US Attorney Firings, E-mail in re GARCETTI ET AL. v. CEBALLOS

Ref We commend Frosted Flake [ March 23, 2007 - 12:37pm ] for his fine contributions, insights, and timely links to relevant legal issues.

GARCETTI ET AL. v. CEBALLOS offers some insight into how the Supreme Court views accountability of government officials: With disdain.

* * *



The issue is not whether the First Amendment protects government employees from discipline; but whether the First Amendment is an excuse for the employers not to enforce the Constitution and the enforcement mechanism.

The leadership problem in the DoJ is noteworthy. The Supreme Court justices have a responsibility to provide leadership for the Judicial Branch which includes ensuring attorneys have a timely enforcement mechanism for imposing sanctions on peers. This Supreme Court has failed to provide the leadership needed in the American Bar Association and the American legal community.

US Attorneys have been illegal retaliated against, and US government counsel have been complicity with this illegal activity. Time for the Supreme Court to review what has failed in their legal profession. If they fail, We the People may lawfully impose new systems of oversight which strip the Supreme Court of discretion to provide leadership, and find new leadership who shall set credible examples, not make excuses.

We the people have the right to an enforcement mechanism. All government employees, upon taking the oath, have a personal interest: They have taken a personal oath. If the oath means nothing to compel personal interest in government operations, then we need to find a new method to compel enforcement of the Constitution.

It remains to be explained why the President has retaliated against US Attorneys who refused to prosecute where there was insufficient evidence:

“A member in government service shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when the member knows or should know that the charges are not supported by probable cause”; Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963). [ 17 of 43 ]

Given the President's retaliation, it is absurd for the supreme court to have asserted that this "protection" will prevent retaliation. This assertion as no merit, especially as this Supreme Court has impermissibly allowed to occur:

These imperatives, as well as obligations arising from any other applicable constitutional provisions and mandates of the criminal and civil laws, protect employees and provide checks on supervisors who would order unlawful or otherwise inappropriate actions.

___ How does the White House plan to argue e-mails are "protected from review" when they have been disclosed?

___ What is the Supreme Courts plan to review why, despite the attorney standards of conduct and lawyer constitutional obligations, the White House, GOP, and DOJ Staff have refused to assert their oath?

The legal checks failed, yet the Supreme Court has no solution. Look, up in the sky, it's raining. That explains everything. Foreign fighters and war crimes prosecutors are taking notes.

* * *

Putting aside the requirements that US citizens, as government employees, have to protect the Constitution from domestic enemies, the Court's absurdity is highlighted by the US Attorney Firings.

Taken on face value, GARCETTI ET AL. v. CEBALLOS would has us believe that the DoJ Staff e-mails are not protected free speech; and that they are subject to discipline.

In light of GARCETTI ET AL. v. CEBALLOS, we ask:

___ Where is the discipline that is being imposed on DOJ Staff counsel, GOP Staff, and White House counsel for their expression of illegal activities, and intent to illegally cooperate to undermine the Constitution?

* * *

It's all fine and good for the Supreme Court to prattle that they "cannot inject themselves" into issues between Congress and the President. But the question arises: What happens when the President violates the law, the Congress does nothing, and the courts refuse to act?

Are people who are aware of the illegal war crimes by DOJ, White House, and GOP staff counsel required to remain silent?

This is impermissible.

GARCETTI ET AL. v. CEBALLOS on its face, in light of the illegal retaliation against US Attorneys, endorses the very misconduct US Attorneys are sworn to prosecute: Retaliation.

* * *

Given there have been no timely reports to DOJ OPR or the DOJ IG on these issues -- the e-mails are from 2005 -- it cannot be argued that any of the DOJ Staff have fully complied with their legal obligations under the DC Bar or standards enforceable by the State Disciplinary Boards.

___ Who asked DoJ Staff counsel to participate in the illegal activity?

___ What inaccuracies were known about the proposed plan and public statements issued by DOJ Staff counsel to the Members of Congress?

___ How are official government offices used to organize misleading statements to Congress?

___ Was there no reason why any of the counsel linked with GOP, White House, DoJ, or the outside counsel did not report their evidence of war crimes and staff counsel involvement to appropriate authorities as required under DOJ OPR guidelines?

___ Was there a particular problem with staff counsel understanding the Article 82 obligations under Geneva to enforce the law?

___ What was the incentive for staff counsel to remain silent while attorneys attempting to enforce Geneva were retaliated against?

___ How were these concerns related to war crimes, illegal activity, and violations of the Attorney standards of conduct documented as required to DOJ OPR?

* * *

The error of the Supreme Court is its illegal effort to squelch accountability. Where the Supreme Court chooses to send a green light to corruption, there are other lawful efforts to deal with the recklessness in the GOP, White House, DoJ, and federal bench.

War crimes prosecutors are not required to assent to Supreme Court absurdity, especially hen there is a reporting requirement to the DC Bar and DOJ OPR in re issues of illegal activity, war crimes, and violations of the attorney standards of conduct.

All memoranda that the Supreme Court clerks have produced, or questions related to their discussions with outside counsel can be reviewed en camera when the body of evidence suggests the leadership in the Supreme Court has illegally assented to grave breaches of Geneva. It is of little interest to this Government that the Supreme Court has stated in Hamdan that Geneva is requirement; or that the laws of the land related to war crimes must be enforced. The issue is: What is to be done when the Supreme Court’s orders are not followed?

Surely, there is someone in the Supreme Court who bothers to read the newspapers. Can anyone explain why illegal statutes by Congress continue to guide DoJ Staff to endorse war crimes by this President? The oath of office requires counsel to solve problems that undermine the Constitution.

Surely, Supreme Court clerks know something about the law, and are not so above their oath that they believe all things which defy the Constitution must only be resolved with a case.

How do the lazy clerks working for the Supreme Court explain their inability to find any basis for them to fully assert their oath; and find a way to defend the Constitution from this ongoing rebellion by their friends in the GOP, White House, DoJ, and legal community?

* * *

These are issues which the Supreme Court may believe it can ignore, or the clerks can idly wander Westlaw hoping there is an excuse to avoid accountability. Yet, the issues before us are simple: What is to be done when the legal community and the Supreme Court fail to timely ensure the laws of war are enforced; and there are serious questions to their competence to assert their oath.

GARCETTI ET AL. v. CEBALLOS raises serious questions about the competence of the Supreme Court in light of the US Attorney firings. The Judicial Cannons do not permit the Constitution to be destroyed.

Where is the leadership from the Supreme Court to put the Constitution first, set the example, and make it clear that the Constitution shall be preserved, not be destroyed by their peers in the legal profession?

Does the Supreme Court plan to remain silent while their legal peers continue to bungle oversight in the American Bar Association?

How many legal educations courses have the Justices Taken on matters related to "assenting to illegal warfare" and "making excuses to not enforce the Constitution?"

* * *

The Judicial Cannons do not mandate silence on issues of the oath. IT remains unclear why the Justices are silent, especially on matters which this President and his reckless legal buffoons on the White House Counsel staff have perpetuated.

We have before us a single legal community. Justice requires leadership. The Constitution must be asserted, not allowed to fritter away. GARCETTI ET AL. v. CEBALLOS sends a signal that the Supreme Court is "just fine" with illegal activity and retaliation, as long as they can find an excuse to permit it, regardless the consequences.

So much for checks and balances. We're not asking for the Court to play referee, but provide leadership; nor asking it to comment on issues which have not been brought before the court. Rather, the issue is subtle: How far will the Justices Permit the Constitution be destroyed through inaction and open attacks by their peers in the legal community, before the Supreme Court provides leadership to defend what they took an oath to defend: The Constitution.

___ How many legal opinions by the peers of the Supreme Court justices must be entered into evidence before the court accepts there is a legal-compliance problem in the ranks of the officers who claim they are defending the Constitution?

The issue before us is: How many of the Justices' peers have claimed to be a protector for the Constitution; but have done the opposite, destroyed the document, and pretended it is a partisan matter or personal issues.

The oath is a public act. It is a promise to do what is inconvenient. Today's challenge for the Justices is to face what is inconvenient: Your legal peers in your freely chosen profession have defied their oaths; and your legal peers in the disciplinary boards have not fully asserted their oath to timely act on the evidence showing Staff counsel in DoJ have not fully asserted their oath or complied with their legal requirements. This is a leadership problem from the Supreme Court. The Justices set the example. How much recklessness in re war crimes and unconstitutional conduct is required before the Justices speak to their peers about the need to timely discipline the wayward within the ranks?

* * *

It can hardly be called that DOJ Staff e-mails planning illegal activity are protected. They have evidence of illegal planning to implement, hide, and retaliate over issues of war crimes accountability.

This Supreme Court impermissibly sent a green light to the American leadership that retaliation for opposing illegal activity is permissible. This is an error and hardly sends a signal that the Justices are serious about fully enforcing the Geneva Conventions.

It makes little difference that the President and Congress cannot agree through legislation to enforce the Constitution; this agreement or non-agreement is trumped by their promise of their oath of office. They cannot vote on this. This is not a political issue. This is an issue of governance, which the Supreme Court is not required to "wait around" until there is a case.

The Supreme Court, like Congress, may issue any statement about the importance of the Constitution; and remind the wayward within their ranks to review their oath of office. This can hardly be called a political issue: It is a requirement under the oath of office to do the same. Leadership means setting the example, and not remaining silent. IT also means reminding the wayward in the GOP, Senate, DOJ, and White House counsel's office that they cannot hope to inspire the world with the rough notions of democracy, while actively thwarting the best and brightest hoping to serve justice.

* * *

Do the Judicial Cannons prohibit the Justices from remind their legal peers to review their oath of office; or review to what extent they have been complicit with illegal war crimes planning?

Surely, such a standard, if it were real, cannot be seen as just. Yet, what kind of retaliation would the Supreme Court support for people suggesting that the Justices and Clerks have defied their oath; or that they have failed to fully embrace the sprit of the Judicial Cannons?

The DOJ and White House counsel have made official statements in e-mails. These are official acts. They have a duty as counsel to remember their conduct and communications cannot be shielded when it is linked with illegal activity. There is no permissible message from any Supreme Court that would for a moment send any message to anyone in the legal community that official government resources may be used to organize illegal efforts.

When the Supreme Court says that discipline cannot be shielded, they are not specifically saying that discipline must be imposed. Yet, to argue that there cannot be enforcement of the Constitution asks that the States be subjected to impermissible results: Lack of enforcement as required.

It would be helpful if the Supreme Court would timely resolve issues, or provide leadership; as opposed to the current approach of assenting to illegal warfare for years, then pretending they are suitable for public respect. No, they are despicable, because they have individually allowed war crimes to continue, and found no remedy to timely resolve the dispute this President has with the Constitution. IT can hardly be said the Justices must remain silent when their duty is to provide leadership; or that they have no role when the role must be filled.

* * *

The Judicial Cannons do not mandate silence or assent to illegal warfare; nor must there be, by all accounts, a compelling reason for the Court to mandate that a particular person provide a case or claim standing. Surely, there can be new precedents which permit one of the Justices to recuse themselves, disrobe, and take a case that they believe must be brought before the court.

What is to be done when the American system of governance is under threat, but there is no remedy to provide leadership to the legal community?

The issue before us is simple: When the leadership on the Supreme Court has a duty to protect the Constitution, and they are supposedly the greatest legal minds, what happens when those legal minds assent to the Constitution’s destruction?

* * *

Someone in the legal community is not providing leadership. Indeed, where the Supreme Court has a role, that role must be asserted. But there is also wisdom which cannot be permitted to be bottled, especially when the Justices perched in the Supreme Court have an excellent view of the Constitution's destruction.

The US Attorney firings are always presumed to be an issue of public concern. Anytime a public employee engages in official communication that is part of the public record and a public act. It matters little that the information was not intended to be disclosed: Official government resources are presumed to be connected with public concerns. It is meaningless to say that someone speaking as a government employee or a private citizen when they use official public communication can be presumed to have no accountability for their misconduct.

Let's consider the flip side of the coin. This government has illegally tapped phones, invaded our private lives, and put Americans under surveillance; yet this misconduct has not been timely sanctioned. Surely, when the public officials learn of this illegal activity, a report of the illegal activity should be the subject of some sort of remedy not rebuke.

How can an individual, who is the only one daring to assert supervision, possibly protect the Constitution when they have been deprived of all means to do so, specially when there is a requirement to protect the Constitution and prevent illegal activity?

Citizens and government employees jointly have a right to expect this Constitution to be protected and defended, especially when it is difficult: The oath mandates action when difficulty might dissuade the feint hearted.

* * *

There must be mechanisms to defend the Constitution, especially when illegal activity and corruption is rife. Denying accountability does not mean that the issue goes away, only nurtures more corruption and impermissibly leaves the Constitution in an inferior state.

It is irrelevant whether someone, who observes illegal activity, is labeled a private or public servant; or whether they are a citizen; or whether they are an employee discussion official or non-official business. All government-connected activity is a public concern. The issue is not the standing of the messenger, but the content of the communication: Is the communication of illegal activity protected? It must always be protected; any other standard allows retaliation and assent to illegal abuse of power.

* * *

It is a public concern when there is illegal activity and the courts refuse to defend the Constitution, as required under the Judicial Cannons. Rather than find excuses to do nothing, the courts have the duty to find a means to protect what must be protected: The Constitution, including all communications designed to assert the rule of law, including domestic enemies inside the government.

Discipline and good order means putting the oath and Constitution before loyalty to a boss. IN GARCETTI ET AL. v. CEBALLOS, the Supreme Court got it backwards: It impermissibly sent the wrong signal: That there can be loyalty to a management that trumps loyalty to the rule of law. This is impermissible. All Supreme Court orders permitting this absurd outcome must be examined by the ABA ethics, and review whether there have been illegal efforts to thwart the full protection of the Constitution.

* * *

Indeed, it is serious business to raise issues of Supreme Court Justice impeachment, especially when their recklessness has failed to timely protect the Constitution. But what other option is there to awaken the buffoons in the legal community: Even your leadership in the Supreme Court shall assent to the rule of law, enforce the Cannons, and shall comply with the rule of law. Woe to those who pretend that there can be excuses to assent to illegal activity; or that a partisan loyalty to a branch outweighs the required loyalty to enforce the law.

This Supreme Court has failed in working with Congress, providing leadership, or creating solutions that would fully protect the Constitution. We've seen the opposite: Lazy Justices who create excuses not to fully protect the Constitution. This is impermissible.

It may be true that that private citizens do or do not have a particular standing; but they do have a reasonable expectation that the laws will be enforced. This Supreme Court makes excuses to justify retaliation in the guise of discipline. Yet, there is no oath to discipline there is an oath to the enforcement mechanism.

There is no justification to put anything before enforcing the law. The General public and all government employees have equal standing to expect the laws to be enforced. That someone is aware of illegal activity in government does not mean their proximity to that information creates a barrier to communicating the illegal activity.

There is no relationship between speech and employment that trumps the Constitutional guarantee to enforce the law. This Supreme Court pretends that he tradeoff is between speech and management; the tradeoff is really between whether the public can or cannot have confidence that this Supreme Court will put the Constitution first, before employer and one's "duty" to remain complicity and silent with illegal activity, war cries, and other things.

Law clerks are not the most powerful. The error is for the DOJ Staff to pretend that the Supreme Court law clerks are above their oath of office; or that they do not have a duty to depart when the Supreme Court assents to grave breaches of Geneva. The issue before us is what will it take for the lazy clerks on the Supreme Court to awaken to their superior duty to enforce the Constitution, even if that means showing disloyalty.

Thankfully, the US Attorneys, unlike the lazy Supreme Court justices, have decided to speak; and are willing to put their oath before their convoluted thinking.

No government can bee seen as legitimate when it is rewarded by any court for remaining silent about illegal activity, especially when the Federal Bench does have people who have written memoranda assenting to illegal warfare: The Bybee Memo.

The court is remiss in comprehending the problem. There cannot be a requirement hat any "employer" control speech. We the People require something else: Protecting of the Constitution. No Supreme Court justice can credibly argue that the individual manager has a greater force than the legal obligation of the employees to fully assert their oath.

Control does not mean that the Constitution is left in disrepair. The oath is the higher standard. The issue is not whether the government does or does not provide services efficiently or effectively; the issue is subtle: Whether they have fully asserted their oath, and protected the Constitution. How that goal is achieved is irrelevant> But when the Supreme Court would have us absurdly believe that "efficient" government operations means that illegal activity shall remain suppressed; or that nobody can do anything about it: That is folly.

Those in the know are gagged; and those outside have no standing. In effect, the Supreme Court in GARCETTI ET AL. v. CEBALLOS sent a clear signal: Damn the Constitution and rule of law, the loyalty to the leadership shall trump all things, even the oath of office and the enforcement guarantee to the States. Highly reckless. Today's DOJ Staff is the result: Complicit with war crimes.

* * *

No government can credibly "restrict" fair reports of illegal activity, especially when government employees have a duty and oath of office to protect the Constitution from domestic enemies. This Supreme Court has ratified illegal activity, squelched fair reports, and would have us believe that the most knowledgeable have the last power and standing to resolve this issue.

Those who have the knowledge cannot be presumed to have the support; and those who have an oath but defy it, cannot be rewarded for putting loyalty to man above loyalty to the rule of law.

All government employees are presumed be speaking on public issues. The First Amendment is unrelated to whether the oath of office and enforcement guarantee to the states remain in full force. This is not an issue of personal liberty; but of a duty of government employees to enforce the Constitution, assert the rule of law, and fully assert their oath.

Whether someone is a private citizen or a public official they have a superior obligation to one thing: The Constitution. When any government restricts reports of misconduct related to illegal activity, those restrictions are impermissible. The standard is not whether the government operations are or are not efficient or effective; but whether the government legal compliance is or is not enforced.

Government does not operate the create messes; it exists to protect the Constitution, and ensure illegal activity is checked. This Supreme Court has confused a legal duty of government to enforce the law, with a private right of employers to regulate conduct. This Supreme Court has fatally sided with the forces of tyranny, and impermissibly rewarded leaders who suppress evidence of grave braches of the Constitution, oath of office, and the States' guarantee to an enforcement mechanism.

* * *

Precedent does not permit the Supreme Court to point to anything which assents to illegal activity. Whether the First Amendment does or does not "permit" speech is meaningless. It protects speech. Management may not be allowed to discipline anyone when government officials have reported illegal activity.

Official responsibilities mean fully asserting one's oath. "Management" is not a label that compels blind obedience and silence on problems; it compels managers to lead, set the example, and show the way. This Supreme Court has double showed its errors: First in rewarding illegal activity; second refusing to provide leadership.

IT is not proper for any Supreme Court clerk to pretend that the precedents of the Supreme Court support putting management power over the required enforcement duty. Memos which report illegal activity shall be protected: They are official records. Efforts to retaliate are illegal. Private citizens are not required to remain silent about Supreme Court misconduct which violates the Judicial Cannons and rewards conduct on the DOJ Staff endorsing war crimes.

It matters little that the Supreme Court has on the bench buffoons who are friends with Bybee: An alleged war criminal under investigation by the German war crimes prosecutor.

Memos do not fall into any category: The memo is a report. The category is the illegal activity which the memo conveys and reports. Management cannot "categorize" a report of illegal activity, while ignoring the illegal conduct and not fully asserting their oath.

It cannot be said that retaliation for reporting illegal conduct can be protected. The First Amendment is not the basis to assert that employees may discipline people for reporting evidence of illegal activity. The employees record of illegal activity is not an expression, it is evidence. Memos which are evidence are protected; and all protections the Supreme Court gives to employers to hide this evidence, or retaliate against anyone for cooperating with their oath of office requirements must fail.

Supreme Court Justice have an official duty to fully assert their oath. The controlling factor is whether they can or cannot be sure they will or will not be impeached for permitting this Constitution to fall into disrepair. Official duties include providing evidence. Citizens and public employees shall have protections when reporting truthful information related to allegations of illegal conduct. Any denial of any remedy, or a refusal to permit counsel leave to amend the complaint, is evidence of recklessness.

This Supreme Court could have provided guidance to ensure the enforcement mechanism and the duties of the oath of office trumped the employer retaliation. Today's issue is whether this Supreme Court can be trusted to fully assert its oath; and compel leadership in the Oval Office to fully enforce the law.

It is not surprising to learn that the same Supreme Court that gives excuses to do nothing about illegal warfare; provides leadership with the tools to silence discussion and evidence related to illegal activity. The Controlling factor is the Judicial Cannons, the oath of office, and the Constitution, not precedent which creates an absurd outcome: Destruction of the Constitution and non-enforcement of the law.

All government officials and employees are employed to protect the Constitution. All government employees are citizens. They have a right, obligation, and duty to provide evidence. Whether the Supreme Court wants to pretend that evidence is "expression" or whether it is admissible is irrelevant. The question turns on whether the Supreme Court has or has not called evidence something other than evidence to justify refusing to enforce the law against retaliation.

Employers may not control employees to remain silent about illegal activity, especially when the employer has directed, organized, and hidden the illegal activity. Loyalty to government managers cannot trump loyalty to the Constitution and its enforcement.

There is no social value to permitting law enforcement to hide illegal activity or retaliate against those providing truth reports. Rather, the example, if rewarded, sends the impermissible signal that loyalty to man trumps loyalty to law. We are a nation that assent to the rule of law, not excuses to remain silent of man's illegal activity.

Whether any witness or government employee proposes any rule, their efforts must be applauded when they attempt to do what this Supreme Court refuses to do: Fully assert its oath to find a way to ensure the States have an enforcement mechanism; and there are timely sanctions on government officials for illegal retaliation. Where the state, local, and federal government refuse to enforce the law and remove corrupt government officials, it is a duty of We the People to communicate this illegal activity and find a solution that shall compel the Supreme Court to put the Constitution before loyalty to illegal leadership.

If there is no oversight of law enforcement, then this Supreme Court assent to barbarity and abuse as we have seen with the US Attorney firings. Judicial oversight is needed: This Supreme Court refuses to protect the Constitution fully. It pretends that it can remain insulated. It may be impeached; and the states have the power to call for the impeachment of this Supreme Court for their reckless assent to illegal activity.

Management discretion does not include the discretion to retaliate; nor does the Court have the power to remain silent when there is a failure to enforce the law. This Supreme Court has defied its oath. There is something beyond a compelling public interest in enforcing the law: It is a requirement. The public input is meaningless: It must exist regardless the ebb and flow of public interest. Employee loyalty does not mean that loyalty to man must trump loyalty to the enforcement of the law. It cannot.

It is impermissible for the Supreme Court to sanction retaliation for fair reports of illegal activity, especially when the government refuses to face the illegal acts, or enforce the law. The underpinnings of this Constitution depend on its enforcement, not excuses this Supreme Court does to reward silence about illegal activity. All employers have a duty to put the law before all things. It is practical for the Supreme Court to look for new leadership, especially when these Justices have proven themselves to be buffoons, incapable of understanding the Constitution, and willing to assent to excuses to put the rule of man before the rule of law.

* * *

It is absurd for this Supreme Court to look at government employee efforts to provide evidence of illegal activity is something that is a curiosity. There should be constitutional protections for all speech when that speech is connected with official reports of illegal activity; and the management has refused to cooperate. It may be true that there are other options; but there is nothing stopping the Supreme Court from recognizing when the attorney oversight system has failed, and when the state disciplinary boards have refused to review evidence of war crimes by Whitehouse, GOP, and DoJ Staff.

* * *

Detailed Discussion

The error is to presume there is a balancing test. No, the correct approach is to consider what cannot be balanced against anything: The Constitution. The status of the messenger is meaningless. The issue is whether the Constitution is fully protected, regardless the standing of the moving party.

It can hardly be argued that "efficiency" of (vague) government operations trumps the oath of office for (specific) government law enforcement. Efficiency is irrelevant when the oath of office is thwarted, and there is no enforcement of the law. It is irrelevant whether the performance of duties is impeded when the duty is to enforce the law, not assent to illegal activity.

The court erred in "not relying on the First Amendment" as a basis to review this case. It could have remanded the case with direction to review whether the Constitutional clauses related to the enforcement mechanism had been fully asserted. The issue is less with the arguments, but more with the results. There is nothing stopping the Supreme Court from guiding counsel to provide a more compelling argument so that the Supreme Court can protect a legal interest: Law enforcement and confidence in the rule of law. This Supreme Court chose to not do this.

* * *

On issues of law enforcement the issue is not whether there is or is not a debate, but whether there is or is not enforcement. All employees when reporting fraud, misconduct, and illegal activity are presumed to speak as citizens who are speaking on a public concern: Evidence of illegal activity or corruption is a concern.

No government entity has any justification to put "discipline" and 'efficiency" of operations above law enforcement. It is meaningless to ask whether government employees are or are not treated differently or the same than the public: This government ignores the public, violates rights, and abuse people. When the US Attorneys report misconduct, or they are retaliated against, this is more evidence which the public needs to know.

The situation with the US Attorneys is the government is seeking an excuse to mistreat US Attorneys to distract attention from the governments mistreatment of the Constitution. The relationship on the US Attorneys is not one of expression, employment, or efficiency: It is whether there has been illegal activity to retaliate for public acts.

Speech cannot be credibly restricted when the oversight mechanisms have been thwarted; and the President has actively blocked DOJ OPR, DOJ IG, and others from reviewing evidence of the DOJ Staff counsel complicity with illegal activity.

That an inquiry into these issues is difficult is interesting, but meaningless: It is required to fully enforce the Constitution, maintain confidence in the Justice System, and fully assert ones oath. If leaders spend more time listening to problems than retaliating, they might have credibility when outlining solutions, not making excuses for inaction in the face of reckless White House misconduct.

It is not permissible that a citizen-turned-government-employee gives up their right to speak to ensure the enforcement mechanism is fully asserted; or that illegal activity is fully disclosed. Where the Supreme Court rewards silence on illegal activity, it impermissibly trumps the Executive Orders which prohibit this classification and silence. The Supreme Court has, in essence, ignored precedent, not deferred to the experts, and would have us believe that the President's EO outlawing classification of illegal activity should not be enforced. This is arguably a grave breach of the Judicial Cannons and impermissible.

8 8 8

Employers and government cannot credibly be distinguished: They have the same obligation: To assent to the Constitution and enforcement requirement.

It is without merit that "control" of employee conduct means rewarding employers who "control" those who report illegal activity through retaliation. Whether services are efficiently provided as desired is secondary to whether the services are lawfully regulated as required.

The error is for the US leadership to pretend it can violate the law, but when confronted by Congress or employees, to pretend that "we have no time" to review this matter. Rather, they have a duty and requirement to face reality: They are war criminals. Whether "every" decision is or is not a constitutional matter is meaningless: We're only talking about one situation -- this case. It is irrelevant what "may" be in other situations. These are excuses to point to the speculative time that may be required over the certain time which has not been devoted as certainly is required.

* * *

The US Attorneys have not "spoken out"; they have reported evidence of illegal activity. Where there is an assertion that a position is "trusted", attached with that position is the duty to fully enforce the law. Government operations and functions do not include retaliation; any employee memoranda which results in retaliation cannot be lawful or permitted. If the Supreme Court will not find a way to enforce the law through leadership, then private citizens and attorneys shall have the right to do what the courts refuse to do: Protect the Constitution using any lawful method. It is meaningless that the court does not agree with this method; only that the Court send a clear signal -- there are ways to enforce the law, even when the DOJ OPR and disciplinary boards have been thwarted, as in the case of the US Attorney firings and DOJ Staff counsel illegal activity.

The error is to confuse "views" with evidence; and "efficiency" with "good governance." No, evidence may point out bad, illegal governance. The rule should be to find a way to assert the rule of law and reward defenders who dare to do what must be done to protect the Constitution; as opposed to finding an excuse to block what is required: Fully asserting ones oath to challenge the defective counsel in the DoJ Staff, White House counsel's office, and the Republican Party who have assented to illegal warfare.

Efficient and effective operations do not include "efficiently destroying the rule of law" or "effectively circumventing the Geneva Conventions." Citizens may have a right to work for government; but they also have a right to compel government to work for We the People and fully enforce the law, even when the US Attorneys have been retaliated against by defective, reckless White House and DOJ staff counsel who are complicit with war crimes.

* * *

The Constitutional rights of all government employees include, indirectly, the right to enjoy an enforcement mechanism of the law. When one Constitutional provision is thwarted, other Constitutional provisions must be allowed to expand into the nexus, and take center stage, calling attention to what has failed in the DoJ Staff, US government, and the White House counsel's office.

The court has no power to "recognize" something that is a requirement. Whether the Court does or does not "recognize" a duty and obligation is meaningless. The public's interest is preserving the Constitution, even if the voters vote for lawlessness. The Constitution shall be preserved, not explained away with excuses.

* * *

The error is to pretend that opinions enjoy protections; while evidence of illegal activity is not also protected by the Constitution. It is meaningless and frivolous for the Court to argue over whether the First or Fourteenth Amendments do or do not provide this "protection." The Constitution itself demands it: The oath and an enforcement mechanism to protect the Constitution.

There is a distinction between open debate, classified information, and enforcement of the law. The public needs evidence to decide whether the Government is or is not fully asserting its oath; Classified information cannot hide illegal activity; and the law must be enforced, even when it is easier to do nothing. Evidence under law, not ease of labor, is the standard by which justice is dispensed.

* * *

The social costs are interesting, but less important than the Constitutional costs: What is the US government gaining or losing in terms of world loss of confidence in the Democratic model when US Attorneys are fired.

___ How many Taliban look at this abuse of Presidential power, roll their eyes, and laugh thinking, "You see, Osama was right. Those Americans are not better than anyone else. They are delusional."

It is a problem when there is discussion about illegal activity, but the DOJ Staff is rewarded for blocking discussion and repots to the DOJ OPR. People aware of illegal activity, or have first hand knowledge of this White House's abuse of power through retaliation, need to have special protections, even when the Supreme Court is fixated on one portion of the constitution, but ignores the fundamental rule: Whether the outcome impermissibly permits the Constitution to decay into an intolerable mess, as is the case under this President.

* * *

The individual interests of the President cannot trump the requirement to enforce the Constitution and protect it from the President who remains a domestic enemy. Public functions include enforcing the law, not retaliating.

All citizens and government employees, by their nature and relationship with the Constitution, have been conferred rights to protect the Constitution. They have the right to protect the Constitution; and the Constitution does empower all to use all lawful means to ensure We the People enjoy an enforcement mechanism. Lawful means and methods does not mean that the method is guaranteed to succeed; the success is in having attempted to do what the Supreme Court refuses: Provide leadership.

* * *

The issue isn't that someone failed to achieve a result, but that some speech is protected; while other speech related to truthful reports is not protected. That makes no sense.

There is another standard that employers have in regulating speech: To maintain discipline; but the error is to assert that "reports of illegal activity" will impair discipline. The illegal activity, not the report, is the original impairment; the report outlines what is self-evident.

The US Attorneys may be subjected to some restrictions on speech, but that does not mean their abuse cannot be examined; or that any speech sent via e-mail cannot be examined.

IT is ironic that the Supreme Court would regulate the actions of an employee in reporting illegal conduct as opposed to the illegality of the employer.

The issue is not whether employers are speaking as a citizen under the First Amendment; but whether reports of illegal activity are protected to defend the Constitution as a whole. A shield defends the warrior; it makes little difference whether the protection is from the upper or lower corner.

* * *

The Constitution must be protected. Whether the means to protect that document is through an assertion of a right, or a claim of an oath is meaningless. All government employees have an oath; and they should be free to assert that oath fully, not out of fear that they will be abused.

"Promoting a public policy" cannot include promoting a policy of retaliation or lawlessness. The issue is whether the private citizen=turned-government employee has confidence that the available remedies are working; or whether they have been thwarted as is the case with the US Attorney firings and illegal blocking of DoJ OPR and DOJ IG.

The issue is whether the government ruse -- that of disciplining an employee -- is real; or connected with another effort to retaliate as is the case with the US Attorneys. The public debate on the Constitution is over: It is the Supreme Law. The debate only exists in the minds of the DoJ Staff attorneys who are making excuses to pretend the Constitution is discretionary despite its requirement.

Employees have the right to fully assert their oath. Where there is retaliation for fully asserting that oath, that retaliation and all rewards connected with it, must be understood. One cannot claim to have "discretion" to mange an operation when that operation is illegal. Employers engaged in illegal activity lose a fundamental right and authority to regulate reports of illegal activity. Employers cannot claim employees must meet performance standards while ignoring the standards applicable to supervisors.

When there is a communication of evidence, the consequences for retaliating for that report can be grave. Supervisors have no power to compel an employee to cooperate with what is illegal, or designed to go on a fishing expedition to thwart a lawful report. The President’s mission has been an illegal rebellion; he has invoked the idea of accuracy to hide evidence of illegal activity; it can hardly be said that "sound judgment" includes remaining silent about Presidential war crimes.

It is curious what the President might do in the face of a few words of criticism -- retaliate -- but when there are words in the Constitution, he ignores them.

___ Why does the President pay attention to criticism, but ignores the Constitution? He has no basis to explain why he has two standards on what he pays attention to. He can read; he cannot pick and choose on the law.

* * *

To avoid action, the Courts have overstated what is required; and have avoided what is needed: Judicial leadership. It has come into fashion for the Supreme Court to make a sweeping statement of "what is possibly required" to do something in the future, without looking at what is required to enforce something today.

It can hardly be argued that management has discretion to retaliate for reports of illegal activity; or that the supreme court, in choosing silence in the face of illegal activity, is assenting correctly to what should to be assented to: Illegal activity.

It is not correct to define the "choice" as being between management decisions or judicial decisions. The question is whether the Constitution will be protected, and the enforcement mechanism asserted. Whether that enforcement is challenged by an employee; thwarted by an employer; or not provided at the hands of Congress, the Judiciary, or President is meaningless. The issue is whether we the People can trust the government to do what it promises; or must rely on haphazard approaches of isolated patriots who dare to do what the US government officials refuse to do: Creatively find a means to assert the rule of law and protect the Constitution against all domestic enemies.

There are no competing interests if the Judiciary correctly reviews the Constitution and explores the interests: To protect the Constitution. We are, for purposes of the oath, on the same page. For purposes of a clash of factions, there are required competing interests. The errors is for the Judiciary to pretend that a clash of political factions is protected when that clash overrules the law.

This President has injected the political clashes into the management debates of the Department of Justice. He has injected partisan warfare where there must be harmony with the Constitution. How one does ones job is as important as whether that job is for an illegal objective. Scrutiny is needed when the means to do a job are as questionable as the oversight compelling silent on illegal methods and unlawful outcomes.

It is absurd to argue that the Judiciary will require to "permanently" do anything new: They have an old requirement which they have, for the most part, permanently abandoned: Timely protection f the Constitution using sound principles.

Judicial intervention is required when the Members of Congress and President have jointly retaliated. That there might be one requirement to do this is not an excuse for the courts to say that there will be a "permanent requirement": No, there is a duty that is permanent. If Judicial intervention is required daily to remind the lazy, defective, reckless DOJ and White House counsel that they need to fully assert their oath, then the Supreme Court has failed: Where it might have instilled loyalty to the rule of law, it has in its wake recklessness by its peers in the legal profession. Hardly something that warrants confidence.

* * *

Whether an employer must consistently or inconsistency to anything is meaningless: There remains a requirement that is perpetual. Employers may object to employees who report illegal activity, but this does not mean that their irritation trumps the legal obligations of all government employees to find a way to fully assert their oath.

Government likes to war many hats to avoid accountability. Government employees should be able to wear many hats to fully assert their oath and compel government to assent to the rule of law.

* * *

All government employees have the responsibility to root out corruption, defend the Constitution against domestic enemies, and fully assert their oath. What may be inconvenient is meaningless: The oath compels action, even if it is difficult. The error is to permit the Supreme Court to enable sloth where vigilance is required. Perhaps the lazy clerks working for Justice Roberts would care to publicly comment on their excuses for remaining silent about their peer's illegal activity in the Department of Justice; or why they refuse to provide leadership to the lazy staff counsel who refuse to cooperate with the DOJ OPR.

___ Any explanation why Rove has not been disbarred?

___ What is the excuse of the "most knowledgeable" clerks working for Justice Roberts their refusal to provide visible leadership and publicly denounce the illegal activity of their peers in the White House?

Alas, the weather is not favorable, and the reports to the DC Disciplinary Board are wanting. Absurd for the lazy staff counsel working for Justice Roberts to have anyone believe they are worth anything if they are supposedly experts on the law, but they must remain silent about the illegalities which are not timely prosecuted. Perhaps they are satisfied with the buffoonery in the White House: There is hope they can find a home.

* * *

All employees have a responsibility to fully assert their oath. Whether evidence is couched as a statement, complaint, or job task is meaningless. The oath is silent on whether one asserts their oath as feedback, action, in writing, or through litigation. It cannot be said that all lawful options to assert ones oath are in or outside one's duties: All lawful options may be used to fully assert one's oath. It is a separate matter whether management will agree with the evidence; or whether they will or will not treat employees fairly or with respect.

George Orwell might argue: "Some abuse by the Taliban is bad; but alot of abuse by the President is good. Just don’t think about the illegal activity, and you'll feel batter." That is non-sense.

How employees "interpret" what should be done is meaningless. the issue is: Why was there no written procedure, guidance, or other well codified procedure in place to handle what to do when:

A. There has been illegal retaliation;

B. Employees like US Attorneys have been abused;

C. There is an illegal effort in place to retaliate and hide this effort; and

D. The illegal retaliation is supported by the President of the United States and Members of Congress.

This Supreme Court would have We the People pretend that nothing can be done; that it is a political issue.

No, this is an issue of criminal law which requires a solution, not an excuse to permit more illegal activity.

* * *

It is fiction to call retaliation "discipline"; or that the Constitution's First Amendment does or does not regulate reports of evidence related to illegal activity. The broader view is whether the Judiciary is seeking ways to enforce the entire document, as opposed to creating excuses to suggest that one small corner of the Constitutional shield cannot protect the entire document.

The Supreme Court has the power to redefine the basis of the protection from a specific defense or right, to a generalized right and guarantee. The issue isn't whether the Supreme Court agrees or disagrees with the method to protect; but whether it agrees or disagrees with the protection. This Supreme Court appears to argue over the method and, as a consequence, permits this Constitution to not be fully protected. That approach should be rejected and prohibited.