Member of Congress E-mails Prove Active Efforts to Block Enforcement of Geneva Conventions
War Crimes Evidence in the E-mails: US Govt E-mails Show Coordination Between Members of Congress, political parties, and state citizens to Thwart Enforcement of Geneva Conventions
Nuremberg reminds us that civilized nations shall impeach to enforce the laws of war.
The e-mails of the US Attorney firing is a subset of larger unconstitutional conduct. The speedy discovery and disclosure of US Attorney Firing e-mails show Members of Congress would be reckless in not providing the e-mails to war crimes prosecutors. Anything the President has done in re complying with the Congress in re US Attorney firing e-mails and discovery is what Members of Congress may be reasonably expected to do during this war crimes investigation.
There are other e-mails from the GOP and DNC showing they actively thwarted state level efforts to remind the Congress of their oath of office.
The e-mails show Members of Congress, their staffs, and political parties have actively coordinated to ensure the laws of war were not enforced. These are war crimes.
What You Can Do
There are two focal points for information. The ICC prosecutor has received over 100 letters related to American war crimes. If you have details related to these e-mails. You an forward them to the ICC or the German War Crimes prosecutor
Ref Member of Congress indictment in re e-mails and failure to enforce Geneva Conventions.
Ref Supreme Court indictment in re Geneva Conventions and failure to enforce laws of war.
Ref War crimes evidence: US Govenment, GOP, and DNC pressure to not enforce Geneva Conventions.
The State level proclamations calling for impeachment continue. Yet, they have, in part served an important function.
Members of Congress, staff counsel, and partisan loyalists have been implicated in illegal efforts thwart state level proclamations calling for impeachment to enforce the laws of war.
This is evidence of war crimes. The e-mails may be entered into any court for purposes of adjudicating war crimes against Members of Congress and State level officials. The absence of the e-mails, despite the known coordination to thwart Geneva enforcement, is admissible evidence of subsequent violations under the laws of war.
The evidence is locked. Any effort to destroy these e-mails is a subsequent offense under the laws of war. There is no statute of limitations. There is universal jurisdiction for the laws of war.
Members of Congress and staff counsel are reminded to heed all document retention requirements that might be applicable under any federal statute. These requirements are enforceable for purposes of this discovery into the war crimes evidence.
Any effort to hide these e-mails will do nothing to dissuade prosecutors from finding willing State and Federal officials who have openly discussed their concerns that Members of Congress and the US political parties have thwarted efforts to enforce the rule of law, Geneva Conventions, and have been complicit with war crimes.
Geneva through the Nuremberg precedents, specifically mentions impeachment as a measure of civilized society. Societies who take impeachment off the table, and refuse to enforce the laws of war, are not civilized. Civility is not a notion that one notices as a passing fad, but a requirement of government to enforce the law and manage affairs of state.
Evidence of Members of Congress blocking state level proclamations calling for impeachment is instructive. It tells us many things:
___ Despite public efforts to remind Members of Congress of their oath, the Members of Congress will not be reminded;
___ Despite efforts to rely on the law to remind Members of Congress of their legal obligations, Members of Congress took active steps to ignore the oath and block the State level proclamations.
Under the rules of evidence, when measuring whether Members of Congress were reckless, the issue is whether they knew the law, and ignored it. Fatally, by confirming in e-mails that they were against State level proclamations, the Members of Congress fatally communicated:
___ They were aware of the efforts;
___ They knew, or should have known, that the efforts were lawful;
___ That the state proclamation was related to an effort to remind Members of Congress of their oath;
___ Members of Congress took an oath of office, but took measures to actively ignore, thwart, and defy State efforts to remind the Members of Congress of their oath
___ That Members of Congress, knowing there were legal requirements for them to act and defend the Constitution, actively thwarted the proclamations because it would force them to confront something they had ignored and not done.
___ Members of Congress knew they had a duty under the Geneva Conventions, oath of office, and US Constitution to enforce the laws of war; but were recklessly ignoring that duty; but doing the opposite in actively opposing efforts to remind them of their legal obligations.
___ Members of Congress, staff counsel, and other civilians knew the legal issues they were openly ignoring and defying -- the enforcement of the Geneva Conventions;
___ Members of Congress had time to review the State level proclamations; rather than let the State citizens proceed with a reminder of Member of Congress obligations, Members of Congress actively thwarted efforts to enforce the laws of war;
___ Member of Congress knew they had a duty to enforce the laws of war but failed o their own to call for an investigation;
___ Member of Congress knew the State Proclamations calling for an investigation were linked with duties Members of Congress had to enforce the laws of war;
___ Members of Congress, despite this duty to enforce the laws of war, were reckless in not only ignoring their duty to act, but were reckless is taking affirmative steps, actions, and coordinating efforts to block others from discussing, communicating, or openly debating the requirements of Congress to enforce the laws of war.
___ Members of Congress knew they had a duty to enforce the laws of war; were reckless in ignoring their legal requirements. Their actions to openly thwart otehrs from discussing this issue is evidence of their recklessness in thwarting the Geneva Conventions or enforcing the laws of war against the President.
These are serious issues of war crimes attached to Members of Congress. It cannot be argued that Members of Congress did not know what was going on. They knew enough about the laws of war to thwart the state proclamations for impeachment; and the Members of Congress collective efforts to thwart these proclamations shows they were caluating, deliberative, and took action based on legal advice; or they were reckless is blocking something they did not understand.
These are serious issues of war crimes. The law allows courts to adjudicate these matters. Under the laws of war, when the court system fails and does not enforce the laws of war, legal officers may be prosecuted. Nuremberg is precedent for adjudicating war crimes against Members of Congress, civilians, contractors, lawyers, and officers of the court.
The e-mails show there has been recklessness through all branches of government, and decisions by civilians, contractors, and government officials to ignore, not enforce, and violate the laws of war.
Nuremberg precedents establish that the possible consequence for war crimes,and the decision of government officials to not enforced the laws of war is the death penalty. There are not mitigating circumstances in the United States.
The e-mails between Members of Congress, their staff, and local citizens in the states show that there have been active efforts to block investigations, block discussion, and refuse to permit proclamations.
This is not whether the US government is all powerful; but whether it, despite the oath, responded to the rule of law and reminders of the oath.
Proclamations are a litmus test: Whether the Congress would agree, do nothing, or actively oppose.
Rather than let the Proclamations die a silent death, the DNC and GOP jointly worked to oppose a simple reminder: We the People would like for you to consider your oath and investigate the President.
The issue was not a call to remove the President; nor a demand that the Congress impeach. Only a simple request that the Congress consider investigating. Nothing more.
Not only did the Congress not, on its own, vote to impeach; it actively thwarted the message of this request. It did more than choose to do nothing about impeachment or Presidential war crimes, it actively chose to do nothing, and wasted an entire year promising, "When we get power . . ."
They have the power, and have broken their promise, defied their oath, and not held this President to account for war crimes.
All e-mails, as were the case of the US Attorney firings, can be examined. These are not privileged.
Members of Congress, the DNC and GOP actively communicated outside Congress to state level entities.
All things Members of Congress said about the President’s e-mail, or that of the DOJ Staff and White House counsel communications -- that they are not protected -- apply to all e-mails between the Congress and State level in re blocking impeachment.
On the Table
1. Partisan efforts to thwart reminders of the oath of office, and blocking state level proclamations calling for impeachment;
2. Partisan efforts to dissuade State level employees from fully asserting their oath, inducement to defy their oath of office
3. Implicit threats, retaliation, and other to-be-understood acts of intimidation against State level employees and citizens
4. Active efforts to deny the States their grantee to an enforcement mechanism;
5. Willful knowledge of Members of Congress of their oath of office to defend the Constitution; but their choice not to enforce the Geneva Conventions against the president; and block any and all efforts to force this President to assent to the rule of law.
State Prosecutors and Grand Juries are authorized and may legally subpoena all e-mails documents, and records between Members of Congress and their state constitutes.
Evidence related to the following:
A. Implicit retaliation if efforts were taken to remind Members of Congress of their legal requirements;
B. Overt acts of aggression, unlawful activity, abuse, and witness intimidation to dissuade witness from appearing;
C. Overt acts to thwart the public from putting the Constitution first, and attempting to enforce the 5 USC 3331 oath of office;
D. Indirect and overt acts to thwart US Attorney Generals from enforcing the 5 USC 3331 oaths of office requirements against Members of Congress;
E. Indirect and overt acts to threaten to withhold funding, or provide valuable consideration to legislatures who assented to illegal warfare, oath of office violations.
On The Table
The Grand Jury has been assigned the task of reviewing the following:
A. How much money did Members of Congress privately threaten to withhold from the States if Legislatures supported a proclamation calling for impeachment;
B. Which funding was threatened to be withheld if State officials attempted to enforce the law against Members of Congress;
C. What intimidation, threats, or other acts of violence were planned, sent through JTTF, and State level law enforcement, and directed at State officials if they dared to enforce the laws of war against Members of Congress and the President;
D. How did Members of Congress threaten, intimidate, and induce others to not fully assert their oath;
E. What valuable state benefits did Members of Congress threaten to shut off, deny, not provide, or withhold if the States attempted to enforce the laws of war against Members of Congress
F. Which prosecutors have illegally assented to unlawful conduct, and not fully enforced 5 USC 3331 on the promise of valuable appointments to the US Attorneys office;
G. Which legal community leaders and counsel have put their oath of office behind their loyalty to their political party
H. How have state level legislatures put their duty to defend the Constitution behind their partisan goals
I. What is getting in the way of the State Level officials from fully comprehending their obligation to enforce the oath of office, 5 USC 3331 and the US Constitution against the US Congress?
We the People have eternity to find the answers. These issues related to alleged war crimes. There is no statute of limitations.
What does or does not happen between now and 2008 is meaningless. Once a war crimes investigation starts, as this one has, there is no end-game.
The facts are what the facts are. Either the Members of Congress and GOP and DNC are going to cooperate with this inquiry; or they are going to face the potential consequences of a war crimes tribunal.
The issue is the President. They symptom is the Member of Congress refusal to assent to the rule of law.
They have an oath. They have a duty. Their obligation is to enforce the Constitution and Geneva Conventions.
The US Congress has been complicit with efforts to block many reminders of their obligations. This does not mean the Member of Congress obligations are gone, or cannot be enforced.
They are duties which attach with it an obligations under the Geneva Conventions: To enforce the laws of war against the President.
The error was for the Congress to show how quickly they cold get access to the DOJ Staff counsel memorandum to the White House counsel.
There should be no delay in Members of Congress providing the evidence of their illegal efforts to thwart state level citizens from enforcing the law against Members of Congress.
All e-mails related to the Members of Congress communications to thwart lawful efforts to enforce the laws of war against the President is evidence of war crimes.
All e-mails from Members of Congress coordinating efforts to stifle state level proclamations calling for impeachment are war crimes related evidence attached to violations of the oath of office.
The e-mails between Members of Congress and state level personnel to block proclamations calling for Congress to investigate is evidence Members of Congress knew the law; took active steps to thwart oversight; but did not take the same effort nor apply the same energy to enforce the laws of war.
The e-mails between Members of Congress and state level personnel to block proclamations calling for impeachment under House Rule 603 is evidence Members of Conges were reckless in performing their duties under 5 USC 3331; but taking overt efforts to block oversight, enforcement, and discussion as Members of Congress were required under the Nuremberg Precedents.
The e-mails between Members of Congress and state level officials to thwart citizens from discussing House Rule 603 is evidence of the illegal rebellion by Members of Congress to not enforce the Geneva Conventions; and permit the President to implement additional war crimes.
There is no excuse for Members of Congress to have done what they have done -- not asserted their oath, but taken overt acts to block efforts to raise this issue. This is not an issue of free speech or state's rights, but of international war crimes.
The failure of the Congress to respond to their oath is only one part of the larger puzzle. The evidence we have is the lack of a state proclamation. The e-mails show Members of Congress were complicit with efforts to avoid action; an they cannot claim they have something else to do. They have an oath. They chose to take time to block reviews, just as the President blocked DOJ OPR.
The President and Members of Congress have jointly agreed directly or indirectly to block efforts to enforce the laws of war.
Please forward any evidence you have of Member of Congers, DNC, or GOP efforts to block discussion of the State Proclamations for impeachment to the war crimes prosecutors. These are issues of international criminal law under the laws of war.
Any discussion, plan, or effort to thwart the enforcement of the laws of war; or efforts to intimidate, dissuade, or offer anyone something of value to not do what they should may be deemed a subsequent cause of action under the laws of war.
The error was for Members of Congress to remain complicit with war crimes and not end illegal warfare or investigate the President; the subsequent criminal act was to block efforts of citizens to remind Members of Congress their legal obligations under the laws of war. Congress, in fatally asserting it had the power to block the States, left admissible evidence that it as recklessly not enforcing the laws of war. Not all lawful options, as required under the oath of office, were fully asserted to enforce the Laws of war.
Members of Congress through their e-mails have been implicated in alleged war crimes for taking active efforts to not enforce the laws of war.
These are serious issues which war crimes prosecutors well understand.