Constant's pations

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

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Range of illegal govenrment activity Congress wants to unlawfully suppress discussion

Title should read: "government" not "govenrment"


* * *

The Senate does not want the public to discuss the illegal Presidential programs. They have one goal: To prevent the public from discovering that the Senate has failed and is in rebellion.

This is a list of the powers which the Senate has abused and permitted to be abused.

The Senate has a problem.

It wants to silence discussion on illegal activity. We are not free if force to put up with abuse in silence.

At the same time it hopes to protect the government from oversight. we are not free if we cannot discuss what violates the law, or what is to be done.

The senate has no credibility. The Senate deserves to be whittled down to nothing.

We have the right to speak about illegal things; and craft solutions to protect this Constitution. The Senate has the power to debate, but they refuse to assert power -- rather they throw the issue of the Constitution up for debate. They do not have the power to debate the constitution -- the question of what the Constitution is or is not is the exclusive power of the Judicial branch; rather they may soon have that power revoked.

This note outlines the range of illegal activity that the Senate doesn't want you to know about.

The goal is simple: To show you how the Senate has crafted language that allowed violations of the law; but that they propose to pass rules barring discussion on that illegal conduct.

This is absurd.

The way forward is to recognize this list for what it is: Hypocrisy.

Rather, we the People may make rules -- not Congress -- which prohibits the freedom of speech. We have already made rules prohibiting the Senators to speak on issues during the Conviction phase.

We can broaden that rule to include other things: Issues of rebellion; efforts to silence; attempts to dissuade oversight; illegal efforts to stile fact finding; delays in providing evidence to the House to provide the basis for an impeachment.

* * *

The Senate can be held in contempt of the people. Especially when the senate has information that should be make public and brought to the attention of the House.

We can make new rules which compel the senate to provide evidence, and quickly resolve investigations within 90 days. The senate can be lawfully compelled under threat of jail time -- as is done during an impeachment -- that they do or not do something.

This Senate knows something. It knows the laws have been corrupted, and have been stretched to "permit" unlawful activity. It also knows that the Senate has unlawfully given a "green light" to the DoJ Attorney General to make exceptions and agreements which are contrary to our laws.

They have called this a "classified program" not to protect us, but to avoid the public knowing about the violations. Indeed, there should be no surprise why there are no complaints: The entire activity is classified.

That is not evidence. Rather, a crime does not require a victim. It is only the most stupid of people who believes that a victim is required. Rather, a crime is against one thing: The State.

Whether there is or is not a victim, or an identified voice is meaningless. All that is required is for there to have been [a] action that [b] violates a statute.

That is it. Whether there is or is not a victim doesn’t matter; and that the public may not be aware of something doesn't mean that there are no victims. Rather, the issues is simply whether the laws are or are not going to be enforced.

* * *

This Senate refuses to do its job. Rather, it wants to meddle in things, then do nothing with the facts.

A New Constitution shall make it a crime for evidence not to be forward for review; and it shall be a felony for Members of Congress in the Senate to do what they are doing: Making up non-sense to avoid having the rule of law enforced.

You have one choice: Between the rule law or rebellion. That the Senate may or may not choose to follow the law is irrelevant.

You can be compelled to be silent; do your job; or be found to have committed a felony.

We do not have to wait until an election. Rather, we can lawfully thrust this New Constitution down your throat, and bar you from speaking on any matter of Constitutionality. You have to assent to the Constitution; you do not have the power -- nor were you delegated any power -- to volatile the law, pass illegal bills, or create the impression in anyone’s mind that it was "OK with us" if you violate the statutes.

This Senate proposes to make rules barring the public from speaking about illegal activity.

The way forward is to impose that standard first on the senate with a New Constitution that makes it a felony for the Senate to discuss non-sense related to why the rule of law should or should not apply. That is a clear sing of rebellion against the Constitution.

Whether the Senate does or does not enforce this rule is irrelevant. The Senate may lawfully have that power revoked. The power to regulate the Senate may be transferred to a new Body that the Senate has no voice in influencing.

It doesn't matter whether the Senate does or does not have an interest; rather, We the People may lawfully make new rules and excite the population to lawfully assert the rule of law based on a simple desire: To do what you fail to do -- to protect, preserve, and defend this Constitution.

Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. Any law Congress passes abridging a discussion of illegal activity which violates the Constitution is not enforceable.

The way forward is to make it a felony to do what Congress proposes to do: Restrict the public from speaking on a matter of public interest.

In truth, the way forward is to bar the Senate from discussing issues related to impeachment or censure, and compel them to simply look at the evidence.

We can make the issue of censure one of procedure -- that only the Congress can vote on, not debate. If you want to deny the public the right to speak on corruption, then you shall have no right to speak on similar things.

Go ahead, pass a law that bans something that cannot be banned; We the People may pass a New Constitution that prohibits something we can well prohibit -- your right to speak, your right to comment, your right to do something.

You have no rights as Senators. You have Powers. We may lawfully revoke that power. If you deny rights to others -- we may lawfully deny you the power to enforce that non-0sense; and lawfully reciprocate by denying you the power to comment on something that you have been given the power to comment on.

Please, pass a law that denies the people the right to comment -- it is not enforceable. Rather, it will simply be the catalyst for We the People to pass a New Constitution that makes it a recognized right of the people to make new rules -- outside the Control of the Senate -- to enforce restrictions on what you can or cannot say.

We have already made rules that ban you from speaking during a conviction. We can do the same on other matters. we the People are the ones who make the rules. You have no power to make rules which violate our rights. Period.

* * *

Speclating on the Illegel Presidential Programs

Let's consider

  • A. what Gonzalez said: Click at the NSA hearing on 6 Feb 2006: He slipped up on data mining.

  • B. the reange of forecasted NSA abuses: Click ]

  • C. Credible answers to the questions from the House Judiciary Click

  • D. Also the following document Click

    * * *

    Let’s consider the how the senate is cooperating with the illegal Presidential conduct.

    First, let’s consider the language of the bill and forecast what the President could do and how the senate language shows they are cooperating with this illegal conduct.

    * * *

    In general we can look at the senate Intelligence bill as a New Constitution. This will show you how the current Executive goes beyond what is in the Senate Bill; and forecast what abuses are permissible within the current language.

    Abused power: Appropriations for war crimes

    Abused power: Illegal use of combat support against Americans

    Abused power: Illegally delegating authority to commit war crimes

    Abused power: Appropriating funds for illegal things
    Abused power: Appropriating funds for illegal things
    Abused power: Appropriations for unlawful things
    Abused power: Appropriations for unlawful things

    Abused power: Failure to comply with Constitution

    Abused power: Illegally delegating broad powers not permitted.

    Abused power: Failure of Senate to narrow language

    Abused power: Too much deference on whether Senate does or does not act.

    Abused power: Failure of senate to make rules making this a felony.

    Abused power: Senate refuses to ensure programs are lawful.

    Abused power: Senators fail to ensure laws followed

    Abused power: Unlawful appropriations

    Abused power: Checks and balances

    Abused power: Consolidated power

    Abused power: Failure of oversight.
    Abused power: Failure of oversight
    Abused power: Failure of oversight

    Abused power: Failure of Senate to check abused powers.
    Abused power: Failure to prevent abuse of power.

    Abused power: Language broadly interpreted illegally
    Abused power: Statutes are narrowly then expansively interpreted; executive does not have this power.

    Abused power: Failure to engage in fact finding
    Abused power: Failure of Senate to compel responses.

    Abused power: Executive asserts legislative power; Senate fails to assert power.

    Abused power: Senate fails to assert power

    Abused power: Failure of rule enforcement
    Abused power: Failure to investigate and follow-up.
    Abused power: Failure of Senate to create a credible system that will compel discovery.
    Abused power: Failure to protect and safeguard the process.

    Abused power: Failure to demand a list of programs President interpedently review.

    Abused power: Failure to sample the program designations.

    Abused power: Senators appropriating funds for things not disclosed

    Abused power: Appropriations without credible basis to believe lawful.

    Abused power: Senate has failed to ensure that appropriations are for what stated.

    Abused power: Unlawful appropriations for activities not adequately bounded

    Abused power: Failure of Senate to assert power.

    Abused power: Senate has no power to delegate to AG.
    Abused power: Illegal delegation of discretion
    Abused power: Illegal grant of discretion
    Abused power: Illegally granting Executive discretion.
    Abused power: Illegal permission to create exceptions.

    Abused power: DoJ asserting non-delegated power of discretion to violate the law.

    Abused power: Failure of checks and balances

    Abused power: Insufficient constraints in language to prevent abuse of authority

    Abused power: Failure of Senators to ensure appropriations are for lawful things.

    Abused power: Appropriations for activities Executive does not explain

    * * *


    The White House views America as a large Guantanamo. We judge Americans are regularly without warrant or reasonable basis kidnapped, detained, interrogated under duress without adequate access to legal counsel. We judge within recent days JTTF has briefed field units to take on a less confrontational approach, however they are still inclined to be abusive.

    The abuse of power is not only illegal, it violates a specific procedural requirement before the court. When they ignore the court, this illegally takes the court out of the process that might otherwise detect and sanction the misconduct.

    They first violate the law, then justify additional violations to avoid consequences. They are effectively engaging in illegal litigation outside the courtroom against those not suitably prepared to challenge the abuse of power. We judge the Federal Rules of evidence and procedure have been effectively thrown out the window.

    We can generalize based on the FY06 Senate Intelligence Bill: To identify the likely abuses. The “permissible” misconduct matches what is publicly known. One can them combine what is possible from multiple categories to imagine what is going on.

    * * *

    Return to Top


    DoJ and NSA will have to explain to Congress why, despite the conversations with the contractors, Congress was not timely notified of the violations. We judge some of the most damaging information will be gleaned from the phone company message traffic to NSA and DoJ General Counsel in re concerns over FISA. This would show the time that the contractors were aware of the violations, and whether NSA and DoJ timely provided the information to the White House and Congress as required. We judge [a] the conversations over FISA violations and illegal activity are well documented prior to Sept 2001; and [b] the White House knows it not only has violated the law, but has made subsequent violations in failing to report to Congress the known illegal White House activity, orders, and guidance.

    All information indicates the current FISA requirements remain at odds with the ongoing NSA activities, procedures, and technical capabilities. We judge the court has a reasonable basis to compel discovery. Had the programs been legal in the wake of 9-11, there would have been insufficient time to change the requirements, upgraded the software, and then expand the surveillance. Rather, these known requirements and capabilities – already in the software baseline -- were known to be at odds with statute.

    We can create a composite picture together by working closely with those on the NSA modernization programs, and those who review the minimization procedures. The line of questions and responses will be well-rehearsed; however by separating NSA program team members, you’re more likely to find inconsistencies in their testimony.

    We recommend Congress rather than use large witness rounds, separately subpoena [a] the field-level NSA program managers that work directly with the NSA contractors; [b] the government and contractor program team leaders; [c] deputy program managers; and [d] NSA program team members who are assigned to the NSA’s SETA contractors.

    Once all testimony is received, you’ll want to review the responses relative to the data from the plant representative office; review the technical interchange meeting minutes; and the compare the results to the electronic message files stored in backup locations. These are data files which the contractors and government personnel regularly exchange in classified format, and are not the same as e-mail.

    Notwithstanding the practice of investigators to “seize everything,” we judge there are files like these which are outside the scope of normal discovery. Bluntly, they’re not going to give them to you unless you know that they exist and are referenced elsewhere.

    For reference information on these data files you’ll want to review the NSA program manager’s meeting minutes that discuss issues with funding and other communications issues related to changes in data deliveries, and last minute changes in program meeting agendas. [ Example: NSA Meeting Attendee list and [ More Generally ] ] Notice closely the source of the data files, and other references these non-traditional communication methods. Continue to probe for the source of the attached files and other information: Which systems were used to transmit/receive the data and whether other systems have copies. The issue isn’t simply the content of the report or data, but the means by which they have transmitted the data. That will lead you to the non-disclosed data.

    We judge it is well known in the NSA contractor community that Lockheed Martin has program management meeting agendas. The key will be to explore the non-email-methods by which these meeting agendas are disseminated.

    Indicators: Most likely scenarios

    Law and order at odds in America.

    We judge the following Risk Nexus is most common, linked to problems with training, management, discipline, and ineffective command authority:

    Abuse of power: Laws ignored
    Abuse of power: Excuse of training
    Abuse of power: Ignoring requirements
    Abuse of power: Implied blackmail on Congress
    Abuse of power: Known problems in files suppressed
    Abuse of power: Rephrasing abuses in favorable terms
    Abuse of power: Congress actively supporting illegal activity
    Abuse of power: Repeating the abuses of the British Monarchy
    Abuse of power: Information used as blackmail to get cooperation
    Abuse of power: Multi-agency cooperation, repeating similar abuses
    Abuse of power: Personnel cannot be trusted to comply with clear rules

    Executive Abuses

    Overall: They do what they want, and then twist the laws to make it look like its OK.
    Overall: Do what they want, and then find an excuse to “legalize” it.
    Overall: Bypassing not only the statute, but the invented alternative procedures
    Overall: Violate the law
    Abuse of power: Objectives at odds with laws
    Circular: Violate law, then assign an exemption to activity and evidence
    Tenuous: No reasonable connection to the asserted excuse

    Illegal activity
    Abuse of power: Violating protected rights
    Abuse of power: War crimes
    Abuse of power: Pre-emptive use of force to target illusory threats
    Abuse of power: Supporting illegal rebellion against Constitution
    Abuse of power: Use military in domestic law enforcement

    Abuse of power: Failure to assert oath
    Abuse of power: Executive decides to violate law
    Abuse of power: Illegal Executive Orders

    Abuse of power: Similar to non-sense at Guantanamo
    Abuse of power: Illegal activity
    Abuse of power: Finding news ways to do what is prohibited
    Abuse of power: Ignore the requirements
    Abuse of power: Ignoring the law, regulation, procedure

    Abuse of power: Ignore the statute
    Abuse of power: Any conduct which violates the law
    Abuse of power: Violate rights of people
    Abuse of power: Clear violations
    Abuse of power: Misconduct

    Abuse of power: Intimidation
    Abuse of power: Harassment
    Abuse of power: Open sharing with non-intended parties
    Abuse of power: Excuses to violate Constitution, go around protections
    Abuse of power: Goal isn’t to fight terrorism, but to gather information and intimidate people and manipulate them

    Abuse of power: Witness tampering
    Abuse of power: Jury tampering
    Abuse of power: Violate rules of evidence and procedure
    Abuse of power: Self-issuing warrants and still violating the new procedures

    Abuse of power: False charges
    Abuse of power: FISA court led to believe non-sense
    Abuse of power; shifting the burden of proof
    Abuse of power: Prosecutors using illegal evidence
    Abuse of power: Failure to provide information as required under prosecutor’s standards of conduct
    Abuse of power: Data not provided per Brady
    Abuse of power: Defendants not provided all information for a fair trail
    Abuse of power: Deny rights of defendants
    Abuse of power: Mislead participations
    Abuse of power: Delay fact finding

    Abuse of power: Self-issues warrants
    Abuse of power: Illegally gathering intelligence and sharing
    Abuse of power: Illegally obtained evidence
    Abuse of power: Fabricated information justification
    Abuse of power: Reaming illegal evidence is “investigative lead”
    Abuse of power: Based for personal knowledge is an NSA intercept
    Abuse of power: Large files
    Abuse of power: Speculative differences
    Abuse of power: Misrepresentations
    Abuse of power: Trumped up charges
    Abuse of power: Misrepresentations to avoid investigations, reviews, and taking evidence
    Abuse of power: Fictional phrases to sound legal, but evidence fails to meet standard
    Abuse of power: Illegal evidence
    Abuse of power: Failure to suppress illegal evidence
    Abuse of power: Time cards of detectives at odds with information gleaned

    Abuse of power: Warrantless detentions, violation of Constitution, habeas corpus
    Abuse of power: Warrantless arrest
    Abuse of power: Warrantless arrest – without a crime, merely an assertion of potential
    Abuse of power: Targets not linked with a bonafide reason
    Abuse of power: Baseless targeting
    Abuse of power: Targeting on the basis of non-criminal elements
    Abuse of power: Person not reasonably connected related to the asserted crime
    Abuse of power: Person targeted regardless reasonableness
    Abuse of power: No basis for questions
    Abuse of power: Reassigning targets into new classes to justify a violation
    Abuse of power: Probable cause standard ignored

    Unresponsive to oversight
    Abuse of power: Ignore the other powers
    Abuse of power: Self-decide letter is not required
    Abuse of power: Self-declines the requirement to avoid reporting requirement

    Creating New Power
    Abuse of power: President writes new legislation
    Abuse of power: AG is a monarch
    Abuse of power: Illegal changes to Constitution
    Abuse of power: Self-delegate authority and oversight
    Abuse of power: Self-delegate power to ratify illegal acts and orders
    Abuse of power: Self-defining illegal activity as permissible
    Abuse of power: Delegate oversight to ratify an illegal activity
    Abuse of power: Self-assert broad discretion outside court, at odds with constitution
    Abuse of power: Executive makes judicial decisions on appropriateness

    Back to top

    Abuse of power: Self-delegate exceptions
    Abuse of power: Waiver of rules of procedures and evidence
    Abuse of power: Assert this is an exception to requirements
    Abuse of power: Self-grant waivers on standards, requirements, and reporting
    Abuse of power: Not a bonafide exception
    Abuse of power: Fabricated events to fit into an exception
    Abuse of power: Waivers to waivers
    Abuse of power: Novel exceptions
    Abuse of power: Abuse of “intelligence-related”
    Abuse of power: Inappropriate discretion to apply exemptions
    Abuse of power: Expansive exception-creating power
    Abuse of power: Exemptions not bonafide
    Abuse of power: Exemptions outside intent of Congress
    Abuse of power: Illegal exceptions
    Abuse of power: Self-assign exemptions
    Abuse of power: Self-asserting exemption; false legality of illegal things; no report
    Abuse of power: Exemptions outside the law
    Abuse of power: Exemptions outside what Congress knows

    Exemptions, waivers, and immunities
    Cover-up: Assign bogus exceptions
    Cover-up: Self-designation immunity
    Cover-up: Waive procedures
    Cover-up: Write new exemptions
    Cover-up: Things do not add up

    Cover-up: Bogus labels to fit into categories
    Cover-up: Training
    Cover-up: Pretext
    Cover-up: Non-sense to fit into a specific category
    Cover-up: Deny pre-textual stops
    Cover-up: Non-sense reasons to ignore lessons of 1970s

    Hiding Evidence
    Cover- up: Hiding files
    Cover-up: Shell game
    Cover-up: Hide problems
    Cover-up: Dissuade knowledge of conduct to avoid triggering legal challenges or questions
    Cover-up: Hide illegal things
    Cover-up: Moving things further from Congress
    Cover-up: Mutation theory: Derivative activity is beyond prohibitions, therefore legalized, despite it violating the law
    Cover-up: Suppress information about illegal activity
    Cover-up: Suppress the knowledge of the data mining activity and the information
    Cover-up: New buckets to hide problems
    Cover-up: Prevent detection though deception and ruses
    Cover-up: Delay knowledge and understanding
    Cover-up: Fictional other programs

    Personnel targeted
    Cover-up: Formerly assigned personnel targeted
    Cover-up: Shooting the messenger
    Cover-up: Targeting legal experts
    Cover-up: Threatened if speak about illegal activity
    Cover-up: Removing personnel who ask too many questions, or catch on with what is going on
    Cover-up: Labeling as troublemakers people who realize the scope of the illegal activity

    Cover-up: Appeal to confusion
    Cover-up: Circular reasoning
    Cover-up: Absurdity
    Cover-up: Assert misconduct isolated
    Cover-up: Excuses, fabricated pre-text to fit into a category
    Cover-up: Renaming illegal evidence an exception.

    Cover-up: Suppress knowledge of widespread abuses
    Cover-up: Suppressing evidence of wrongdoing
    Cover-up: Baloney excuses to segregate the claims and patterns of conduct

    Cover-up: Lie

    Audits, reviews, reports investigations
    Oversight: Inadequate auditing
    Oversight: Self-discretion on whether IG finds out
    Oversight: Lack of independent review
    Oversight: Congress refuses to investigate
    Oversight: No notice audits compromised
    Oversight: Remove the other reviews and oversight
    Oversight: Reports on violations ignored
    Oversight: Failure to provide reports
    Oversight: Incomplete information to dissuade discussion
    Oversight: Assertions at odds with real facts

    Oversight: Congress suppresses reports

    Oversight: Congressional complicity
    Oversight: Congress fails to recluse itself
    Oversight: Congressional culpability
    Oversight: Actions without Congressional notification
    Oversight: Keeping Congress out of the loop
    Oversight: Circular reasoning to avoid providing information to Congress
    Oversight: Liaison with inappropriate personnel

    Programs: Assent to illegal orders
    Programs: Classifying a program or activity as outside what is permissible
    Programs: People given incomplete information about what they’re really doing
    Programs: Hiring people to violate the law, assign them to an “exempted” class and “legal”

    Programs: Budget flows to non-intended purposes
    Programs: Wide discretion on funds

    Program: Broad language to permit anything
    Program: Calling things “terror and intelligence” related to get money
    Program: Meaningless words to justify anything
    Program: Language without any connection to a real threat
    Programs: Wizard of Oz news releases to convince employees of legality
    Program: Bogus terror-related labels to get money, exemptions, and cursory reviews
    Programs: Use “national security” to avoid questions
    Programs: Fabricated threats
    Programs: Fabricated threats
    Programs: Illusory problems and thresholds
    Programs: No credible basis for program
    Programs: Fabricated program justifications
    Programs: Absurd relevancy
    Programs: Misrepresentations

    Program: Claims at odds with credible program results
    Programs: Misleading statements about facts, well known things – good benchmark
    Program: Stifle audits: Define a program as being exclusive control of one agency, despite multi-agency review and involvement
    Personnel: Failing to comply with rules of professional conduct
    Programs: Unrealistic targets
    Programs: Poorly managed
    Program: False assertions to comply with requirement
    Program: Create a program, assign people to it without telling them
    Program: Complete bogus classifications.
    Program: Ignore remedies

    Reporting: NID abuses reporting exceptions
    Reporting: Self-waive reporting requirement
    Reporting: Inaccurate, incomplete reports
    Reporting: Excuses to avoid discovery, audits, and oversight
    Reporting: Failure to inform
    Reporting: Insufficient information on legality
    Reporting: Failure to disclose actual violations
    Reporting: Inadequate verification letters meet requirements

    Labeling, rationalization
    Retroactive Law: Excuses to violate the law: Emergency
    Retroactive law: Claim it’s not reasonable to comply with the law
    Retroactive law: Stretch the law to permit what it was designed to prohibit
    Retroactive law: Invent legal fiction to retroactively cover-up illegal acts
    Retroactive law: Expansive interpretation of language
    Retroactive law: Making legal arguments to justify ignoring the law
    Retroactive law: “Other” can be linked or not linked to anything real or legal.
    Retroactive law: Wave the statute, argue absurdity
    Retroactive law: Asserting illegal things are appropriate
    Retroactive law: Retroactive justifications keep changing
    Retroactive law: Baloney designations to justify illegal activity: Activity, person, relationship,
    Retroactive law: Expansive interpretation
    Retroactive Law: Create new exemptions to the law
    Retroactive law: Rationalizing violations of the law
    Retroactive law: “Except” in the statute interpreted to mean “may”
    Retroactive law: “Shall not” changed to “shall”

    Retroactive law: Exemptions to illegal activity
    Retroactive law: Exemptions applies to all things, products, and programs
    Retroactive law: Move anything to that category
    Retroactive law: Unreasonable exemptions
    Retroactive law: Activity not linked with bonafide exemptions
    Retroactive law: Right label, right exception
    Retroactive law: Write procedures outside law, then violate those procedures
    Retroactive Law: Loophole

    Invalid oversight
    Retroactive law: Self-review at odds with law
    Retroactive law: Ignore standards on other reports

    ALERT: FISA changes are ex post facto – can’t changer the law after the fact