Constant's pations

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

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Monica M. Goodling Counsel Memoranda

Welcome Internet Friends !

Shocking: Goodling e-mails: Members of Congress have been implicated in serious crimes. [ Stunning Implications of Goodling Resignation ]

- -

All things Monica. Bookmark this link to get updates on litigation, hearings, and other legal proceedings against alleged war criminal Monica M. Goodling.

Goodling is alleged to have been complicit with war crimes and other illegal activity documented in work flows. The President and Attorney Generals signature are on work flows allegedly linking Goodling, DOJ Staff and White House counsel to war crimes, FISA violations, illegal warrants, prisoner abuse and other breaches of Geneva.

The US Attorney Firing issue is only part of the larger unconstitutional effort Goodling and the President were involved to illegally usurp power.

Congress made rules retroactively making new crimes against prisoners of war. The Congress might do the same with Goodling: Make new laws that retroactively describe offenses which she could be prosecuted for.

All information you read related to Goodling should be forwarded to the Germany War Crimes prosecutors.

* * *

A. Resignation

Information leaked from the House Judiciary "confidential interviews" prompted Goodling to resign. [Read more here: ~ Shocked, shocked! ~ ] [ Update 6 April 2007 ]

A Goodling Resignation on Friday, make all Good Friday's Great

- -

B. 2nd Counsel Memoranda

Update 4 April 2007: Here is the new, second Goodling-Counsel-memo issued today. Visit for analysis

- -

C. 1st Counsel Memoranda Ref Kos

Ref Regent Law School. Lordy!

- -

What You Can Do

A. Share This Indictment Against Goodling

Here is a draft indictment against Goodling you can share with your friends. [Visit: Indictment Against Goodling ] This may be useful in organizing your evidence and presenting it to the proper authorities for her timely disbarment as an attorney.

She will, hopefully and God Willing, be denied the power and discretion as an attorney to continue with her alleged rebellion against the Constitution, rule of law, and Our Will.

B.Share This Plan To Protect the Constitution

Here is what is going on. Please share this plan with your friends and take lawful action to fully defend the Constitution against the domestic enemies in Congress, the Oval Office, and the legal community. [ Visit This Plan ]

Work is underway to coordinate with all fifty State Attorney Generals to prosecute Members of Congress, the President, and White House-DOJ Staff counsel for their refusal to enforce the Constitution, and not prevent war crimes.

It only takes one blogger. You can do alot with just one link.

* * *

Monica Goodling Archive

Here are other links related to Goodling which may assist you with your internet research:

Ref Prosecution plans in re Goodling and her alleged effort to conspire to unconstitutionally amend the Constitution; and support illegal war crimes.

Ref Sample VA State Atty Disbarment Investigation in re Goodling

Ref State Attorney General may lawfully prosecute Goodling

Ref Disciplining allegedly reckless counsel who require better oversight: Goodling's legacy.

Ref Work flow documents linking Goodling to alleged war crimes.

Ref Goodling may have resigned over alleged war crimes and illegal changes to the Constitution, but this hasn't stopped the President from continuing with the same.

Ref Goodling was the means by which the President intended to mislead Congress over alleged war crimes and unconstitutional conduct.

Ref Goodling's e-mail problems ensnared GSA for illegal political activity. Some e-mail is more equal than other.

Ref Convoluted legal arguments. So many, where do we start?

Ref Resignation Prompted By Inside Information: "You have no hope, Monica"

Ref The US Attorney Firings: A smaller subset of Monica's Alleged War Crimes and Unconstitutional Changes to the Constitution. Her life as an alleged rebel against the rule of law.

Ref With more Goodling non-sense, the President could be impeached. Again, again, and again!

* * *

Problems With 5th Amendment Claim

Goodling has a problem: She is not allowed to invoke her 5th Amendment privilege during an administrative hearing. Once DOJ imposed rules on Congress, the "interviews" with Congress turned into an effective administrative hearing which precedent does not permit invoking the 5th Amendment.

To repeat: It is illegal for Goodling to invoke her 5th Amendment privilege during an administrative hearing. All DOJ OPR and DOJ IG shall have full access to her records; and if she refuse to cooperate with the DC Bar, DOJ OPR, or the VA State Disciplinary Board into the her alleged complicity with war crimes, illegal activity, and breaches of her attorney standards of conduct, she may be disbarred as an attorney.

There are serious issues which involved alleged war crimes. Do not underestimate the problem this President, Members of Congress, and legal counsel assigned to the White House, Department of Justice, and Congress have: They have not timely asserted their Geneva obligations as attorneys and government officials. They could be prosecuted for not enforcing the Geneva Conventions. They could face the death penalty.

What You Can Do

Tell your friends about the Hoover case which bars Goodling from invoking the 5th Amendment during an Administrative hearing. Congress has no power, and cannot enforce, and agreement to keep evidence of illegal activity suppressed; and Congress may not lawfully assent to any DOJ Rule. Congress is a separate branch of government, and all DoJ Rules are not enforceable against the Congress.

The agreement between Congress and the DOJ to keep evidence of illegal activity suppressed, or only release that information if DOJ approves, is not enforceable. It is illegal, and is contrary to public policy which requires the Congress and Executive Branches to be separate, not working under joint rules to hide evidence of illegal activity by staff counsel.

* * *

This Is A List of Problems With Goodling’s Legal Strategy

1. Goodling’s relationship with these matters is unclear. Whether someone is making a statement about one person does not mean that an unnamed person has or has not done anything wrong.

2. Goodling and the DOJ are not the same. Feinstein's assertions are reasonable conclusions. Goodling is not shielded by a Member of Congress making open conclusions. Members of Congress are permitted to publicly discuss their legal conclusions about the problems with the information, testimony, and other things provided to the Committee. Counsel fails to cite any rule which prohibits Members of Congress from communicating their concerns with the problems with testimony; nor does a legislative act give a witness the grounds to assert their 5th Amendment privilege.

3. Counsel fails to make a case that "the subject" and "Goodling" are one in the same.

4. Counsel has provided funds to the RNC and DNC. It is not reasonable to question the political motives of a party the law firm provides funds. If there were legitimate concerns with this activity, the law firm should not have continued to provide funding.

5. Counsel is in no position to define what is or is not a "legitimate" reason for any hearing. Even if the intention of a Senator was to do something, this intention is irrelevant. Counsel provides no basis to assert why a hearing is or is not legitimate; or why counsel has any authority to assert that Congress cannot conduct a hearing on any subject, regardless the motivation of a Senator. The framers intended for factions to clash. It can hardly be expected that a "political goal" to find facts is a less admirable goal that an political goal of hiding illegal activity of a client.


6. It is meaningless whether counsel believes that a haring is unfair; and providing evidence that the activity is illegal. Counsel provides no information to assist. There is no requirement that the hearing meet counsel's standards. These standards are for Congress alone to decide. It is not fair for a witness to violate the law, and pretend their assistance to another witness is not of a concern. Other witnesses can be consulted to determine what role Goodling had in these events.

7. It is irrelevant that your office heard anything. The issue is not whether another witness has or has not done anything; but whether your client will or will not cooperate.

8. Perhaps you client did inform the witness of pertinent facts. It is not the role of counsel to prejudge whether Congress can or cannot hear your client's reasons for refusing, not providing, or providing accurate or inaccurate information. That you may not like what your client has done is meaningless.

9. Counsel's concerns are not with the Committee, but with the original witnesses who have questioned the integrity of Goodling. If your client believes these charges are unfounded, then your client is free to bring suit with their peer in the Department of Justice. Moreover, if there is a basis to bring suit, and another DOJ Staffer has maligned your client, counsel has provided no evidence that the DOJ OPR or US Attorney has been notified; nor has your client provided any evidence. You may not assert there is wrong doing, but refuse to provide evidence of that wrong doing; nor assert that there is a problem by some, but not permit your client to discuss her concern with the senators. If your client has a real concern, then counsel is free to bring suit. There is no suit; adverse inferences tell us your claim is without merit, and there is nothing with the DOJ OPR from your client, as required if there were bonafide problems. DoJ OPR reports nothing from your client.

10. Regardless whether the less than truthful testimony was or was not related to your client is meaningless as a premise. It may not be relevant that your client did or did not do something. However, her actions raise alarms where there may be neither smoke nor fire. These are issues of war crimes; it is not uncommon for legal counsel to be adjudicated with the death penalty. your client may be innocent; or she may be guilty of not having provided timely reports to DOJ OPR and the US Attorneys in re her knowledge of peer misconduct under the Geneva Conventions. Surely, anyone knowledgeable of the 5100.77 and Article 82 requirements under Geneva would know the duty of DOJ Staff to ensure all rendition, prisoner abuse, NSLs, and FISA volitions were not supporting war crimes; but if they were, then your clients report to the DOJ OPR should be no problem. The fact that your client is worried suggests that the gab in the Title 28 exception report is a concern; along with her apparent non-report to DOJ OPR and DOJ IG and US Attorney in re her knowledge of things she now says she can't talk about. It appears you client has known about seething that is illegal, but has not made a timely report to Congress, DOJ IG, or the DOJ OPR or the US Attorney.

11. It is non-sense for counsel to say something is "well established." Addington likes to say the same thing, but this failed during the Iran-Contra Minority Report. Libby got convicted. Ouch. That is clearly established.

* * *

12. If counsel is upset that there is a "hostile" environment, you need only look at the absurdity of providing funds to the RNC, yet doing nothing to reign in their illegal activity. Surely someone who is a JAG would know that the laws of war and prisoner abuse are serious issues. Where were you other than writing checks to your PAC?

13. Indeed, war crimes adjudications are perilous. If your client is found guilty of war crimes she may face the death penalty.

14. The issue is not whether your client has lied; but whether your client has been instrumental in not preventing war crimes; or has failed to meet her legal obligations under her attorney standards of conduct. If your client believes that she faces the chance of prosecution, she is free to take that up with the US Attorney should she be indicted. Until then, she is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, if your client would like to point to the speculative risk that she might be convicted as an excuse not to fully cooperate, that is a Title 2 and Title 18 issue.

15. Counsel is ill advised to suggest that your client will not answer any question. She may refuse or decline only those questions that are reasonably connected with illegal activity. However, she can be required to respond to questions of fact which may or may not be related to the issues.

16. Counsel cites no case law showing why Congress cannot proceed with war crimes adjudications against your client. It may be true that your client's truthful answers that may remove war crimes prosecutors suspicions could be interesting; but if counsel believes that your client would benefit by refuse to cooperate, then there are other methods to find why your client is concerned about issues which many had never considered. Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the war crimes prosecutors.

17. Contrary to your assertions, Libby was convicted because of his false statements during a criminal investigation. This is a legislative hearing. Those are not the same. Your client has no legal standing to pretend that a judicial hearing is the same as a legislative hearing, unless you are attempting to explain away your apparent ABA rule 3.3 violations.

* * *


18. Making assessments about testimony is meaningless. Members of Congress are allowed to conclude whether clients and witness have been truthful. This is protected.

19. Counsel fails to show why a Member of Congress assessment is a bad thing. Surely, if Members of Congress assessment were important, counsel would not have advised anyone in DOJ to prevent Members of Congress from making assessments about the NSA FISA violations; or prevented them from reviewing the issues with outside counsel. Indeed, we are asked to believe that if Members of Congress are kept in the dark and gagged, that this might be good: Yet, the NSA violations are before us.

20. Counsel fails to show that a conclusion about a witness is the same as a conclusion about all witnesses; or that a conclusion about one line of questions is a conclusion about all lines of questions. If that were the case, then there would be no reason to ask any questions: But Members of Congress are interested in asking questions to clarity their perceptions. They remain open to other views, unlike the clerk in the oval office who, despite feedback of disasters, enjoys continuing with illegal activity.

21. The framers intended for factions to clash. Politics is the means by which factions charge. Even if it were an untidy affair, we can hardly claim that legislative clashes are bad; but Executive illegal warfare is good.

22. If issues of "fairness" were relevant, the GOP would have returned the money from political action committees that were imbalanced; and demanded that all money to opposing factions and parties be returned. Life is not fair, nor is Geneva, and most important: Neither are JAGs when they choose to deny prisoners other rights under Geneva, as the DOD Staff counsel has advocated.

23. Contrary to counsel’s remarks, Goodling's alleged illegal activity has not been directly addressed. If your client would like to address these issues that is her choice. She is free to file a defamation claim. We see no defamation claim and conclude your client is pretending that a reasonable conclusion about one wetness is an attack on her. This is absurd.

24. Your client does not have the right to "not answer any questions". She has the right not to incriminate herself. That is the difference. Arguably, you and your firm have offered her dubious legal advise. What Goodling may believe is irrelevant. She has a duty to cooperate with all inquiry, even if she does not wish to cooperate. She has no choice.

25. It remains to be seen whether counsel has attempted to block Goodling from testifying on issues which materially affect counsel's ongoing political relationship with the GOP. Goodling may be called and subpoenaed; if she would like to properly invoke her right against self incrimination for each question Members of Congress ask, we will cross that bridge when we get there. See you at the hearing.

* * *


Monica M. Goodling,

1. I realize you're very concerned about these issues, as you should be. When Brent Mitchell attended the January 2007 meeting, did you have any records or notes of that meeting; and did you happen to notice the binder number on his attorney firing notebook? There were 23 of them.

2. Thank you for correctly identifying the issue: Firings of US Attorneys. Your testimony is valuable, and not all questions are necessarily fatal to your legal defense. You have already shown you are able to effectively communicated, and well documented the holdover provision. We would like more information about what you were discussion when you attempted to raise this valid point.

3. There are also other e-mails which appear to have not been provided. Any assistance you may be able to provide about your observations in re blackberries, e-mail accounts, or discussions between DOJ and White House staff in re the White House Administrative offices would be interesting.

4. It is not reasonable to assert that all questions you may be asked will necessarily require you to invoke your 5th Amendment privilege. Rather, there are other issues which require some clarification: When were you aware that Mitchell's concerns with the illegal firings were being rebuffed; and did you ever see the President’s writings on any of the confirmation binders which Mitchell was carrying at the AG meeting in January?

5. The problem outside counsel has is that the testimony provided was given without knowledge of the outside e-mails. This is where you come in. Could you share with the Committee your views on who might be using this outside e-mail system?

6. Whether anyone you spoke to lied to Congress is a separate issue from whether you did or did not do your job; or whether you can correct the record. You've well mentioned the holdover provision. Perhaps there is something else that you can provide that would explain what you were doing, and what was going through your mind in terms of the GOP illegal activity and the ABA attorney standards of conduct.

7. Central to the analysis is whether this illegal activity can be prevented. It is the view of the public that those who were there are best suited to offer some suggestions as to what might prevent that from happening. Even if you have committed a crime -- which has not been proven -- you have the chance to share your insight, demonstrate that you are able to solve problems, and be part of the solution. You should be commended for daring to speak out, even if only through an affidavit. If you provide testimony, that will give your insights, suggestions, and leadership that much more credibly. Indeed, there have been errors, war crimes, and illegal activity, but that does not mean that it has to continue. There are some who have suggestions of what can be done to prevent this from happening again. Perhaps you would like a few moments to think about what you would like to do when your review your goals as an attorney; and what you hoped to do when joining the American Bar Association. Was it to solve problems; or was it to accomplish something else?

8. It may be true that other DoJ officials have committed perjury. DO not let this affect your testimony or choice to fully cooperate. Your chance is before you: To share your insights, let the world see that you have some ideas, and that others aren't going to keep you silent. If you've got some ideas, share them; then we can work together to build a better Constitution.


9. It may be true that there have been attempts by some to mislead the public. However, you did show that you wanted to correct the record when you mentioned the holdover provision. IS there anything you would like to point out that shows you were attempting to do the right thing or discuss other issues the President was attempting to ignore?

10. It may be true that you did not tell DOJ officials something, but this has no relevance to whether someone else lied; or whether they did or did not say, "Based on the information I had. . ." That would have properly couched the information. They chose to do that. That is not your fault. Whether you did or did not do your best is not the issue: The facts are where they are. What you do know is that when there were assertions of what would be required in the plan, you did take the time to mention something very important: The holdover provision. That shows you do have some concern about something. You don’t want to answer any question that might put you in a favorable light; or let you point to anything that might show you attempted to fully do what you took an oath to do; or indicate what e-mails you attempted to send to the President were rebuffed?

1l. You do not have the Constitutional right to decline to answer questions; you have the right not to incriminate yourself. Those are not the same. If your counsel would have you believe that it is, then you may want to find another lawyer. You don’t have the right to assert a 5th Amendment privilege when the issues and questions are not related to criminal activity or are unrelated to any legal issues you may have. Rather, your decision not to cooperate becomes a subsequent action under Title 18 Section 1504. Whether you are or are not innocent is irrelevant: You are a prospective witness who cannot be dissuaded.

12. Have you been under any pressure not to provide information?

13. What legal consequences did counsel inform you might be subject if you did not respond to questions unrelated to criminal matters?

14. Is it your position that all questions -- even about e-mails that you wrote -- cannot be answered?

15. Do you understand that DoJ Staff can be impeached by the House for refusing to respond to questions unrelated to criminal activity?

16. Do you understand that, if impeached, you would not be eligible for a pardon?

17. Do you understand that your refusal to provide answers to questions unrelated to criminal activity is not protected, and may be admitted into evidence before the Hague as evidence for or against your contribution, complicity, or active involvement in efforts to not enforce the Geneva Conventions; or allegedly refuse to provide DoJ OPR or US Attorneys with reports of peer misconduct?

18. Factions are political creatures. Your counsel provides funds to the RNC and DNC. If they were truly upset by this activity, they would explain to you why they are still providing funds to both parties.

19. Your statement is neither true nor correct: You do not have the right to invoke the 5th Amendment on non-criminal matters. That is not an absolute shield, especially when the questions which may be asked of you have not been developed. It is possible that you could be held in contempt; and your refusal to cooperate as required could result in your impeachment and serious consequences before the war crimes tribunal.