demonstrated they have timely reported their evidence to DOJ OPR; raising debarment issues per Rule 9.4 Both Gonzalez and Sampson have a duty under the Department of Justice guidelines to report allegations of peer misconduct to DOJ OPR. Neither appears to have met this reporting requirement, forming the basis for a subsequent inquiry for purposes of disbarment.

Ref It is a problem, especially when counsel has admitted that they wanted to "Gum" the issues to death, for counsel to delay actions.

Ref However, there is a reporting requirement on Gonzalez to DoJ OPR to report Sampson's alleged misstatements. We admit into evidence Gonzalez statement that he was reassigning Sampson as evidence that Gonzalez has not provided any report to DOJ OPR as required, raising the prospect that Gonzalez and Sampson have conflicting, adversarial legal interests.

Ref Allegations of criminal activity raise substantial questions about Gonzalez and Sampson's fitness to practice law. It is serious when there are allegations of fraud, especially by leadership in the Department of Justice.

* * *

___ What is Brad Berenson's plan to certify to Congress under oath and penalty of perjury in writing that he remains in compliance with all requirement in 3.3? Ref

___ What is the plan of Berenson of Sidley Austin to disclose the evidence his client has of the alleged illegal activity his client was involved; or does Berenson have an explanation why this evidence has not been disclosed? Ref

___ Given Reynolds and ORCON do not permit classification of illegal activity or claiming privilege for things not directly related to national security, what is Berenson's explanation for not fully disclosing the evidence is client-attorney has allegedly engaged in illegal activity in contravention to the model rules? Ref

___ Why is the Attorney General releasing outside DOJ OPR evidence and statements of fact related to an ongoing investigation?

___ Has the Attorney General an explanation why he is not letting DOJ OPR review the information independent of Attorney General public statements?

___ What is the reason the Attorney General is actively making statements about the truth or falsity of an attorney peer, apparently undermining the rights of an attorney who may or may not be making misleading statements to Congress?

___ Is there a reason that the Attorney General is not respecting the Model Rules?

___ What is the reason that the Attorney General would feel the need to release a statement: Does he have a basis to believe that investigations will not be proper; or that there is something that might get in the way of a desired legal outcome?

___ When does the Attorney General plan to recuse himself?

___ Does the Attorney General plan to appoint an independent counsel to review the allegations that his deputy has violated the law; or is there another reason why staff counsel assigned to DOJ OPR are unable to review this information now?

___ Why is the Attorney General raising questions about the integrity, ethics, and legal competence of his deputy, and attorney?

___ Does the Attorney General understand that his statements about an attorney have materially undermined confidence that that attorney is competent to practice law, can be relied upon, or is able to make truthful statements related to an ongoing investigation, disbarment proceeding?

___ Does the Attorney General understand that he is under investigation by a war crimes tribunal and that the statement he is making; and the actions he is or is not taking can be introduced into evidence on matters related to Geneva compliance, and his leadership in fully enforcing 5100.77 and the Article 82 Geneva requirements?

___ Does Gonzalez comprehend his legal problem, as a supervisory over an attorney, for not taking timely action to "investigate" this issue, as required under the ABA standards of conduct;

___ Why hasn't Gonzalez provided this information related to Sampson's alleged misleading information to the State-DC Attorney Disciplinary Boards for investigation; and

___ What is Gonzalez' plan to provide details of this alleged misleading information to the DOJ OPR for review? Ref

___ When does Fielding plan to provide all e-mails related to Rove's question about the US Attorneys: The e-mails, messages, and memorandum related to the original meetings which Rove, the Attorney General, and President were involved, but have not been disclosed in the first e-mail delivery to the House Judiciary Committee?

___ What is Fielding's explanation for why the President and Attorney General have illegally retaliated against US Attorneys who fully complied with their prosecutor standards of conduct; and what is the explanation for the President's decision to reward US Attorneys who deviated from these attorney standards of conduct?

___ How has the DOJ OPR been blocked from reviewing the illegal direction this President gave to the Attorney General to reward US Attorneys who violated their attorney standards of conduct applicable to prosecutors?