NEW Mystery Poster on CREW = "Anonymous" +++ Deep Modem's Mother Lode?

[L. Coyote]

Google does it again, turning up a GOLD MINE of data. I'm researching the "Deep Modem" mystery posters keywords, and that led to a CREW comment. So, quite logically, I narrowed the search to: Submitted by Anonymous site:citizensforethics.org and VIOLA, this seems to be the Deep Modem mother lode.

This is spinning off of the thread: Mystery Poster "Deep Modem" (DM) = What is DM telling us? FORGET the MYSTERY part.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1655390&mesg_id=1655390

I've posted several of the Comments there already, but will repost here too.

Some of these focus on the Vice Resident. Here follows the first in a series of comments on this CREW post:

=========================================
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175

Gonzales has not investigated Cheney over ignoring classified info. order -- despite a complaint last January

Submitted by crew on 25 June 2007 - 8:56am. Alberto Gonzales Dick Cheney

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that, despite a request from the official in charge of Information Security Oversight at the National Archives, the Attorney General has never addressed Dick Cheney's failure to comply with the executive order on classified information. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for info. on this issue was denied on the ground there were "no documents" on this matter. There is something gravely wrong with this whole situation. Dick Cheney is not a fourth branch of government, but he's sure acting like one:

Cheney's hard-line chief of staff, David Addington, has made the novel argument that the veep doesn't have to comply on the ground that, because the vice president also serves as president of the Senate, his office is not really part of the executive branch.

Cheney's position so frustrated J. William Leonard, the chief of the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, which enforces the order, that he complained in January to Gonzales. In a letter, Leonard wrote that Cheney's position was inconsistent with the "plain text reading" of the executive order and asked the attorney general for an official ruling. But Gonzales never responded, thereby permitting Cheney to continue blocking Leonard from conducting even a routine inspection of how the veep's office was handling classified documents, according to correspondence released by House Government Reform Committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman.

Why didn't Gonzales act on Leonard's request? His aides assured reporters that Leonard's letter has been "under review" for the past five months—by Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). But on June 4, an OLC lawyer denied a Freedom of Information Act request about the Cheney dispute asserting that OLC had "no documents" on the matter, according to a copy of the letter obtained by NEWSWEEK. Steve Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists researcher who filed the request, said he found the denial letter "puzzling and inexplicable"—especially since Leonard had copied OLC chief Steve Bradbury on his original letter to Gonzales. The FOIA response has piqued the interest of congressional investigators, who note Bradbury is the same official in charge of vetting all document requests from Congress about the U.S. attorneys flap. Asked about the apparent discrepancy, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the OLC response "was and remains accurate" because Leonard's letter had generated no "substantive work product."

===============================
COMMENTS:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6707

CFR Shows OVP Legal Counsel OK's Illegalities
Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 12:30pm.

Major problem for AG and VP Cheney in re classified information. Although the VP focuse on EOs, there's a major problem: CFR specifically addresses these requirements.

32 C.F.R. PART 2800—SECURITY PROCEDURES
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32cfr2800_main_02.html

"All personnel of the Office of the Vice President are responsible individually for complying with the provisions of these regulations are in all respects. The provisions of these regulations applicable to all personnel assigned or detailed to the Office of the Vice President."

The Vice President is a "person" for purposes of 32 CFR 2800 enforcement. He shall comply with the CFR, which is the governing requirement; and shall be audited per Statement on Accounting Standard 74, to ensure compliance with the 32 CFR requirements applicable to the Vice President, OVP staff, and all OVP legal counsel

Recommend public read about soemthing called a compliance audit, under statement of Accounting standard 74. Review this: (Compliance Auditing Considerations in Audits of Governmental Entities) which outlines what the auditors should have done; and form a line of questions for DOJ OPR to review in re the Attorney General:

# When did AG learn OVP was not complying with the 32 CFR 2800?

# When did OVP and Potus agree to block DOJ OPR from reviewing AG "non review" of these 32 CFR 2800 violations by OVP personnel?

# When did OVP dissuade legal counsel from reporting violations of the law and requirements to DC Bar, per 1.16?

==============================
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington targets government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests through high-impact legal actions. Learn more. http://www.citizensforethics.org//about

You can support CREW here: https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/CREW/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1299&t=Redesign.dwt

[L. Coyote]

1. OVP Legal Cousel Duties On OVP Security Requirements = 25 June 2007

OVP Legal Cousel Duties On OVP Security Requirements
Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 2:56pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6729

This information is not from the House Oversight Committee

32 CFR 2800 has a connection with DoD; and clearly states the legal requirements on OVP legal counsel.

Citations below from 32 CFR 2800, incorporated by reference:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

"(1) Security Clearance Procedures. (i) The Counsel to the Vice President will:
(A) Be responsible for the processing of full field investigations for personnel assigned to the Vice President's staff. Department of Defense detailees are processed by the Defense Investigative Service."

# 1. Does OVP counsel understand what the word, "responsible" means?

- The obligation to answer for actions;
- legally held liable or accountable for a particular action

If we do not have accountability for this reckless OVP conduct, we do not have 'responsible' people in OVP or the OVP legal counsel's office. They need to be fired by the President; prosecuted; or impeached.

# 2. Where are the OVP legal counsel memoranda showing that they have fully complied with this 32 CFR 2800 requirement; when there are problems with non compliance, how is this information forwarded to DC Atty Disciplinary Board, DoJ OPR, or the Atty General?

# 3. Where is the OVP list showing which DoD personnel have been detailed from DoD to OVP?

# 4. What assurances can OVP legal counsel provide that all requirements of legal counsel in re 32 CFR 2800 have been fully met?

# 5. How were the "full field investigations for personnel assigned to the Vice
President's staff" conducted if the auditors were blocked from reviewing OVP personnel compliance/non compliance with various security requirements?

Discoverable OVP Counsel Memoranda

OVP legal counsel known communications, or should be communications to security office.

"(B) Inform the Staff Security Office of individuals whose full field investigations have been satisfactorily completed and approved and of any subsequent changes."

# 6. Where are these OVP legal counsel communications required under 28 CFR 2800?

# 7. Which auditors reviewed these CFR requirements; and how did they prepare for this compliance audit using Statement on Accounting Standard 74?

# 8. How can OVP legal counsel say that they are satisfied that the requirements have been met, but the auditors were prevented from reviewing whether these requirements have or have not been met?

Mandatory Signatures

Here are the documents Congress may subpoena to determine which OVP personnel have or have not complied with their security protection requirements. As for the "Statement of Understanding of Security Procedures":

"Access to classified material will be denied until the individual has had a satisfactorily completed background investigation, has received the security orientation briefing and signed the Statement of Understanding of Security Procedures."

# 9. Where are these signed documents kept?

# 10. Who is the security custodian, account Representative, for OVP; when did they get direction to provide a letter to the Scooter Sentencing Court?

# 11. Who approved the file plan for storage of these signed documents?

# 12. When did auditors last review samples of these documents to ensure they were fully meeting 32 CFR 2800 requirements?

# 13. What method, if any, was used to document non-compliance/non-reporting/gaps in the personnel files related to these signed memoranda?

# 14. When will the Attorney General direct legal staff to review OVP legal counsel apparent reckless disregard for these requirements in 32 CFR 2800?

# 15. When was OVP Security Office audited to ensure combinations after Libby left were changed? ("Combinations will be changed in accordance with the provisions of ISOO Directive No. 1, paragraph IV–F–5.")

# 16. What is the OVP legal counsel view of OVP staff required compliance with non-Executive orders; does OVP legal counsel say that these directives are not applicable; if so, for what reason:

"The Staff Security Office is responsible for transmitting or transferring all classified material outside the Office of the Vice President and the White House Complex in accordance with the provisions of ISOO Directive No. 1, paragraphs I, G and H."

# 17. Who in the OVP is saying that the US government and Vice President are not required to comply with security standards? Look again at this directive, it is ISOO, which is an security standard.

"ISOO Directive No. 1, paragraphs I, G and H."
(Outside reference, not in 32 CFR 2800) Here are the details of this report, provided annyally to Congress:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/index.html

# 18. Is OVP legal counsel saying that 32 CFR 2800 requirements on OVP are not included within this annual report to Congress as required; or is OVP legal counsel being reckless in failing to ensure all OVP operations are fully consistent with 32 CFR 2800 legal requirements?

# 19. Why should the public have confidence OVP has competent legal counsel given this apparent recklessness by OVP legal counsel in their public statements related to whether the OVP is or is not required to fully comply with all legal requirements related to ISOO?

# 20. How many subpoenas has OVP legal counsel directed outside counsel to issue in search of current and former OVP personnel providing information related to illegalities inside OVP legal counsel's office; is the Grand Jury aware of these attempts by OVP legal counsel to dissuade truthful reporting to the Grand Jury of this illegal activity inside OVP?

# 21. Why is the OVP 32 CFR 2800 requirement including an international standard, if as Addington suggestions, the OVP is not required to enforce international standards in Geneva?

Missing Records on What OVP Destroyed

There's been some discussion that the OVP has destroyed documents. Small problem: Just because a document has been destroyed, does not mean there are no records. Each time a document is destroyed, there is a log in the OVP recording which specific documents were destroyed.

You may wish to ask for a redacted copy of this log, and ensure a special master is assigned to ensure that all classified documents destroyed were properly documented. Someone has, or should have, a complete list of all destroyed documents; or they have not complied with the document annotation requirements in 32 CFR 2800 as applicable here:

"(8) Destruction of Classified Material. (i) SECRET and TOP SECRET material will be given to the Staff Security Office for destruction to insure destruction is properly recorded and destroyed material is removed from the classified control system."

# 22. Who maintains these logs recording the specific documents which have been destroyed?

# 23. Does the log correctly include sufficient identification of the document so that personnel can retrieve from other sources all documents destroyed?

# 24. What happens if a document is mistakenly destroyed: How does someone get another replacement document?

# 25. Which auditors reviewed the compliance of this record log; and what were the results of this review per SAS74 Compliance Audits and 32 CFR 2800 compliance audits?

# 26. Which auditors looked at sample destruction logs to verify the listed contents in the log correctly identify each document with sufficient detail to ensure the document destroyed can be matched with a bonafide record within OVP or other classified source?

# 27. When does the Security Office attend annual training with DoD to ensure that its operations are consistent with intelligence community document storage requirements?

# 28. Who/what at the NSA (or an entity with competent adults) (a) reviewed the document storage vault procedures and physical layout and (b) provided an assurance that the OVP safe's and document storage containers do meet OVP requirements under 32 USC 2800; which contract does OVP have with any outside contractor, entity, third party, or other agency to ensure these procedures are fully met and accurately reported to OVP Counsel and Congress?

# 29. When did the Security Officer get trained, and how did NSA personnel review the training to ensure that all procedures within OVP did meet the intent of 32 CFR 2800?

Vice President and Plame

There's the discussion that the OVP is not responsible for Plame's name getting leaked. Small problem again: There are specific 32 CFR 2800 requirements related to special access programs:

"(k) Special access. Special access authority is required for release of Sensitive Compartmented Intelligence Information. The names of personnel cleared for access to this category of information are on file in the Staff Security Office."

# 30. Who provided the authority in OVP to anyone to review any document with Plame's name?

# 31. How did OVP Security Office provide access to any document with Plame's name?

# 32. Who in the OVP was in violation of 32 CFR 2800 when it provided access of a document with Plame's name, but cannot provide a straight story to the Grand Jury of who reviewed this document; and impersmissibly/illegally released this classified name?

# 33. Where is the document listing all personnel in OVP who, according to 32 CFR 2800 was required to record their access to, receipt, and review of this classified document with Plame's name?

# 34. Is it the position of OVP legal counsel that all the "bad things" and "inconvenient rules" in 32 CFR 2800 listed above as legal requirements -- enforceable through DC Bar Rule 1.16 -- are not relevant because the weather is unfavorable?

Applicability of EO To 32 CFR 2800

The problem for OVP legal counsel is fundamental: It fails to communicate to anyone that it understands the relationship between EOs and CFR. Look closely at this language:

Pursuant to the provisions of sections 1–201 and 3–103 of E.O. 12065 of June 28, 1978, the following officials within the Office of the Vice President, are designated to originally classify and declassify information as “SECRET” and/or “CONFIDENTIAL”:

This shows us:

A. 32 CFR 2800 cites as a reference an Executive order;

B. The Code of Federal Regulations -- a requirement -- does inclue the Vice President, via 32 CFR 2800, within the security requirements of the Vice President;

C. The OVP is, through Executive Order and CFR, responsible for all EOs.

# 35. What legal non-sense is anyone in OVP legal counsel's office relying on to suggests that the 32 CFR 2800 does not include any citation to any Executive Order?

# 36. Is it the position of OVP legal counsel that the 32 CFR citation of "E.O. 12065 of June 28, 1978" is not an executive order; if not, what is, in the view of OVP legal counsel the meaning of "E.O. 12065 of June 28, 1978"

# 37. What is OVP legal counsel's position on the "non" relationship between OVP and CFR: Does the CFR include everyone "but" what it expressly says in 32 CFR 2800?

Summation

Ladies and Gentlemen of the blogosphere and wider internet community. It's clear the OVP legal counsel has a problem. They have asserted there is some basis to block auditors.

This is false. The Code of Federal Regulations specifically lists the OVP as being responsible for security requirements. Further, the 32 CFR 2800 specifically incorporates by reference Executive Orders which OVP legal counsel assert do not apply.

The evidence before us -- after a plain reading of the Code of Federal Regulations -- is overwhelming, stunning, and not in dispute:

# OVP Legal counsel has a specific legal duty under CFR to review documents and comply with security requirements;

# OVP legal consel has provide no reasonable or lawful explanation why the clear reference to Exeucitve Orders in 32 CFR 2800 does not apply to OVP;

# The issue of whether the OVP is or is not within the Executive Branch is irrelevant, moot, and meaningless: 28 CFR 2800 specifically affirms a requirement which contradicts what OVP legal counsel has pubicly asserted they are complying;

# Executive Orders, through 32 CFR 2800, do have a relationship to the OVP; any statement by the OVP, VP, or POTUS to the contrary is arguably reckless without rgard to a plain reading of 32 CFR 2800 which mentions specific Executive Orders as requirements on OVP;

# OVP legal counsel appears to have been complicit in not ensuring the auditors fully met their legal duties under SAS74 and GAAS to conduct a compliance audit;

# OVP legal counsel can provide not accurate accounting of any log, as required by 32 CFR 2800, of which documents have been destroyed; and this log does not appear to include a complete list of all documents observed to have been destroyed with the Vice President's private quarters (As evidenced by the shredding truck photographed departing the Vice President's residence)

# Matter of Extreme, Urgent, and Material Public Interest

There are many questions and issues based on a non-classified reading of 32 CFR 2800 which raise reasonable questions about whether the OVP is or is not fully complying with all legal requirements

# Illegal OVP Assertions: Adverse Inferences Are Appropriate

A plain reading of the OVP statemetns on "non" applicability of EOs, despite 32 CFR 2800 stasting otherswise, is a reasonable basis to conclude that all 32 CFR 2800 have not been met; and the motivation of shuttind down the audit of the OVP compliance with the EO security requirements was with an ill-intent: To block detention of material violations of the Code of Federal Regulations, arguably the basis for a criminal indictment by a Grand Jury

# Missing Evidence: Adverse Infernces Warranted

For purposes of evidence, we remind counsel that where records are missing, this is admissiable, and the Grand Jury may conclude their non-existence can be linked with reasonable adverse inferneces.

# Material Information For Grand Jury

It is reasonbale to conclde that all OVP legal counsel efforts to block compliance audits are related to efforts to block auditors from documenting non-existence of evidence that should be there;

# Obstruction of Justice

There has been no timely disclosure to the Grand Jury of material information related to who leaked Plame's name; or who in the OVP Security Office knew, or should have known, which documents with Plame's name were ready by whom.

# DC Bar Std 1.16

DC-affiliated legal counsel in OVP legal counsel's office appear to have recklessly engaged in illegal obstruction of justice, blocked audits, and not permitted full compliance with 32 CFR 2800. These are serious questions of integrity undermining reasonable public confidence that legal counsel working for the Vice President are competent, able to meet their legal obligations expected of all legal counsel, or that they can adequately ensure the OVP meets all legal obligations.

Conclusion

A plain reading of the Code of Federal Regulations puts the OVP, Vice President, and OVP legal counsel on the wrong side of the law. DOJ AG, DOJ OPR, and other legal counsel affiliated with the DC Bar need to decide whether you want to maintain public confidence in your legal profession; or whether you require outside supervision, as is required with law enforcement, to publicly oversee and monitor what appears to be an increasingly reckless, out of control, and unresponsive legal profession.

On the table is the CFR. The OVP has a legal requirement. They are clear. OVP has not met its burden to show it has fully complied with the 32 CFR 2800. Please forward all evidence, questions, concerns and comments related to this legal issue to Congressman Waxman of the House Oversight Committee.

Recommendations

A. This information needs to be provided to the Grand Jury and Congressman Waxman of the House; and

B. DoJ Office of Special Counsel needs to explain why DoJ Staff have not moved with all due speed on these alleged violations of 32 CFR 2800, as evidenced by the absurd statements of OVP that it is not subject to any Executive Order related to security classifications:

How long has DoJ Staff been sitting on the known violations of 32 CFR 2800 within OVP;

Why, despite clearly promulgated 32 CFR 2800 requirements on OVP for security issues, is the Department of Justice not swiftly moving to ensure the facts related to the obstruction of the auditors has been known, understood, and forwarded to the US Atty for prosecution;

Why hasn't this information been provided by DOJ OPR and DOJ Staff to the Grand Jury for their review?

If you review the DoJ Staff counsel notes from the 1970s in re Nixon, they were concerned what the public would do once it was known DoJ Staff had not timely acted on material violations of legal requirements. DoJ Staff counsel have refused to answer, much less consider the public response in re 32 CFR 2800. OVP Legal Counsel and DoJ Staff show evidence of recklessness in re their oath of office, 5 USC 3331.

[L. Coyote]

2. MORE: Missing OVP Evidence Admissible

Missing OVP Evidence Admissible
Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 3:53pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6818


No merit to Any Assertion there is "no" evidence

CREW reports,

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for info. on this issue was denied on the ground there were "no documents" on this matter.

Mandatory Documents, 32 CFR 2800

Small problem: 32 CFR 2800 compels OVP legal counsel to create records, documents, and other management systems to meet the OVP security program requirements.

Ref:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

There is no basis for the FOIA to have been denied. The OVP or DOJ assertion that there is "no evidence" or "no record" may be adversely entered into evidence for the Grand Jury to conclude, OVP and DOJ has not complied with all 32 CFR 2800 requirements, and violated the law.

Problem for OVP Auditors in re 32 CFR 2800

DoJ needs to discuss, as it failed to do with POTUS blocking DOJ OPR from reviewing FISA, what basis it has to not investigate 32 CFR 2800 violations; and why there has been no credible accounting of the OVP legal counsel documentation and tracking requirements 32 CFR 2800.

Here are the legal requirements showing there must be records, and OVP misleading, but response has been unresponsive as required:

(1) Security Clearance Procedures. (i) The Counsel to the Vice President will:
(A) Be responsible for the processing of full field investigations for personnel assigned to the Vice President's staff. Department of Defense detailees are processed by the Defense Investigative Service.

(B) Inform the Staff Security Office of individuals whose full field investigations have been satisfactorily completed and approved and of any subsequent changes.

(C) Notify the Staff Security Office as soon as he/she is aware that a staff member is planning to terminate his/her employment.

Ref:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

OVP has fatally asserted there are not records, yet 32 CFR 2800 shows us that there must be records.

FOIA, Grand Jury Subpoena, Discovery

# 1. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel Compliance Records

- How does OVP or DOJ legal counsel explain "no records" when 32 CFR 2800 compels records by OVP legal counsel in re security compliance programs?

- Did OVP use "non records"-systems connected with Microsoft Outlook, and file sharing systems that are electornic and "non records"?

# 2. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel Evidence of Notifications

- How did OVP or DOJ legal counsel "inform" others without creating any record of document that notification, as required by 32 CFR 2800?

- What "non document" methods does OVP legal counsel use to comply?

- When did DoJ Staf learn of these "non document" file sharing systems not provided in the FOIA request?

# 3. Missing, Not Provided OVP System to Manage Investigations

- How were the investigations managed and processed by OVP legal counsel if there were not records, plans, or any organizing or reviewing meetings to monitor status of these reviews?

- Did OVP legal counsel discuss, communicate, interfac,e or share data with anyone, any entity, or any contractor using Microsoft Outlook SharePoint, a file sharing system; or any other "non document" method of communication to comply with 32 CFR 2800?

# 4. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel System to Track Changes

- How are changes tracked and reported, as required 32 CFR 2800?

- Were these changes tracked in any "non document" medium, to include file sharing, electronic, or other "non paper" communication, storage, retrieval, or transfer system?

# 5. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel Method to OVersee Investigations

- What method, if there is no record, does OVP legal counsel use to track, monitor, and oversee field investigations, as required 32 CFR 2800?

- When did DOJ staff learn 32 CFR 2800 was not being followed?

- Did DoJ Staff review "non document" evidence when responding to this FOIA request?

# 6. Missing, Not Provided OVP legal counsel Plan to Monitor Compliance With Atty Duties; no evidence of a Supervisory Plan of OVP Legal Counsel for Other OVP assigned Counsel

- How does OVP legal counsel show that it has complied with 32 CFR 2800 on issues of notification, oversight, tracking, and monitoring of its legal requirements under 32 CFR 2800?

- What evidence does DOJ Staff have that it reviewed 32 CFR 2800 relative to OVP counsel assertions?

- Has OVP legal counsel fully complied with all "non document"-related requirements of 32 CFR 2800 and the DC Bar Rules, compelling counsel to provide an oversight plan for subordinate attorneys?

- What "non document method" did OVP and DOJ staff consel use to track the status of training of subordinate attorneys on the 32 CFR 2800 legal requirements?

# 7. Missing, No Evidence of OVP Legal Counsel Change Tracking across all management systems

- What is the method by which OVP legal counsel tracks changes to personnel status and incorporates them as required 32 CFR 2800 into other system, paperwork, and management training plans?

- What did DOJ Staff do when it realized (a) OVP Counsel had not met all requirements of 32 CFR 2800; and (b) there were not records as would be expected of a competent OVP mangement oversight system in re 32 CFR 2800?

- DiD DOJ and OVP Staff review, in responding to this FOIA, the "non documents" in electronic format, on file sharing sytems, or sent via software sytsems like SharePoint in MicrosoftOutlook?

Other Research

For more information on what documentation and evidence should be there in OVP legal counsels office in re security compliance, but apparently has been illegally withheld, destroyed, or not created as required, 32 CFR 2800:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

[L. Coyote]

3. ONE MORE: DoJ Looks At Wrong Time Frame For FOIA Documents

DoJ Looks At Wrong Time Frame For FOIA Documents
Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 6:35pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6938


Please Remind DoJ About A Calendar; Retroactive, not Prosepctive Reviews for FOIA Documents

This is circular, and absurd for DOJ to use as an excuse to deny a FOIA request:

Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the OLC response "was and remains accurate" because Leonard's letter had generated no "substantive work product."

Once DOJ refuses to respond to a FOIA where there is known evidence, and there's no DoJ documentation related to the FOIA request, this is evidence of malfeasance.

Houston: "Earth to DoJ Staff, do you read us?"

FOIAs are not, repeat NOT self-contained to ask for "documents related to this FOIA-request created after the FOIA request," but they're designed to seek documents before the FOIA request was filed.

DoJ is responding as if the FOIA-reqeuest was the starting point for the review; while the FOIA process is the opposite, looking backwards for documents that have been created before the FOIA was filed. The appropriate review is to look backwards from the FOIA-request-date; not forwards, as DoJ Staff have done.

Using DoJ's "logic" there would never be anything to provide because DoJ would never do any paperwork on any FOIA request. Of course this should be appealed, as should the DoJ staff competence and their DC Bar Standing.

[Horseradish]

6. I just skimmed that whole thing ...

... and the question that comes to mind is: Is there a reason why these questions (in bold - well, used to be in bold before edit) were not asked during the Libby trial? Or is it because they then had to focus on Libby and not these items? I'm confused -- seems like these are some really good questions that could have been asked during grand jury testimonies, too ... if they (Cheney, Rove, etc.) were asked, what were their answers?

(hopefully, I'm not out of my element here).

[L. Coyote]

4. CREW: Senator Leahy willing to cite Bush administration for criminal contempt = 2 July 2007

Senator Leahy willing to cite Bush administration for criminal contempt
Submitted by crew on 2 July 2007 - 10:47am.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232

Senator Leahy is playing hardball. He's ready to use all of the tools available to him in order to secure cooperation from the Bush administration. That means contempt charges, too:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said yesterday that he will attempt to cite the White House for criminal contempt of Congress if it does not turn over documents related to the firing of nine federal prosecutors.

"If they don't cooperate, yes, I'd go that far," Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "This is very important to the American people."

Leahy's comments raise the stakes in a growing conflict ...............

==========================
COMMENT:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-8701

Prepare Back Up Plan When Congress Fails To Defend Constitution
Submitted by Anonymous on 2 July 2007 - 12:37pm.

State AGs Can Prosecute A Sitting President And Members of Congress

There is little to believe Leahy's threats will amount to much. I would encourage the public to assume the Congress will bungle this. In light of the apparent continued GOP control of the Senate -- their ability to block resolutions, which the DNC failed to do in re MCA/Patriot Act, etc -- I have little confidence Congressional "threats" to do anything will amount to much.

Congress Cannot Stop We the People

The answer is not with Congress: It is with We the People. Congress may choose not to issue contempt citations; and may bungle an impeachment. However, there is nothing stopping other options: State Attorney Generals -- any of the 50 -- from prosecuting a sitting President outside impeachment.

Congress Cannot Defy Defenders of Constitution

We've heard many excuses why things will not change -- despite the November 2006 voter mandate for change; and indeed the corruption may continue. Rather than throw up our hands and say, "We can't do anything," assume the opposite: There are people working with the State AGs to enforce the law against this President.

Congress On Wrong Side of Law

DoJ OPR and the US Attys may be blocked at the federal level, but this does not stop the States from defending the Constitution against the President. Rather, where Members of Congress are individually reckless in not fully asserting all options to defend the Constitution, they could be prosecuted for 5 USC 3331 violations of their oath of office.

Congress Has No Power To Thwart Grand Juries

State Grand juries can making findings of fact which Federal District Courts generally accept. The Federal Judiciary may be corrupted, and the DOJ Staff counsel may be influencing the US attys not to enforce Geneva; but this does not mean all 300 Million of US can be forced to assent to this lawlessness.

Congress has no power to compel anyone to assent to this abuse of power; even if congress cannot agree, their lack of action is not precedent nor a mandate for We the People not to take lawful action outside Congress.

Prosecuting the President, Members of Congress

Please encourage your friends to discuss with your State AGs the option of prosecuting a sitting President outside impeachment. Members of Congress can also be prosecuted for failing to fully assert all lawful options to defend the Constitution.

Congress May Not Assent To Unconstitutional Conduct

If the legal community and Members of Congress will not join the Constitution and defending it for We the People, it is reasonable to make an adverse inference: Members of Congress have recklessly defied their oath; and are on the wrong side of the law. We the People and the Constitution are on one side of the line; this President is on the other. Members of Congress and the legal community appear to be signalling that they would rather remain silent, and not fully join We the People.

We the People May Assert Our Power to Check Congress

Then Members of Congress, the President, and the US government officials -- backed by the reckless US legal community and outside council -- have made the wrong choice. Time to call them what they are: Domestic enemies of the US Constitution. Where they refuse to impeach, they may be lawfully prosecuted.

Requested Action

Share this information with your friends. Congress may promise something, but they are not delivering. One Party Controls Congress. The DNC could block budgets and refuse to rubber stamp. They have poorly chosen.

We the People must provide the leadership this reckless DNC and GOP have refused to exercise. Please contact your State AG and remind them of their oath; and the possibility that if they refuse to defend the constitution they too could be prosecuted and disbarred. Time for Americans to choose which side of the the line they want to stand. Standing with the President is the incorrect choice.

[L. Coyote]

5. ANOTHER: Leahy Apparently Ignores Open Source Information

Leahy Apparently Ignores Open Source Information
Submitted by Anonymous on 2 July 2007 - 2:35pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-8720

Open Source Information Links Former And Current US government Officials To Adverse Inferences

It is fiction to suggest Congress must rely only on information the President has. Open source information, linked with the personnel listed below, is fatal to the US government position and claims of privilege. The information listed below shows there is ample evidence which has been disclosed.

Congress does not need to wait for the Executive to agree to disclose information that has been disclosed.

It is reasonable to reject the Congressional-Presidential implicit assumption that the needed information to prosecute the President only remains within US control, and is protected by executive privilege. This notion is false.

There is open source information showing legal counsel formerly assigned to the white house have made inconsistent, incomplete, or contradictory statements. They've also openly admitted having discussed information they would later assert they could not talk about.

It is illegal to classify evidence related to illegal activity. Executive Privilege cannot hide evidence that has been disclosed.

The DC Bar Rules 1.16 and Geneva Article 82 impose on legal counsel duties. The problem for personnel associated with the US government activities is that the Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners were not lawfully treated per Geneva; and Judge Vaughn concluded the NSA surveillance program as alleged could not be reasonably be interpreted to be lawful. these rise questions about whether contractors unreasonably relied on these frivolous assertions of legality; or whether they were reckless.

Rather than Congress asserting that the President must comply with these subpoenas or face contempt; the parallel effort in concert with this demand should focus on the open source information showing lines of evidence which would impeach witnesses.

POTUS Cannot Return To the Barn The Released Horses

The open source information discloses details the President would have us believe are protected. This is impossible. Once information has been inadvertently disclosed -- even if a slight error or through a mistake -- that information is open, and the President may not claim privilege.

Fatal to the President's assertions are claims the evidence relates to a state secret or national security. Reynolds establishes that the classification must be substantially related to national security. Privilege cannot be invoked when the aim of that classification is not substantially related to national security, but more to hide evidence related to illegal activity.

Issues of War Crimes

The first line of evidence if the open source information. The second is how the illegally captured information was subsequently used for unlawful purposes. DoJ IG provides information on the illegal use of NSLs.

It is alleged that evidence captured by NSA was linked with information used to support rendition and other war crimes. When documents are not provided, but destroyed as has been the case with the destruction of the RNC e-mails, adverse inferences are warranted.

# The aim of the RNC e-mail destruction was to hide evidence illegally captured information was used to support Geneva violations (prisoner abuse, illegal interrogations, and unlawful warfare)

Once it is firmly established the FISA violations did implement violations of Geneva; and legal counsel did violate their Article 82 requirement to enforce Geneva, the issue is not one of state secrets, but international war crimes.

1. Brad Berenson: Alleged target of Subpoena seeking information from former White House counsel

Berenson is Ralston's defense counsel. Before the House Oversight Committee he openly asserted Ralston could not talk about things related to the RNC e-mails. Yet, Clements contradicted this assertion and openly discussed the very things Berenson said Ralston could not discuss.

Berenson on PBS Frontline openly discussed how WH Counsel openly ignored the JAGs. the Supreme Court rejected this legal assumption, rejected the WH position on prisoner treatment, and forced the WH to respond by moving Prisoners.

Berenson on PBS Frontline openly discussed intelligence briefings. Mary Walker is reported to ave coordinated plans to violate Geneva. Rove's e-mail archive links to EOP with Microsoft Outlook. It appears the RNC e-mails were used to coordinate an outside file transfer system.

Berenson openly discussed his view of rendition; yet later contradicted himself when he said the details could not be confirmed or denied. It appears Berenson and other current and former WH counsel changed their position on whether rendition could be discussed openly because of e-mails exchanged between Sidley Austin, EOP, OVP, and other legal counsel. This change in position is openly known and doe snot require access to any confidential information.

Berenson openly asserted that WH counsel "believed" the activity was lawful; yet Judge Vaughn concluded the opposite: No reasonable counsel could conclude the program as alleged was lawful. Berenson needs to explain why he hanged his position on an issue Judge Vaughn has concluded could not be reasonably interrupted to be lawful. Berenson's open admissions that he did review briefings is admissible; and does not require any subpoena. The PBS Frontline Transcript can be reviewed. If Berenson does not wish to comment on his change in position, the Grand Jury may make adverse inferences.

2. Wendy J. Keefer

Keefer was formerly assigned to the DOJ, and worked with Viet Dinh. Keefer openly asserted questionable legal positions to permit the intrusion into Congress. The DOJ Staff counsel e-mails raise questions about he resignation.

Keefer's position within DoJ is curious. A close review of her case citations is not well linked with her DOJ Duties. Whether she got her job in DoJ on merit, or because of connections with the Federalist Society remains to be adjudicated. The Grand Jury could reasonably conclude that Keefer did not timely remove herself from illegal activity she knew about or should have known about when she was working within DoJ.

3. Viet Dinh

Viet Dinh was also with the DOJ Staff counsel and has openly asserted legal positions which, in light of the FISA violations and Rendition, call into question the basis for his legal statements. The Grand Jury could conclude that Viet Dinh did not timely remove himself from illegal activity; and did issue statements he knew or should have known were not consistent with Comey's comments about the illegal activity.

4. Adam J. White

White working as counsel for an AT&T affiliated entity Baker Botts did release a questionable editorial about state secrets. It remains to be understood who within the Republican Party sent this e-mails requesting White write an editorial; or whether white issued information to mislead the public. Legal services used to advance illegal warfare are DC Bar Rule 1.16. A grand Jury could conclude that White and other legal counsel were part of efforts to provide misleading information to dissuade action to enforce Geneva and FISA against legal counsel, contractors, and others indirectly supporting the unlawful FISA violations and war crimes.

5. Fleishman Hilliard

This AT&T-related contractor has shown interest in the AT&T litigation. There is a media analysis contract with Fleishman Hilliard has. It remains to be understood how Fleishman Hilliard was involved; and why the confidentiality agreements on the Fleishman Hilliard Contract have similar non-disclosure agreements as those with the Verizon contract in re NSA. A grand Jury could conclude Fleishman's contract terms required action that was not awful; and that the gag orders were not enforceable.

These contract numbers are common across multiple agencies; and the contract numbers are public records available in documentation provided to Congress in the Descriptive Summaries through DoD.

6. Verizon

Verizon has an internal e-mail system, VerizonNotes which does mention Amdocs, one of the intermediaries handling warrants and NSLs. These Verizon e-mails show Verizon counsel did ask questions about the issues the President would have us believe are in dispute. The Verizon notes do show that counsel did ask questions on specific days; and that they knew, or should have known, they had a legal duty to ensure their conduct was lawful.

7. AT&T, NARUS

The (NARUS STA 6400) has openly been disclosed. AT&T-related commercial contractors and intermediaries have been linked with NSLs, JTTF, and the improper issuance and reliance on these warrants. Judge Vaughn concludes the program as alleged war not awful. Open records show the connection between NARUS, the JTTF intermediaries, and the issuance of NSLs.

8. POTUS

The President has openly admitted he did not comply with the FISA warrant requirement. The President agrees his procedures did not comply with the FISA court. The President has fatally asserted he did not comply with warrant requirements; did ignore the FISA court; and his conduct was not as required under FISA. His failures prompted changes to EOP procedures. This change is openly reported by the media as a concern of Addington: A change in position is evidence the original position was not lawful.

9. DoD Memoranda

Morrison Foerster was listed on a DoD document from GC Haynes. MoFo is indirectly affiliated with Boeing, where one partner was a trial counsel.

Mary Walker of DoD has been linked with online discussions and presentations to circumvent Geneva. Berenson has admitted he did review briefings. It appears the MicrosoftOutlook system connected with (Rove_E) EOP was used to share files not using E-mails. The IP numbers of counsel accessing this system are not within EOP control but connected to commercial contractors.

Open information shows DoD staff in the OSD have been using the OSD computers for nonofficial purposes, including online gambling. The IP numbers of these OSD computers are public records, and a full scan of all OSD computers will reveal the link between OSD and the non-official use of OSD computers.

10. DoJ Staff Counsel

Open information shows DoJ Staff have been using DoJ computers for non-official business when Ag Gonzalez said they were "too busy" to comply with the warrant requirements. Open information, not any document that has to be subpoenaed, shows DoJ Staff counsel were not working on FISA requirements.

11. Abraxis

Abraxis Corp is a firm that has been linked with DoJ Small Business contracts, and provides

12. Brad Dayspring

Dayspring acting as Public Affairs official for the WH has openly asserted, then retracted, claims that Pelosi had engaged in illegal activity in violating the Copyright Laws. Yet, the RNC does not show a similar interest in reviewing claims of Executive violations of Geneva. This inconsistency by Dayspring needs to be understood and examined in concert with Member of Congress request for data EOP claims is protected.

Dayspring openly admitted he was working on reviewing a legal matter; yet, OVP and DOJ staff could not say the same on substantive legal questions. Dayspring apparently cannot explain why the RNC/RSC can spend time on a trivial-false legal issue; but has 'no time" to focus on real issues with FISA violations, illegal warfare.

Nor can Dayspring satisfactorily explain why he has clean hands: His name is on a VA PO Box shared with Ken Mehlman. Where there is time to review a legal matter, but the Congress and EOP have not, adverse inferences are warranted: US Government offials did not fully assert their oath of office, 5 USC 3331 to defend the Constitution; and did not timely remove themselves from illegal activity as required, DC Bar Rules 1.16.

SUMMATION

The information the Congress need to target and prosecute legal counsel and EOP staff is not only located in the WH, EOP, or outside counsel. Many lines of evidence have been openly provided, and contradict official positions of the EOP.

The record before us suggest that as Congress attempts to get information from the WH, there are other sources of information which have been disclosed, and are not protected. These are contracts, open editorials, and public statements issued by counsel on matters which contradict Comey's assertions.

Sidley Austin's problem is that their legal counsel has public commented on information related to the WH IT department; and did conduct an audit on Boeing, allegedly affiliated with Rendition.

The list of open source information llinking formerly assigned RNC political personnel and legal counsel to alleged war crimes, FISA violations, and illegal activity is stunning. There is no reason to wait until the President agrees. The real question: Why is Congress bothering to wait for evidence that merely conforms what the open information shows: Staff counsel were reckless; did not have credible beliefs of lawfulness; and did not timely remove themselves from illegal activity; and there were FISA and Geneva violations which counsel and US government officials did not end or remove themselves from.

No immunity needs to be offered in exchange for providing details related to open source information.

There is a reaonabe basis for the State AGs to conclude Members of Congress have not reviewed the open source inforation implicating formely assigned US government officials to war crimes, FISA vioations, and use of illegally captured information for improper purposes. The State AGs may issue indictments against a sitting President and awfully prosecute him outside Congress and outside impeachment. Congress is recklessly pretending open source informatoin does not exist; or that they need inforation which the Exeucutie hopes to absurdly hide. Once disclosed, the above forms the basis for a State Grand Jury to issue indictments againg Members of Congress, the President, currenty and formely assigned US government offiicals. Adverse inferences are warranted when RNC e-mails were destroyed.

[L. Coyote]

7. To: Author of ... "Prepare Backup Plan = "Please furnish a contact"

To: Author of 07/02/07 Article entitled, "Prepare Backup Plan .
Submitted by Anonymous on 3 July 2007 - 2:59am.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-8921

Mr. Anonymous Author:

If what you say is true, America needs someone like you to organize a legal response. While your information sounds great, it lacks the authority that I would like to review before I commit to any such course of action. I'm sure many others would agree.

I see where you have frequently contributed your ideas. It sounds like you know what you're talking about.

Please furnish a contact email or phone number for those who would be interested in pursuing this course of action.

========================
THE REPLY (W/O contact info):

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-9561

Prosecuting A Sitting President: State-Led Effort
Submitted by Anonymous on 7 July 2007 - 7:32pm.

Suggestion: Read This, Share With State AG

1. Legal Citations In Law Journal Article

Jonathan Turley; American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 37, 2000. From Pillar to Post: the Prosecution of American Presidents

Turley is law prof at Georgetown.

Remind State AG's of their oath. Once Impeachment is off the table, prosecutions remain.

2. Sen. Ashcroft Comments in re Clinton Impeachment

"My first preliminary thought: the president would appear to be subject to the compulsory process of the criminal law. Put simply, the Constitution and our history appear to reflect the fundamental principle that no man is above the law. The president is subject to the law, not above it. If he violates the law, he can be prosecuted.

But there is a second important question, and that is this: Assuming a president can be prosecuted, should he be prosecuted, when impeachment is a viable option? I think not. Prudence dictates that absence extraordinary circumstances, that when impeachment is available to address presidential misconduct, prosecution should await the resolution of the impeachment question by the Congress.

3. Congressional Refusal To Impeach Opens Door To State Prosecutions

If impeachment is off the table, Ashcroft implicitly is arguing that prosecutions remain on the table. Yet, if the US Attys will not prosecute, then the State AGs must.

A. US Attys Thwarted, State AGs Must Act

The President has clearly affected the US Attorneys, blocked DOJ OPR. There's no question that there would be a delay by the US Attys in reviewing these issues. They have no credibility, especially the inaction in the wake of the Grand Jury review of OVP. Wow, big Fitzgerald indictment-conviction gets flushed. Time for the States to target the President with prosecutions.

B. State Level Legislative Actions Blocked

Congress has blocked state level efforts in re House Rule 603 to pass proclamations calling for Congress to investigate. Congress has communicated it is not interested in defending the Constitution using impeachment. Congress decided to take impeachment off the table: Prosecutions can proceed.

Hardly takes a leap of anything to conclude prosecutions remain on the table; and that Ashcroft's comments well support the State AGs in targeting this sitting President.
Paraphrasing Franklin, "You have a Constitution and a Republic. If you want to keep it."
(Actually: Quote was from Franklin exiting the Constitutional Convention and he was asked what the results were, "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" )

4. Extraordinary: Alleged Congressional Malfeasance On Geneva Violations

Congressional inaction on issues of war crimes, FISA violations, and decisions to take impeachment off the table arguably are extraordinary circumstances: No President has ever been given a blank check by his opposition to violate the Supreme Law, and face not prospect of legal consequences.

DNC Control of Congress is irrelevant when they continue to refuse to use impeachment investigations to compel accountability and this President's assent to the Rule of Law.

Time for the State AGs to get contacted: Game on for state level prosecutions outside Congress outside impeachment. Time to target Members of Congress for 5 USC 3331 violations for failing to use all legal options, including impeachment, to defend the Constitution. Inaction against Members of Congress allows their oath to be meaningless; and for the Constitution to fall into disrepair and nullification. That is impermissible.

5. Action Plan

A. Read the Article by Turley;

B. Contact your State AGs: What is their plan to review the Turley Article and prosecute this sitting President and VP outside Congress;

C. Talk to your friends in other states.

6. Discuss This Draft Indictment At State level

A. State Standing

Constitution guarantees to all States a Republican Form of government, which includes an enforcement mechanism.

(Article IV, Section 4: "Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government")

B. Assertion of Retained State Power

States have power to do this: Amendment X reserves all non-delegated powers to the States. Congress was not delegated power to prosecute a President only impeach. States retain and may at any time assert this non-delegated, reserved power at any time without coordination with Congress. The intent of framers was for the States to act as one of the last vanguards of the Constitution against an abusive Government. The State prosecution is consistent with the Framers intent of preserving the Constitution, not, as this Congress and president have done, impersmissibly let the Constitution decay.

C. Allegations

President's conduct has denied the States of the Constitutionally Protected Guarantees: Refusal to enforce; failure to defend Constitution; illegal abrogation of Supreme Law and Geneva.

D. Charge

President has violated his oath of office to ensure the States enjoy a Republican Form of Government; and illegally abrogated war crimes.

E. Punishment, Remedy

The President and Vice President may be jailed; pending their release, the Speaker shall Assume Duties of President. President and VP shall retain title of "President' and "Vice President" but all legal duties and power shall be transferred to Pelosi and her Congressionally-approved Nominee, per 25th Amendment, by a simple majority vote in each house.

Make it happen.

===================================

Once again, here is where you donate to CREW: https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/CREW/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1299&t=Redesign.dwt

[hang a left]

29. Well that is something I didn't know re: State's AGs

Maybe all of this documentation and posts should be forwarded to each Democratic State Attorney General.

Second of all, it is my feeling that Anon is a lawyer. Or is posting on behalf of one.

Who is the attorney that Addington forced out. I can't remember his name anymore. He was the lawyer that the OVP kept out of briefings at the end.

[peacetalksforall]

8. Anonymous site:citizensforethics.org - citizensforensics ?

[L. Coyote]

9. CREW: Susan Ralston answers questions about Karl Rove's e-mails. = 19 June 2007

Susan Ralston answers questions about Karl Rove's e-mails. He used private accounts "from day one."
Submitted by crew on 19 June 2007 - 4:16pm. Karl Rove Presidential Records Act Susan Ralston

Earlier today, we referenced the deposition of Susan Ralston by the House Oversight Committee. Excerpts of the transcripts -- not just links to the pdf documents -- have now been posted at The Gavel. Definitely worth a read. We're including two sections about Rove's e-mail usage:

BY MS. AMERLING: When did Karl Rove first start usìng his RNC e-mail account to send and receive e-mails from the White House?

A From day one. ................

.....

And then there's Rove other private, but not RNC, e-mails:

Q Do you know what hi s personal e-maìl account address was?

A It was an AOL account. I don’t remember right now,

Q Do you know whether Ken Mehlman used a political e-mail account?

A You know. Karl also had a “Rove.com” e-mail address .

Q You are referrìng to a personal e-mail address?

A Well, it was — it wasn’t — I don’t know how you would classify it, but it was a “Rove.com” e-mail address. .............

=========================
COMMENT:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29131#comment-6429

Berenson-Ralston Apparenty Agreed To Signaling System
Submitted by Anonymous on 19 June 2007 - 7:42pm.

Issue: DC Atty Standards of Conduct in re DOJ OPR, ongoing Congressional Review (Tribunal, US Atty E-mails, RNC E-mails, House Oversight Committee, Abramoff, FBI):

Is it a violation of the DC Bar Rules, Standards of Conduct for an attorney

A. to coach a witness before and during a disposition;

B. during a deposition pretend that a response was to assist the tribunal, but the intent of the counsel communication to the tribunal was to do the opposite and adjust a client's recollection during a deposition;

Would this attorney conduct amount to obstruction of justice as DoJ OPR is similarly investigating in re Gonzalez-Goodling prior meetings?

It appears as though Berenson coached Ralston how to respond to Berenson's reactions/comments. I noticed Berenson interrupted the questions when Ralston said "no" to one of the questions. The way Ralston revised her remark, it suggested she and Berenson had arranged some sort of signal if she should change her answer from, "I know nothing," to "I don't recall."

The issue on the table: If this Berenson-Ralston arrangement were real (allegedly Berenson signalling Ralston to revise her remarks), would this amount to witness tampering; some sort of pre-meeting Between Ralston and Berenson with the intent to adjust recollections; and what kind of issues would this raise for Berenson in re candor before a tribunal and the Atty Standards of Conduct? (Link: Deposition):

Question: Karl Rove didn't discuss this claim with you?
Ralston, response: No.
Mr. Berenson (Ralston Counsel). Do you want to clarify that last answer?
Ralston. I don't recall. I don't have a recollection of anyone discussing with me specifically that claim.

She's essentially repated the qualifying terms of the question, but broadened the response from just Rove to "anyone" but repeated the questions words: "this/that claim". All she had to do was answer, "No." This indicates that she's well aware of the words being used; shows ample evidence that shes able to track the precise language in the questions. Yet, contrast that later with her answers to other questions: "Can you repeat the question. Ralston appears to have played stupid, stalling for time when she appears to be able to repeat verbatim the qualifying words of a specific question despite being interrupted by her own counsel.

A witness to have a specific recollection of something, and answer "No" says one thing; but for counsel to (a) know that the answer may not be correct; and (b) interject with a comment; and (c) get the witness to change her answer from a certain answer to the opposite, uncertain, is curious.

Notice this contrast:

A. Ralston changes her response from a certain "no" to "I don't recall."; yet
B. Notice the response Berenson provides -- that of seeking clarification -- doesn't track back to Ralston's response: She does not provide clarification, but does the opposite: Moves from a certain response of "No" to a less certain response: That is hardly a clarification, but the opposite.

Again look at her response:

I don't recall. I don't have a recollection of anyone discussing with me specifically that claim.

She's gone from "No" to "I have no recollection/don't recall." Yet, she's able to state with precision, as Goodling did, some things she is not recalling, but leaves open the question: What does she recall; what other claims that she may have not necessarily discussed, but have read, heard about, overhead, or been sent a blind copy via her RNC e-mail account sent from someone else?

Berenson And the RNC Blind Copy E-Mails

Yet, Ralson is not ordinary witness: She's an attorney, knowledgeable of the rules of the House Oversight Committee committee; in a position to rely on counsel; and knowledgeable of the DC Bar atty Standards of Conduct.
It appears the Berenson prompting of "clarification" was a signal to Ralston to do do the opposite: Provide ambiguity, this would amount to misleading the tribunal.

Arguably, Berenson public assertion of "requesting clarity" sounds like a good thing; but Ralston's response suggests the message Berenson was communicating was the opposite: To retract a statement, and provide ambiguity, arguably, in violation of the DC Bar rules which compel counsel to provide candor before the tribunal, not a double-meaning message with the intent to have the tribunal believe counsel was assisting the tribunal to get a precise answer. rather, Berenson's comment appears to do the opposite, hide the intent of his message, and induce Ralston to do the opposite of what the Tribunal thought Berenson was communicating.

Issues for Berenson in re Tribunal:

What kind of coaching did Berenson have with counsel to ensure that when he asked her the question she did above, that she would know to (a) understand her response needed to be changed; (b) understand she needed to revise her remark; (c) to stumble or argue with counsel; and (d) seamlessly transition from a certain answer to one that asserts the obvious: Uncertainty.

Berenson had a duty to be impartial (DC Bar Rule 3.5) and a duty to disclose adverse information (DC Bar Rule 3.3)

The standard applies to legal counsel. Whether we're talking about Ralston to
Berenson, the same DC Bar rules apply:

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; Rule 3.3

Once it appeared as though Ralston and Berenson had coordinated their answers, and adjusted testimony, did Berenson appropriately disclose the scope of the coordination he and Ralston had? Arguably, once Berenson corrected Ralston, this raised the issue that there had been coordination; and that because Berenson publicly correct her on the record, the scope of his coordination with Ralston is admissible.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. Rule 3.3

Berenson did not disclose anything to the tribunal, as required by the DC Bar Rules, merely prompted Ralston; and it was not Ralston who provided the inconsistent statements to the DC Bar, but to the Congressional committee.
Once Ralston and Berenson have allegedly agreed to abide by unwritten terms, agreements -- apparently not disclosed to outside/opposing counsel -- how did that non-disclosed arrangement affect the proceeding?

Rule 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel A lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

Did Berenson-Ralston's apparent prior meeting to adjust responses based on Berenson's prompting amount to legal counsel violating Rule 3.4, and did Berenson in violation of 3.4 "assist" Ralston to conceal the truth: That Ralston on her own was certain of something; but that counsel hoped to adjust her responses to interject ambiguity and uncertainty?

Arguably, Ralston-Berensons's interchange rise questions about alleged obstruction of justice, the scope of Berenson's pre-deposition coordination with Ralston, and the appropriateness of Berenson's comments in light of Ralston's initial assertion of certainty, then an an apparent prompting to adjust her response to be ambiguous.

# What prompted Berenson to hope Ralston would adjust her testimony?

# Why would Ralston agree to change from something that was a certain answer to one that was ambiguous?

The other problem Berenson-Ralston have, given the lack of disclosure on tall the ground rule and the agreements between Berenson-Ralston and the Congress, there is a reasonable basis to have doubts about Berenson's compliance with

(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; (Rule 3.3)

What restrictions by the Govt Oversight Committee were there in place when Ralston was deposed prohibiting counsel from inducting witnesses to adjust their answers?

Is there a specific rule, regulation, or guideline unique to the Government Oversight Committee that expressly prohibits what Berenson and Ralston have appeared to have done: Have a signalling system; offer testimony that was adjusted based on non-disclosed agreements?

Let's consider the other clients and information Berenson and Sidley Austin have, which remain undisclosed. Was there something about at&T, Boeing, or another client involved with the RNC e-mail communications -- in a to-be-understood capacity -- that induced Berenson to get Ralston to retract her statement?

(f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless: (Rule 3.3)

If, as it appears, Berenson wanted to take Ralston's response ambiguous, and not certain, how might Ralston's "final answer" of ambiguity assist another Sidley Austin client; and in turn, what inducement, if any, has Berenson or anyone else made to others to not challenge, corroborate, but provide similarly ambiguous responses to answers they might, on their own, answer with certainty and precision?

Why would Congressional counsel be satisfied with Ralston's response -- which is vague, as less clear -- yet the prompting from counsel wanted the opposite: Clarification?

=============================
Replies follow, along with "Anonymous" replying to the replies: http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29131#comment-6449

[L. Coyote]

10. CREW: Justice Department expands internal investigation of U.S. Attorney firings = 31 May 2007

Justice Department expands internal investigation of U.S. Attorney firings expanded to include hiring practices
Submitted by crew on 31 May 2007 - 11:39am.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28616


It's not just the firings of the U.S. Attorneys that demands further inquiry at the Department of Justice. For that controversy, CREW wants a special prosecutor. No, it's not just the firings, it's the hirings, too. The internal investigations over the firings has been expanded to review hiring irregularities:

"We have expanded the scope of our investigation to include allegations regarding improper political or other considerations in hiring decisions within the Department of Justice," Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and H. Marshall Jarrett, head of the Office of Professional Responsibility, wrote in joint letters to the House and Senate Judiciary committees.

The widening inquiry is likely to pose an additional challenge for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who is already facing lawmakers' calls for his resignation and a potential no-confidence vote by the Senate. While the U.S. attorney dismissals have prompted wide political criticism, improper hiring practices could be deemed a violation of the law.

Justice officials had previously disclosed that Fine and Jarrett's investigation would include hiring decisions made by Monica M. Goodling, ......

=========================
COMMENT:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28616#comment-5990

Re: Expanded USDOJ OPR/IG Internal Investigation
Submitted by Anonymous on 31 May 2007 - 7:03pm.

Instead of focusing solely on hiring illegalities, the investigation should also address White House interference/obstruction regarding public corruption investigation/prosecution decisions.

USA Eubanks stated that she was told to get her tobacco witness case witnesses to "change their testimony." She said there was "daily" interference from the White House. That's obstruction, folks, but where is the investigation?

Last March, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) demanded immediate answers from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales regarding a National Journal article that reveals Gonzales worked to block an internal U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation of the National Security Agency (NSA) warrantless surveillance program after learning he would be a major subject of the investigation. According to the report, after finding out that the OPR investigation, which Hinchey and three of his House colleagues requested, would focus on his role in approving and implementing the NSA warrantless surveillance program as White House counsel and then attorney general, Gonzales advised Bush on shutting down the DOJ probe.

In particular, the OPR investigation was going to examine how two senior DOJ lawyers had repeatedly warned Gonzales that the NSA program was not legal. After meeting with Gonzales to discuss the matter, Bush, in a highly unusual move, blocked the security clearances that OPR investigators needed to conduct the internal probe. It remains unknown whether Bush knew at the time he denied the security clearances that Gonzales was going to be a focus of the OPR probe or whether Gonzales concealed the fact that he would be under investigation but worked to convince Bush to shut down the probe anyway.

"The severity of this situation cannot be overstated. This article makes it clear that Attorney General Gonzales acted to save himself from an internal Justice Department investigation by having President Bush shut it down," Hinchey said. "We are talking about some very serious ethical and quite possibly criminal violations committed by Attorney General Gonzales and maybe President Bush if he was aware of OPR's intentions when he blocked that investigation. This country cannot tolerate anyone, let alone its top law enforcement official, operating above the law. Attorney General Gonzales and President Bush must step forward and explain their actions here."

The USDOJ OPR answers to AG Gonzales. Even if he has recused himself in this matter, internal investigators aren't going to sacrifice their careers ( because there are always pay-backs ) by going after the boss or the President. Look what they have done in the past.

Last September, a group of former Florida DMV Hearing Officers presented a public corruption complaint to former FL Gov. Jeb Bush. The State refused to refer the complaint over to FDLE for a criminal investigation. US Senator Bill Nelson sent the complaint to the FBI. The FBI asked the USDOJ for permission to investigate as per policy.

For the past 8 months, the complaint has been sitting on USA Miller's desk. This is the same USA Miller that was mysteriously taken off 3 USA termination lists last November at the same time he was reviewing the corruption complaint against the President's brother with USDOJ Main Justice. The evidence that was presented served as a basis for the new FL Cabinet to fire the FL DHSMV director. Yet, the USDOJ still won't give the FBI permission to investigate the President's brother.

American needs to be screaming for a special prosecutor! There doesn't appear to be much justice left in the Justice Department.

=======================
Perhaps some further comment on this thread is from same "Anonymous" poster.

[L. Coyote]

11. CREW: Cheney still pushes claim he's not part of executive branch = 21 August 2007

Cheney still pushes claim he's not part of executive branch
Submitted by crew on 21 August 2007 - 10:37am. Dick Cheney Executive Privilege

Yesterday, the Bush administration failed to meet the deadline for subpoenas from the Senate. That's really not a surprise. However, Dick Cheney sent separate responses and apparently still contends he's not part of the executive branch:

Vice President Dick Cheney’s office on Monday responded separately from the White House to a Senate subpoena for documents on warrantless wiretapping and resurrected the controversial contention that Cheney is not part of the executive branch.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) set Monday’s subpoena deadline after granting an extension request by the White House. Presidential counsel Fred Fielding, as expected, told Leahy in a letter that a second delay, until after Labor Day, would help Congress and the administration “expeditiously seek a means of accommodation that will negate the need for an assertion of executive privilege.”

So is Cheney refusing to answer a subpoena from his Senate colleagues? He really thinks he is a fourth branch of government.

===============================
COMMENTS:

Possible explanation on request for delay & Rove comments
Submitted by Anonymous on 21 August 2007 - 3:23pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29947#comment-12502

I can think of only one reason why a "delay until after Labor Day would help Congress and the Administration expeditiously seek a means of accommodation that will negate the need for an assertion of executive priviledge": indictments finally are to be brought against Dustin Foggo--former Executive Director of the CIA and Randall Cunningham's coconspirator # 1, Brent Wilkes by US DOJ's D.C. Grand Jury! A year ago it was leaked US DOJ in D.C. anticipated it would bring indictments against this duo by the end of last September. The info to come out on Wilkes' intelligence contracts and access to intelligence info from Foggo he could use to benefit President Putin is going to make every American want to puke! This is why even though there aren't bribery charges attached to the persuading a private security installer to work with Wilkes and Foggo, the San Diego indictments of this duo gave mention three times to that situation!

Everyday Wilkes-Foggo damage is in my face! My mother needed a clock radio for a guest room and I offered one that works but isn't worth taking with me when I move soon. I went to my guest room less than an hour ago for it and all I found left of it was on a floor a piece of its clear plastic. It too, must have had a 10 mm or 3.5 mm camera in it! I am missing 2 phone handsets. One...it came from my grandmother's house and was given to me shortly before she died last fall. There must have been contraband in that handset because I sometimes used my grandparents' telephones 10 miles away from my home office!

Who am I...someone who didn't see the same dollar signs Wilkes did when President Putin made lucrative financial (financing and buyout) offers to take control of the company I for the most part, co-own with its CEO. The only thing the CEO and I saw was a mob boss sending an operative to take-up residence on the CEO's couch in Germany for more than 1 1/2 years while he worked on a market invasion of new technology, who Putin later had murdered because his operative failed to persuade the CEO to compromise on his ethics! The CEO and I lost every shred of privacy, right down to what we look like unclothed during Wilkes' plight to snatch control of our company for Putin! In the 76 pp FBI document Sign on San Diego posted to the internet many weeks ago, Cunningham's coconspirator # 2, Mitchell Wade told how Cunningham told him coconspirator # 3, Kontogiannis was connected to the mob and has many Russian businesses. With the indictments of Wilkes and Foggo, congressional earmarks will be viewed in a more unfavorable light than in all of history! If it is the Wilkes-Foggo indictments Fielding wants Congress to wait for, it will be proven the blame regarding the surveillance programs is shared between Congress and the White House staff. Both controlled NSA since Congress controlled its budget!

As for Rove, I should be leaving a comment belated to when bloggers posted comments at CREW's website last week. Everyone missed another resignation that likely is linked and happened only 3 days before Rove's resignation...

It is my belief Rove is kicking-up his feet come September (likely after Labor Day) to think about what he would like to do with the rest of his life, because he is to be confined to a jail cell. His regret to have not pushed-out corrupt Republican members of congress sooner is just a way to pass the buck on his crimes! He knew what he was doing and he betrayed the president and their 30 year friendship in addition to betraying the public's trust.

In November of 2004 when Tom Ridge's resignation first was announced, General Hayden told Fox News as a first explanation it was because Ridge had failed to fund the next generation of technologies. While we always had a German launch, we had done all we could to remain US-based. The CEO always flew on round-trip tickets. Days before Ridge's resignation we blew the dust off of a 15 mos. old German financing package, the CEO flew to Germany for the first time in our history on a one-way ticket and we were becoming an ex-pat company in breach of the Buy American laws Congress established for the US DHS.

I want to emphasize...Bush fired Ridge in retaliation for his actions that made us quit the US and what I am building up to is how Rove undermined that!

2 1/2 to 3 weeks after the announcement of Ridge's resignation Fox News again interviwed General Hayden and this time he said Ridge couldn't be given another chance because he had failed to dedicate staff to medium and long-term planning. When asked why, General Hayden would say no more of the subject matter. In good time...expect Ridge's indictment apart of a conspiracy that included Wilkes, Foggo and Lockheed Martin.

Our German offer was sabaotaged by phony State Dept officials (Wilkes-Foggo related--they bribed the officials using...your taxpayer money!) and it was an opportunity for Chertoff to get done what Ridge hadn't. Instead, the second stage review was begun even after we had opened our doors instead in France and soon accepted an interest free loan from its government. Chertoff always had the opportunity to bring our RnD operations home and didn't!

In the second stage review it came out that the DHS needed an Office of Strategic Plans. This was something that of course, General Hayden and the NSA knew by 12/04!

Someone finally was hired to run the Office of Strategic Plans just over a year ago. Last September I could tell he wasn't integrating my company's platform into medium and long-term plans, explained why in email to the CEO and next thing I knew...the Assistant Secretary resigned the following week.

July 9, 2007 the DHS finally updated its website to tell who was the Acting replacement. I discovered this 7/16/07 and immediately called and had to leave a message. No one returned my phone call. On 7/23/07 I called early in the morning and was told by the office manager that Chertoff had excluded medium and long-term planning for newer identification credentials to be incorporated into the US DHS' programs. Keep in mind, the Office of Strategic Plans came to be first and foremost as a result of Ridge's being fired, to incorporate our platform into DHS programs!

The following week when it was announced the Office of Policy General Counsel had been named Deputy Assistant Secretary, I called him. In passing, he told me that he isn't supposed to speak with the inventors. This could mean one thing: he's only permitted to speak with the wannabe intellectual property infringers. The CEO and I are very aware Lockheed has stolen obsolete source code and digital wallets from when it took-over a Wilkes secret CIA contract. I made certain that the new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning was made aware there is a pattern that only companies majority owned by Russian Mafia were awarded DHS contracts AND that there was information released to suggest that the Mob were the true financiers, along with its FSS member allies as trainers of, 911 hijackers and homegrown terror cells in western democracies. The Russian Mafia-FSS seemed to be skimming dividend revenue to siphon some of it back into homegrown terror cells so that we would keep renewing contracts in the Mafia-owned investment companies.

Also, keep in mind that by 1/06 journalists were writing that the Bush Administration only was awarding DHS contracts to its largest campaign contributors. Later, there were accusations from journalists that Rove had politicized federal contracting. Finally, keep in mind that Congress has been trying to learn where besides the GSA Rove held strategy meetings with contracting officers required to remain party-neutral, to help Republican candidates in 2006 mid-term elections as a violation of the Hatch Act.

Republican candidates were campaigning for the 2006 mid-term elections in 2005!

On 8/10...so just over a week after my phone call to the DHS Office of Policy, Eric Leckey's resignation was announced. He was Associate Director of the White House Liaison office to the US DHS. Leckey only graduated from college in 2002 and that same year was appointed to the Homeland Security Advisory Council!!! He had held his WH liaison post since February of 2003! He's a youngster who may never have undergone ethics training!

Three days later, Rove's resignation was announced and I can take a guess Leckey did something like Will Heaton did with regard to wearing a wire. My company is not one of the administration's largest campaign contributors. They only way we could have been is had we accepted the Kremlin's financing offer and laundered their money into campaign contributions to serve as bribes as other homeland defense suppliers did!

Bush fired Goss (5/5/06) for having hired Foggo at a time when it was discovered by federal law enforcement Foggo and Wilkes had planted a coup within our French office.

Now Rove is gone and any tears the press stated Bush shed is probably because of Rove's betrayal of Bush and Bush's utter frustration with Rove; Rove undermined why Ridge and Goss were fired when he violated the Hatch Act with the US DHS once it was under Chertoff's control!

Rove has said he hopes to get into teaching at some point. There isn't a faculty in this country that wouldn't want Rove now, so why the doubt in his words? Perhaps it is because if my guess is correct, that he's to be indicted and fears academia no longer will find him desireable? Rove says Bush ordered him to write a book. Will Rove's confessional appease Bush and become his get-out-of-jail card (pardon)?

Rove's words since his resignation first was announced aren't that of a remorseful man! By violating the Hatch Act, Rove created an embarrassing situation where the US DHS was awarding contracts to companies with Putin's crime gang members as major shareholders and it seems were behind our being attacked from the start. There always will be those who hate the US and Democracy. Of that group, the only ones we need to be concerned with are the ones who have the financial means to harm us, as well as the financial incentive.

By violating the Hatch Act and having contracts awarded to companies (overpaid in their Russian subsidiaries) and lobbyists' clients who were the administration's largest contributors (laundering the mob's contributions), Karl Rove became a Putin operative! Rove was supposed to be Bush's right hand and instead was Putin's! Our President has passed himself off as a good Christian. While to be a good Christian (and Jew) is to show the power to forgive, if Rove's book isn't a confessional of where he went wrong, I don't think this president will let Rove go free at the end of his (Bush's) presidency. Nowhere in the Bible (or Torah) does it say you should allow yourself to be made a fool and Rove's words since his resignation hint he expects to one more time take advantage of the president's goodwill.

On a final note...President Bush made a campaign promise for the 2000 election to reduce the size of government and end public corruption. Karl Rove undermined the former with his violations of the Hatch Act and how better could a president keep a campaign promise to end corruption than to step aside when one of his closest advisors is guilty of public corruption? So many write-ups have called Bush a lame-duck. I beg to differ! It is human nature to protect one's friends. I think the president might be coming to realize Rove's concern was for the Republican Party and keeping a Republican dominated Congress, and not at all for the president's policies. Bush seems only to have learned Rove was working for Putin while betraying his (Bush) and the public's trust.

It takes a strong man to be willing to let this all come-out. Putin's solution every time the Duma (Russian parliament) calls an investigation is to order the murder of the investigators, one-by-one. Putin is a weak man! He can't handle criticism. Bush knows US DOJ's investigations (remember that searches on congresspersons homes would require US AG Gonzales' approval) will picture the Republicans and his administration in an unfavorable light. Yet, he's taking his summer holiday before he must return to the White House and show after Labor Day how strong he is to not have engaged in a cover-up. Only a strong man is willing to admit his and his administration/team's faults so that it goes down in the history books as a lesson to be learned for all future generations and that bad history never is to be repeated!

[Horseradish]

55. This seems like a different anon poster

And I'm having a hard time speculating why no one has asked what the hell this post is all about.

Putin? Russian Mafia? Ties to 9/11 funding? Rove betrayed Bush? Alarm clock cameras in his home?

What's going on here? Am I missing something?

[L. Coyote]

56. There is another poster at CREW who is ranting about those topics

and there is another DU thread about that poster:

WILD COMMENTS: No jail time for Ney's aide who pleaded guilty = Abramoff case
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1669214

That self-identified poster coincides with our "Anonymous" lawyer on that particular page.

[Horseradish]

59. Ah, thanks for the tip

That was driving me nuts.

This whole emerging web of corruption is utterly fascinating.

[L. Coyote]

12. Wash. Post: FBI/Justice "misled reporters" about CREW

Wash. Post: FBI/Justice "misled reporters" about CREW
Submitted by crew on 22 January 2007 - 6:20pm.

Today's IG report made the Washington Post, which noted that the FBI "misled reporters" about CREW:

The FBI erred by failing to notify anyone in the House of Representatives about questionable e-mails sent to a former page by former Florida Republican lawmaker Mark Foley, according to a new report released today.

The review by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine also found that FBI and Justice officials misled reporters last fall by claiming that the activist group that first provided the FBI with the e-mails had not been cooperative.

===============================
FBI Faulted for Inaction in Foley Scandal
Justice IG Also Says Officials Misled Media About Group That Provided Messages
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 23, 2007; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012200633.html

The FBI should have acted last summer to protect underage congressional pages after it was given "troubling" electronic messages sent by then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), according to a report released yesterday.

The review by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine also found that FBI and Justice officials misled the news media last fall when they asserted that an activist group that first provided the FBI with Foley's messages had not been cooperative and had withheld vital information from investigators.

In fact, Fine's report found that the group -- Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, or CREW -- had notified the FBI within days of obtaining the electronic communications in July. But the FBI never asked for additional information from the group and never sought to interview the former page in Louisiana who received the messages from Foley, the report said.

The 31-page report provides additional evidence ............

[L. Coyote]

13. CREW catalogues Bush/Cheney administration's abuses of power and overreaching = 2 July 2007

CREW catalogues Bush/Cheney administration's abuses of power and overreaching in new report, Crossing the Line
Submitted by crew on 2 July 2007 - 3:16pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29242


Today, CREW released a new report entitled Crossing the Line: The Bush Administration's Efforts to Expand Its Powerful Reach. The title pretty much sums it up. Based on several specific specific developments, several where CREW has direct involvement, we detailed the Bush administration’s repeated constitutional overreaching and abuse of executive power and prerogative. The full report can be found here.

Crossing the Line makes two major findings:

1) Vice President Dick Cheney, who recently asserted that he's not subject to Executive Orders because of his unique "fourth branch" status, is quietly, but diligently, working to establish case law that equates the power of the vice presidency with the power of the presidency; and

2) the Bush administration is intent on expanding the power of executive privilege well beyond constitutional bounds.

CREW's Melanie Sloan said that Vice President Cheney and Bush administration officials "are working hard to reconfigure the executive branch to conform with their preference for absolute power rather than with clearly established constitutional boundaries. CREW’s report depicts an administration out of control.”

=====================
COMMENT:

Game Plan To Challenge OVP Abuses
Submitted by Anonymous on 2 July 2007 - 4:47pm.

Momentum Needs Direction

I welcome the conclusion, and was hoping for specific things that the public might do:

"Perhaps the public attention finally focused on the efforts of the president and vice president to expand their powers will act as a deterrent against any future rogue abuses and highlight the need for congressional and judicial intervention to restore the proper balance of power between the three (not four, as Mr. Cheney would have it) branches of government. Sadly, given the record, this seems overly optimistic."

I am not satisfied with the assertion that a "desirable outcome" -- that over oversight and checks and balances -- is "optimistic." No, it is a requirement.

Suggestions

1. Draft a New Constitution to solve the problems with the system of checks and balances: Create a fourth branch that is outside either political faction and does its job regardless which faction controls the three branches.

2. Action outside Congress. Work with State AG to prosecute the sitting President outside impeachment and Congress.

3. Educate future grand jury members. Provide information to the public on open source information showing the President's claim of executive privilege has no merit.

4. Suggest to the public questions to research to effectively oversee Congress and the President. These could be discussion questions for voters to consider before agreeing with State or Federal election choices.

5. Call for an Oath of Office Certification Day. Members of Congress would manually hand write the Constitution word for word, then retake their oath.

6. Review Speaker Day. Look at the abuses of power in Congress and Executive and reconsider whether Pelosi as speaker has substantially met or not met the Voter Mandate of 2006: Change, defund the war, challenge the President, and pros cute illegal activity.

7. Prosecuting Members of Congress. Outline for the public information they can gather to prosecute any of the 535 Members of Congress for their failure to defend the Constitution: What needs to be done; what information is needed for an indictment; which States are leading the way to prosecute.

I reject the notion that optimism is overrated. I would ask that rather than throw up our hands as if nothing can be done, work with the public to formulate a strategy: "Now that we agree there is a problem with OVP, what is the plan of the public to compel OVP to assent to the rule of law?" If OVP refuses to respond, then We the People may trash this Constitution and replace it one that shall compel OVP to assent.

Not asking CREW to create a plan to save America, merely building off the momentum of the report so the public sees clearly what could be done going forward; and what role they might be able to play in checking the OVP. Congress refuses to credibly challenge the OVP; We the People will have to implement some credible solutions.

======================
Assist CREW: https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/CREW/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1299&t=Redesign.dwt

[L. Coyote]

14. REPLY To: Mr. "We the People" Comment says "Contact me"

This is the second time someone using this e-mail has asked our "Deep Modem to identify

===============
To: Mr. "We the People"
Submitted by Anonymous on 3 July 2007 - 9:39pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29242#comment-9020

You have some very interesting ideas, yet you submit them under the shadow of an anonymous byline. Create a website and establish a way that motivated Americans can do some of the things that you have suggested.

Contact me - I'm interested! xxxxxx @comcast.net

[L. Coyote]

15. CREW: Bush spokesperson won't say Cheney is part of Executive Branch = 22 June 2007

Bush spokesperson won't say Cheney is part of Executive Branch
Submitted by crew on 22 June 2007 - 5:29pm.



Earlier today, CREW posed some serious questions for the Bush-Cheney administration after the Vice President claimed he was not really part of the Executive Branch. Today, at the White House press briefing, spokesperson Dana Perino actually got some some very tough questions including whether Cheney was part of the Executive Branch. Ms. Perino didn't really answer that very simple, but important question. Seriously. She thought it was “interesting constitutional question that people can debate.” But, she didn't say yes. Think Progress has the account -- and video:

During a heated press briefing today, White House spokesperson Dana Perino tried desperately to downplay yesterday’s report showing that Vice President Cheney has exempted his office from a presidential executive order designed to safeguard classified national security information. At one point, Perino called it “a little bit of a non-story.”

She repeatedly said that Cheney exempt from a mere “small portion” or “small section” of the executive order, and that President Bush never intended for the executive order to apply to Cheney any differently than it applies to the president’s own office. ......

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/22/wh-order/

===========================
COMMENT:

Discovery Plan: OVP Legal Counsel Memoranda in re Exec Priv
Submitted by Anonymous on 24 June 2007 - 5:18pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29170


Implications of OVP Assertion That It is "Not" An Agency under the Executive Branch

Summary Argument and Authorities

Article III Vice President has impermissibly asserted non-delegated Article III judicial powers in self-determining he has not violated any law, and is not required to comply with Congressional statute. (It is an Article III power for the courts to adjudicate whether the Vice President has or has not violated the law; the Vice President was delegated no Article III Judicial Power to adjudicate any issue as he has illegally done.)

Nixon: The Vice President has no legal foundation to withhold evidence of unlawful activity from this Grand Jury or Congress. (Executives in US Government must disclose evidence related to illegal activity to Congress, and cannot invoke privilege to hide evidence of illegal activity.)

Reynolds: The OVP has violated the law in classifying evidence of illegal activity when the intent was not to hide any national security secret, but dubiously invoke a claim of privilege on the basis of questionable, inconsistent, and unsubstantiated legal principles. (Substantial portion motivation behind the classification, invocation of state secrets must be for national security purposes, not to hide illegal activity.)

Youngstown: The Vice President shall assent to Congressional requirements in re Record Retention. (US government official discretion at its lowest ebb when statutes are clearly promulgated as ministerial duties, even during times of war.)
ORCON Executive Order: Prohibiting classification of illegal activity.

Argument

1. If OVP says that Executive requirements do not apply to OVP, then the OVP may not claim executive Privilege. Once OVP claims it is not subject to Executive Orders, and is outside the Executive Branch, and not an agency, there are several problems:

1. Inconsistent OVP Counsel Memoranda
2. Agency Head Affidavits
3. OVP Court Filings Affidavits on Executive Privilege

General Statute Regulating OVP Records Retention Trumps Generalized Executive Orders

2. Nixon establishes all records related to illegal activity must be disclosed and cannot be hidden. The law trumps Executive Orders. It is moot when OVP claims it is not an agency and not required to follow any Executive Order prohibiting classification of illegal activity.

3. Put aside the moment that the OVP has a separate statute that specifically requires the Vice President to comply with records retention – the discussion over whether OVP is or is not subject to Executive Orders on records retention or classification moot. The OVP is using a smokescreen to distract attention from an analysis of other legal implications. This note attempts to flesh out the following issues, and raise questions for further discussion between Congress, the Public, media, and OVP on the following issues:

# OVP Legal counsel conduct relative to attorney standards of conduct in the District of Columbia

# Lines of evidence which should exist to confirm or rebut what the OVP has asserted

# OVP Legal memoranda which must exist to establish when OVP did or did not have a policy related to Agency head affidavits, Executive Privilege, and State Secrets

Admissible: Statement Contrary To Interests

4. OVP has asserted that it is not an agency. We leave it for another day for OVP to prove this, whether it is true; or whether it is legally accurate. This discussion narrowly focuses on the OVP assertion, regardless its truth or falsity relative to evidence, law, or precedent.

5. There is an issue of admissible evidence. Once OVP asserts they are not an executive agency, it has arguably made an assertion contrary to interests, and is admissible, and the subject of discovery. A statement contrary to interest is something that is called a “fatal” assertion because it is freely made, and when examined compels the OVP to prove one way or the other things which must be attached with that assertion. Without a fair showing by the OVP on this position, the OVP legal counsel and leadership is, for the purposes of grand jury witness examination, impeached or discredited as a witness. A fatal assertion in this case opens the barn door to extensive discovery and inquiry into OVP legal counsel deliberations which must exist; or do not exist and indicate the assertion was falsely made to corruptly persuade other US government officials, violating 5 USC 3331.

6. The Vice President’s legal counsel are in a prosecutor’s trap.

Mandatory Reporting Of Evidence Related to Atty Misconduct, Alleged Illegal Activity

7. Once this evidence is disclosed to the Court, the Judicial Cannons compel court officers to forward evidence of criminal activity by OVP legal counsel to the DC Bar for review. US Attorneys may also receive information indicating OVP legal counsel have committed fraud upon the DC Court in re issues of State Secrets claims and false affidavits. This note outlines a line of inquiry for the public, DC-Bar Affiliated Attorneys, media, and Congress to examine the OVP fatal assertion in re its relationship with the Executive Branch and agencies.

OVP Legal Memoranda Discovery

8. Once OVP asserts it is not part of the Executive Branch, there are serious doubts about the legal foundation behind OVP filings in re state secret affidavits. Whether this OVOP assertion is or is not true is secondary to the subsequent legal analysis.

Audit Scope

9. These are issues subject to peer review, audit, self inspection, and review by the Grand Jury. These checklist exist; or they have been recklessly not used, ignored, or never created. Failure to develop these checklists is an actionable item under DC Bar Rules imposing on supervisory counsel the duty to insure subordinate counsel are adequately trained. The Grand Jury and Congress is encouraged to compel OVP to demonstrate compliance with admissible evidence with other applicable standards include Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) and Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards (GAGAS) as they related to performance audits, records retention, and conduct of personnel during reviews.

10. Statement of Accounting Standards 99 compels auditors to increase audit scope when the following risk indicators exist, as they are with the OVP: Resignations, illegal activity, prior criminal convictions, and other misstatements before the court. The Grand Jury is encourage to examine any and all lines of evidence, inquiry, and investigative leads indicating how OVP blocked application of Statement of Accounting Standards to include: Blocking discovery of the indicators warranting audit scope; retaliating against government officials or outside contractors for attempting to audit OVP; or OVP-connected entities attempting to use civil subpoenas to identify, intimidate, and silence personnel discussing how OVP was thwarting enforcement of the law in contravention to 5 USC 3331.

Discovery: Burden on OVP Legal Counsel

11. OVP assertion, given its dubiousness, is one for OVP to assert based on evidence, and provide the public with justification that its legal assertion is linked with evidence and memoranda, policies, and working papers showing:

# How OVP planned to invoke state secrets on the basis of executive privilege claims;

# How OVP invoked state secrets and executive privilege on issues unrelated to any executive Department, which they now claim the OVP is “not” a part;

# How and when OVP did or did not conclude in all cases that OVP was not an agency under the Executive Department;

# How OVP did plan or was planning to invoke executive privilege for entities, personnel, and memoranda OVP would have concluded were not subject to any rule, memoranda, or Executive Order

# Why OVP never claimed during the state secrets’ affidavits and never claimed that the OVP was always outside the Executive Branch, nor “not” subject to the rules related to Executive Privilege;

# Reconciliations efforts to (a) show how the OVP which was not an agency under the Exertive Branch could (b) rely on agency precedent when invoking state secrets or hiding from discovery any and all evidence of illegal activity?

# How OVP counsel planned to get agency heads to sign affidavits indicating agency heads had a “good faith” belief the invocation was proper; that the precedents were relevant; yet, the OVP legal counsel had the opposite conclusion: The OVP was not subject to any precedent applicable to the Executive Branch

# How OVP, despite the asserted claim OVP did “not” fall under the Executive Branch, was at all times asserting this legal standard to justify getting OVP staff and others to listen to the OVP and not comply with legal requests for information related to unlawful activity;

Questions

OVP EO 1. Is it the view of OVP that it may ignore all Executive Orders and may violate any Executive Order stating all unlawful activity cannot be classified?

OVP EO 2: Is it the view of OVP legal counsel that ORCON rules – prohibiting classification of illegal activity – do not apply to OVP because the ORCON Rules are an Executive Order?

OVP EO 3: Is it the view of OVP that all Executive Orders prohibiting classification of illegal activity do not have to be followed, but can be ignored, and that illegal activity can be classified despite statutes and guidance to the opposite?

OVP EO 4: Which guidance does the OVP view, on any given day, as being relevant or not relevant?

OVP EO 5: What is the basis for OVP to invoke any claim of state secrets when the precedent related to that claim applies to executive agencies, yet OVP claims it is not an executive agency?

OVP EO 6: Why would anyone want to work in an organization where, on any given day, legal counsel is asserting publicly to the court one legal standard as a basis for an affidavit; yet privately, they have an opposite legal conclusion which states these precedents, presented to the court, have no force because the OVP is not related to any entity in any of the precedents OVP legal counsel claim?

OVP EO 7: Do the personnel in OVP enjoy working in an organization where legal counsel recklessly pick and choose from the statute?

OVP EO 8: Do OVP legal counsel enjoy invoking legal standards to create an independent judiciary within OVP, and administer justice outside the court view; and must rely on legal precedents related to executive agencies; yet, OVP counsel publicly asserts the opposite – that Executive Agencies are not related to OVP and OVP should not be able to invoke precedent which relate to agencies and entitles which OVP asserts are unrelated to OVP?

OVP EO 9: What is it like working in the OVP where legal counsel use convoluted non-sense: Does anyone in OVP have any confidence in any of the legal counsel?

OVP EO 10: How does the staff at the entry level have any confidence that the legal counsel in OVP knows what they’re doing; or has any clue about the Attorney Standards of Conduct which compel legal counsel to engage in some sort of legal competency, not this legal sophistry which appears to contradict the basis educational standards entry level clears are required to demonstrate to maintain an entry level staff job?

OVP EO 11: With this kind of convoluted logic permeating the OVP legal counsel’s office, how do they credibly resolve simple issues of: Who buys coffee; how does the copier contract get monitored; and whose turn is it to call the maintenance department to inspect the unusual marks on the wall?

Discovery

11. Let’s presume for the moment that the “rule” which Addington, OVP, and legal counsel have asserted is a fair statement of the OVP position; and shall be uniformly applied both prospectively and retroactively. Consider the record: OVP has substantially complied with some legal requirements, not all. If the OVP is not subject to “any” Executive Agency requirement, why did OVP bother to assert that it did comply with some requirements which were not applicable?

OVP EO 12: If the OVP is not required to comply with a standard – as they assert in 2007 – would it not be an issue of fraud waste and abuse to have spent valuable time, resources, and “scarce” staff to fill out reports, publicize the compliance with standards that “did not apply”?

12. Consider the record in re OVP records on entry exit logs. Somewhere within the bowels of the argument is a claim that to comply with this requirement would require excessive time, manpower, and the OVP apparently “doesn’t” have the resources to comply.

OVP EO 13: How does the OVP explain the inconsistency, which matches Gonzalez arguments in re FISA requirements: They have “no resources” to comply with the statute; they have no time to comply with a requirement; but they do have time to track that they were complying with a standard that did not apply. That makes no sense.

OVP IP Numbers Connected With Unofficial Business

13. However, there is a problem. Once again, we have evidence EOP Staff counsel connected with the legal community has been spending time on non-official business, indicating they have been poorly overseen; and that there “was” sufficient time to comply with the reporting requirements, if the weather was favorable. If you look at all OVP IP numbers, and do an open search for them, you will find the OVP IP numbers are connected with websites that have nothing to do with official OVP business.

A. Check the White House IT department to find the Microsoft Outlook-related file sharing software used to transfer data between EOP, OVP, and contractors;

B. Ask Sidley Austin about their knowledge of the WH IT Administrative Area.

OVP EO 13: Or is Sidley Austin no longer an “expert” in the “records retention” area as it once said it was; and why is Sidley Austin commenting on White House IT Department procedures?

14. Once OVP makes an assertion that is contrary to interests, we take that contrary assertion to its logical conclusion. Whether the assertion is really true is a separate issue. Focus only on what the OVP is saying with respect to rules in re the Executive Orders. Executive Orders prohibit the classification of illegal activity; and outlaw the classification of any piece of information used to advance an unlawful objective. Yet, the record is clear: Scooter Libby was prosecuted and has been sentenced for engaging in illegal activity. How does OVP explain the problem OVP has:

A. Illegal activity by its former Chief of Staff and a subsequent resignation – as would be reasonably expected of someone who no longer satisfies the legal requirements to hold the position; – yet

B. OVP would have us believe the very legal standards used to question the integrity of Libby are not relevant and that these Executive Orders prohibiting unlawful conduct do not apply.

15. This is fantasy: Standards cannot both “apply” and “not apply” at the same time.

16. OVP must make consistent legal arguments; and these arguments must be documented. Either the documents exist showing where OVP standards on agency relationship to OVP; or there is no documentation showing OVP is “not” an agency. Let’s take the OVP at its word: That it “concludes” that the OVP is not an agency:

# OVP EO 14: When did OVP arrive at this legal conclusion?

# OVP EO 15: If this OVP “conclusion” is real, why did OVP initially “comply” with a records retention requirement 2001-2003 that OVP says does “not” apply?

# OVP EO 16: What changed in the minds of OVP counsel that would make, after 2003, the legal standards applicable to OVP “no longer” applicable; and how was this change in legal position documented, communicated, understood, and reviewed by the Vice President?

# OVP EO 17: Why was OVP initially complying with a records retention requirements 2001-2003 which OVP now says does not apply?

Executive Privilege For Non-Executive Entities?

17. If it is not an agency nor in the Executive Department, then OVP may not claim executive privilege, nor rely on any precedent related to any case law that relates to any Executive Agency.

18. Note the similarity with FISA violations. The President attempted to invoke “privilege” on issues which asserted Judicial Power – asserting illegally that his non-delegated assertion of Article III judicial powers was protected by “executive attempted to invoke “privilege” on issues which asserted Judicial Power – asserting illegally that his non-delegated assertion of Article III judicial powers was protected by “executive” privilege.

19. In the case of the VP, he’s doing essentially the same: Despite asserting he’s not with the executive branch, that he can invoke Executive Privilege. There is no “OVP Privilege”; the courts only recognize Executive Privilege as it relates to Executive Branch communications; if OVP says it is not an agency of the Executive Branch, it may not invoke Executive Privilege.

OVP Must Disclose Memoranda Showing When OVP Counsel Concluded It was not an Executive Agency, yet Still Could In “good faith to the court” Invoke Executive Privilege

20. OVP is on unstable legal ground, supported by two contradictory premises:

# 1. OVP asserts it is not an agency or in the Executive Branch

# 2. OVP relies on Executive Branch agency precedents to invoke state secrets.

21. By invoking contradictory premises, only the court can adjudicate whether the OVP has or has not correctly invoked Executive Privilege. The court requires memoranda which OVP should have, indicating when OVP counsel concluded the OVP was “not” an agency under the Execute Branch; and “discovered” that OVP was “not” able to invoke “Executive” privilege; but did so despite this legal conclusion.

22. Either:

# A. OVP legal assertion in re Executive Orders is dubious, and the Vice President is responsible to follow all Executive Orders; or

# B. OVP is lying, and has been misdealing the court in that it privately concluded there was no legal foundation for OVP to rely on any Executive Branch precedent related to privilege, but

# C. OVP Provided affidavits to the court asserting a legal position it knew was inconsistent with OVP legal positions, and in contravention to legal counsel memoranda which concluded the opposite.

23. These records must be provided to determine whether OVP legal counsel have or have not committed fraud upon the District Courts in re state secrets, executive privilege, and other legal matters OVP counsel knew, or should know, could not rely on any Executive Branch precedent because the OVP is “not” in the Executive Branch nor an agency.

24. Either:

A. The memoranda exists showing OVP counsel have concluded that OVP was or was not subject to Executive Privilege; and there was or was not a problem with invoking Exertive Privilege by entities unrelated to the Executive Branch; or

B. The memoranda -- as related to this supposed “concern” OVP had that it was “not” an agency under the Executive branch -- was never reconciled with the legal counsel duty to explain how its affidavits were being submitted using precedent related to Executive Branch agency precedent which it “knew” did not apply; or

C. Legal counsel has retroactively fabricated legal positions and memoranda about original invocation of Executive Privilege for OVP relying on “something else” other than an agency connection when invoking “Executive’ privilege. (Echoes of DOJ Legal positions on FISA: Retroactive creation of legal positions, never formally documented, dubious)

25. Rather, it is the job of legal counsel to explain why it is invoking a legal claim of privilege for things it – apparently has concluded in writing – says is not linked with any agency activity, as required by Executive Privilege.

26. OVP cannot have it both ways. Yet, it asserts that OVP is entitled to assert privilege relying on “precedent” which – in the words of OVP – are only applicable to Executive Agencies, which OVP is “not” one.

OVP EO 18: How does the OVP explain the invocation of provide when that privilege only applies to Executive Agencies?

OVP EO 19: Which “precedent” is OVP relying on to claim executive privilege when all precedent relates to agencies which are linked with executive agencies, which OVP now claims it is not a part?

OVP EO 20: How can OVP rely on any case law, precedent, or legal rule from any federal court when OVP has asserted publicly, and in writing -- with the intent that Congress rely on that assertion -- that the OVP is not an agency under the Executive Branch; yet, all case law OVP “relies” on to block oversight relates to precedent about executive privilege which – in OVP words – only applies to agencies not to the OVP?

OVP EO 21: How can OVP be both an agency for purposes of executive privilege, but “not” an agency for purposes of a statute or executive order?

27. It defies reason for OVP to assert that it can rely on precedents relating to executive agencies in blocking oversight or hiding information; yet when it comes to establishing that OVP shall comply with the law or Executive Order under the Unitary Theory of Executive power, OVP would have us believe the opposite: That it is not an agency; not under the Executive Branch.

OVP EO 22: Perhaps OVP may wish to enlighten the world: How can it claim it is “not” an agency, yet invoke “agency” precedent to block (a) oversight and (b) review of entry access data?

OVP EO 23: How does OVP justify blocking “all” records related to entry-exit data in the OVP secret service logs; yet some non-OVP legal counsel has disclosed in the Scooter Sentencing Letters the subject, timing, and discussion topics of the very things OVP claims it wants to protect?

28. Once any legal counsel outside OVP discloses any information, OVP may not credibly assert that it is keeping information secret to “protect” a client, source, or other provider of counsel. Rather, the adverse inferences:

# OVP has unlawfully blocked access to public records

# OVP has asserted it is not subject to statutes specifically directed at OVP in re records retention;

# OVP has impermissibly fired archivists and other people attempting to enforce the law, amounting to unlawful retaliation against agency personnel attempting to assert their legal obligations, 5 USC 3331

# OVP has impermissibly invoked executive “privilege” to documents OVP fatally asserts are “not” part of any agency or executive branch function, yet proffered to court precedents n affidavits OVP counsel did not, as required, have a good faith belief were relevant; and corrupt persuaded agency heads to rely on these legal conclusions OVP counsel knew, or should have known were not consistent with OVP legal positions;

# OVP has impermissibly invoked precedent to hide evidence of illegal activity, not to invoke a bonafide claim of privilege; yet has not, as required, withdrawn from OVP Counsel staff per DC Bar Rule 1.16, compelling mandatory withdrawal when OVP legal counsel were aware their legal services were being used for an unlawful purpose.

29. OVP has a problem: When legal counsel have a “good faith” basis to invoke executive privilege, that is relied on by the courts. OVP assertions are stunning: By undermining its own arguments on precedent in re executive agencies and privilege, OVP legal counsel and other agency heads under OVP can no longer assert that they have a “good faith” belief of anything.

30. Rather, the reasonable conclusions are the opposite:

# OVP has asserted a legal standard which does not apply; and
# All legal counsel under OVP do not have a “good faith” belief that the motions filed with any district court are consistent with their understanding of the law.

OVP Staff Counsel Recklessness

31. Whether the OVP legal counsel have been reckless does not appear to be in dispute: The laws clearly establish that all US government personnel shall comply with the law; and Youngstown is precedent for showing that agency personnel, OVP staff, and the President’s discretion to avoid oversight is at its lowest when the statute is specific, as it is with the laws clearly establishing OVP is required to comply with the records retention act. Even during times of war.

Specific Statute Related to Vice President Records Trumps Debate on Applicability of Executive Orders

32. It is a red herring to debate whether Executive Orders are or are not pre-emptory; or whether their “lack of applicability” means OVP does not have to comply with the requirement. This is the same non-sense we heard with the AUMF in re FISA: The court and precedent is clear: When the statue is specific it trumps the generalized law and authorization, regardless the order, timing, and dates of the passage of the rule, law, statute, or governing regulation. The Congress establishes rules which OVP may not unilaterally abrogate by suggesting it is “not” covered by an irrelevant Executive Order. Congressional statutes are different creatures than Executive Orders, although they may overlap. Executive Orders which defy Congress are not lawful, unenforceable, and attach to all contractors, outside counsel, and US government employees serious consequences. (See Libby in re Perjury)

33. In this case, the clearly established Congressional intent was to compel OVP to comply with the records act (Hatch Act) through a specific statute targeted at OVP. Whether OVP argues that Executive Orders do or do not apply are, as the case with the FISA-AUMF non-sense, irrelevant. The specific law targeting OVP trumps the generalized red herring over whether OVP is or is not under any Executive Order.

Electronic Evidence Stored in Common File Drives Outside OVP Office, Connected with Microsoft Outlook, Not Disclosed To Congress As Required By Subpoena and Statute

34. However, once legal counsel in OVP asserts this non-sense, the reasonable adverse inference is that the OVP has not invoked this standard to protect a secret – because there is no secret, according to precedent, that falls under the agency head discretion to protect – it means the opposite: The invocation of state secrets, Executive Privilege, and other things by anyone is not a good faith assertion of belief, but with the opposite: Only hide evidence of illegal activity:

# Rendition

# Unlawful detention of American citizens without probable cause to engage in fishing expeditions, harassment, to dissuade opposition to illegal OVP-directed activities

# FISA violations

# Misleading the Grand Jury

# Illegal warfare

# Unlawful disclose of classified information

# False statements issued to open media with intent to corruptly persuade the voters, Congress on issues related to voting, illegal warfare, and funding for budgetary outlays (Smith Act)
Dubious OVP Counsel Affidavit Preparation in re State Secrets

OVP EO 24: Look at the precedents of ORCON and Executive Privilege: You will see that the agency head must sign an affidavit asserting that the claim of state is a good faith assertion; however, once OVP asserts that it is not an agency, how can OVP or anyone assert a “good faith” anything when it – apparently in private – has held the opposite opinion?

35. No legal counsel can credibly assert, advise any agency head that the claim of Executive Privilege or state secrets is a “good faith” invocation once OVP has a policy of exempting itself from Executive Orders, and by inference, establishing that some Executive Orders and case law which are precedent for OVP are not applicable

# OVP EO 25: How does OVP argue that its agency heads are making a “good faith” claim of privilege, yet privately OVP legal counsel conclude that Executive Branch case law, precedents and Executive Orders do not apply?

# OVP EO 26: How does anyone in OVP argue that anyone is making to any court a “good faith” assertion of state secrets; yet, privately OVP counsel have concluded the opposite: That Executive Privilege cannot be invoked on the basis of any agency precedent because that agency precedent cannot apply to OVP which is “outside” the Executive Branch?

Missing Evidence Is Probative, Grand Jury May For Adverse Inferences

OVP EO 27: Where is the memoranda that is being the OVP assertion of “State secrets” or any OVP legal counsel memoranda establishing that OVP is or is not a separate entity outside the Executive Branch?

36. If there is no memoranda, the Grand Jury may reasonably conclude:

- Assertions that OVP was “not” an Executive Branch entity were not made in good faith;
-
- OVP counsel assertions to the court that the affidavits were made in “good faith” were recklessly asserted without regard to attorney standards of conduct; and supervisory counsel had no plan in place to ensure subordinate DC Counsel Bar under OVP Counsel remain in compliance with their attorney standards of conduct;

# Dubious OVP Legal Counsel Position, Inconsistent With Affidavits

OVP EO 28: Where is the legal memoranda which OVP counsel must have produced establishing that agency heads are not subject to any Executive Orders; but despite this legal conclusion, have asserted through agency head memoranda, that the Executive Orders and precedents do apply to OVP?

OVP Legal Position Raises Doubts About Claims of Privilege and State Secrets in re NSA, FISA, and Rendition

37. There must be documents supporting the OVP legal position: OVP counsel filed agency heads affidavits to support the invocation of state secrets. Yet, the affidavit contains language, precedent, and other things which only apply to the Executive Branch. If OVP establishes, as it asserts in writing to Congress, that it is not subject to the Executive Orders and outside the entities, then the OVP must have concluded this at some point, yet knowingly directed and advised Agency heads to invoke a “good faith” belief in something that OVP knew, or should have known was contrary to the OVP legal position on whether those specific precedents in that agency heads’ state secret claim was bonafide.

38. There must be memoranda discussing this inconsistency; or laying out a clear case for agency heads that the precedents relating to the Executive Branch support the agency head invocation of their statements and case law in that affidavit. Congress needs to subpoena the following:

# Records from OVP legal counsel which invoke the state secrets claims on the basis of agency precedent;

# OVP legal memoranda which specifically state that OVP and agency heads are relying on these executive branch precedents to invoke state secrets

# Identify the specific legal counsel who have issued this memoranda from OVP establishing a clear connection between (a) OVP legal positions; (b) agency head assertions in affidavits to a court; and (c) subsequent legal positions to the contrary; and (d) all evidence showing that the assertion of executive privilege was not a good faith assertion, but was knowingly made in contravention to OVP legal positions which it knew, or should have known, were not consistent with signed affidavits by legal counsel, OVP personnel, and agency heads.

SUMMATION

39. OVP has fatally asserted a legal position contrary to the interests of the President and Vice President.

40. Asserting the OVP is not subject to Agency oversight or Executive Order is moot: Statutes directly controlling OVP conduct on records retention makes the debate about whether the OVP shall or shall not comply with EOs irrelevant.

41. Once the OVP asserts a dubious legal foundation on applicability of requirements to the OVP, this opens the barn door to review whether claims of privilege have or have not been dubious, not just on Vice Presidential records, but the expansive issues ranging from FISA, NSA, DoJ NSLs, and Rendition.

Expansive Implications of OVP Claim in re Rendition, GTMO, Prisoner Abuse, FISA Violations, Illegal Warfare, Unlawful Detention of American Citizens, Warrantless Interrogations of American Civilians, Unlawful Gag Orders To Be silent About Unlawful US Government Activity

42. Each of these legal issues has been repeatedly asserted to be as issue which cannot be discussed. Yet, the only way that OVP can invoke this privilege is to assert e legal position which contradicts precedent: The OVP cannot be in the Executive Branch for purposes of hiding evidence; but outside the Executive Branch to avoid review. OVP data is always subject to legal review, especially when it is linked with unlawful activity, and US Government policies to ignore the law or retaliate against those who attempt to investigate and enforce the law.

43. OVP cannot rely on any claim of privilege because to rely on on that claim would contradict their current position. All current OVP claims of execute privilege rely on precedent linking OVP claims to precedents of agency heads.

44. If we take OVP at its word – that it is not an agency under the executive branch – then the primary purpose of the affidavits on state secrets was not to hide any national security objective, but to hide evidence of illegal activity. This falls outside the protections of Reynolds which requires that the “substantial” objective of the classification is to protect a secret. OVP dubious assertions belie the criteria in Reynolds.

45. If there was a bonafide claim of “national security”, agency heads would not have had to lie when they falsely claimed that they had a “good faith” belief that the assertions were true, when they knew, or should have known, that the reliance on executive Branch precedent was irrelevant to the OVP staff.

46. Either OVP counsel

# A. Are reckless in not noticing the pattern of illegal activity; and/or

# B1. Know about the illegal activity and have not resigned as required by DC Bar Rules 1.16; and/or

# C. Have failed to ensure that subordinate counsel in OVP’s office are conducting themselves in conformance with DC Bar Atty standards of conduct.

47. Questions

OVP EO 29. Which legal counsel is not concluding the objective of Vice President is to achieve an unlawful purpose?

OVP EO 30. Where are the memoranda showing OVP counsel have reservations about these legal conclusions; when will the DC Bar, US Atty, and Congress have a chance to review these concerns of DC-Bar Affiliated counsel in re OVP legal compliance?

OVP EO 31. Where is the memoranda and concerns of OVP legal counsel showing there is a tremendous amount of anguish about OVP legal opinions being used to hide illegal activity? Lack of any “other view” suggest OVP legal counsel either has defectively ignored all other views; or it has no comprehension of the legal problem it, as counsel, finds itself.

OVP EO 32. Where is the OVP legal counsel memoranda outlining their reservations that their legal claims in the affidavit – which agency heads have signed – is not linked with a “good faith” belief in anything; but a false assertion that the precedents in the affidavit are relevant; but they have concluded in writing that the OVP cannot rely on any executive branch precedent related to state secrets?

OVP EO 33: How does OVP legal counsel explain how it is “not” an agency for purposes of the statute or executive order; but it “is” an agency for purposes of legal precedent to hide illegal activity? (Please provide a copy of the OVP Legal counsel “On’ and “Off” switch used to communicate to subordinate OVP legal counsel when to follow or not follow the rules of reason, one thought to be the foundation of American Rule of Law.)

OVP EO 34: Why should anyone believe that the OVP is invoking state secrets for anything other than a dubious reason, which the courts strike down as unlawful, and all statutes and executive orders prohibit?

OVP EO 35: How does OVP legal counsel justify asserting a claim of “privilege” on something that OVP legal counsel knows, or should know, is not justifiably linked with OVP legal conclusions in writing to the opposite.?

48. If OVP assertions are linked with credible legal analysis, the following OVP Legal counsel must exist and Congress has the authority to review in establishing whether OVP legal counsel have or have not been reckless; or whether they have nor have not issued false affidavits from agency heads to the court:

# The affidavit is not linked with precedent which OVP can rely on;
# All Executive Branch and agency precedents are not controlling; and
# All legal precedents and case law related to agency privilege have not force or authority for OVP legal counsel to rely on when asserting the OVP is not an agency under the Executive Branch.

49. Either OVP legal counsel has the memoranda; or the memoranda do not exist where they should be; or the memoranda has been destroyed, in volition of the Hatch Act which bars destruction of evidence when counsel knows, or should know, the records would be subpoenaed in re allegations of war crimes, illegal activity, and other matters the OVP remains accountable for.

OVP EO 36: Which legal counsel can explain how their legal memoranda asserting that the OVP is not an agency can be reconciled with the opposite conclusion that the OVP is going to rely on precedent linked with Executive Agencies?

OVP EO 37: How can any legal counsel submit to any agency head or court any affidavit that its claim of state secrets or any legal motion is credible; when the legal precedents linked with that invocation of state secrets is linked with precedents associated with legal entities and agencies which are, in the words of OVP, (paraphrasing) “irrelevant” and “unrelated” to the OVP; how was this documented; where are the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) training reports related to this DC Bar Rule 1.16 rule?

OVP EO 38: How can OVP counsel justify continuing service for the OVP when it is clear that the only basis for the OVP invocation of state secrets is not to protect any information or national security secret, but to hide evidence of illegal activity?

OVP EO 39: When did OVP legal counsel last review DC Bar Rule 1.16 compelling counsel to resign when they learn their legal services are being used to advance illegal activity? (“Shall” in the rule is a mandatory requirement. Explain in action. Convince Grand Jury Counsel is not so reckless and oblivious to reality that they are not feigning false, misleading, or dubious “beliefs.”)

[L. Coyote]

16. MORE: Overseeing OVP Financial Shutdown

Overseeing OVP Financial Shutdown
Submitted by Anonymous on 23 June 2007 - 8:18pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29170#comment-6581


Possible Framework To Enforce Financial Discipline in OVP

The President has a pattern of issuing signing statements saying he will not comply with Congressional intent. One formulation is for the President to assert that he will not prohibit funds from going to the OVP.

Notice the “floating personnel assignment system” as we saw with GTMO and Abu Ghraib. Depending on the weather, personnel are hidden within a particular unit to hide them from the Red Cross; or to put them under “lawful control” of the President; but their real allegiance and loyalty is with an illegal entity.

# A. If funding is shut down to OVP, what EOP-funded personnel will be “detailed” to the OVP?

Recommendation: Language must explicitly prohibit President form issuing any signing statement that permits detailing of any EOP personnel to OVP unless provided for by statute; or if the President notifies in writing to Congress that he plans to detail these personnel. Failure to comply shall be an illegal act which the State Attorney Generals may prosecute should US Attorneys not prosecute within 30 days of notification of this violation by the President or any budgeting or contracting officer working for any contractor, US government, or any outside entity.

# B. What is the plan of Congress to shut down funding to all OVP-related contracts in EOP which support OVP plans, policies, and other things; or permit any EOP-related funds from being transferred from any agency to OVP use?

Recommendation: Remind the Congress that the existing legal requirements prohibit payments for unlawful purposes. Any EOP-WH transfer for funds to the OVP for unlawful reasons violates Article 1 Section 9 and is punishable by 5 USC 3331. Additionally, language must explicitly delegate to the States the authority for States to prosecute any federal official in federal court who refuses to permit US Attorneys to enforce this requirement. All contracting officers working for any government entity, outside intermediary, or other entity may be prosecuted if they transfer any funds to programs, OVP, or any other entities which Congress has prohibited. The President has no power to block the States from enforcing their right to have the Constitution enforced. A threat of a veto is meaningless.

# C. Does Congress plan to take action should the President issue a secret executive order transferring budget authority from EOP-WH-Executive Branch to OVP?

Recommendation: Remind contracting officers at the paying stations, contractors, and outside entities that any funds used to support any unlawful Executive Order permitting funds transferred to OVP cannot be enforced; and are illegal contracts. The contracting personnel transferring funds for these unlawful objectives may be prosecuted for fraud, false claims, and illegal expenditures of public money outside what is permitted under the Constitution. The President has no power to direct any funding for illegal purposes which Congress expressly prohibits. All Presidential or OVP orders to defy this requirement, ignore it, or encourage work arounds are not lawful and have no force. Anyone following these illegal orders may be prosecuted, 5 USC 3331.

# D. What is the plan of Congress if POTUS issues a secret finding that funds restricted from OVP is “outside” the Constitution, and not something the President will enforce?

Recommendation: 5 USC 3331 is a legal duty on all government employees. Contractors may not lawfully spend funds for things Congress prohibits; and they may not request reimbursement. Congress may direct all DoD overseas entities to be banned from providing any direct or indirect funding to OVP; and prohibit all foreign nationals from transferring any funds to OVP through any direct or indirect method. Congress has the power to use the SWIFT system to ensure OVP is not provided any direct or indirect funds; and may direct the Department of Justice to enforce this statute, assigning FBI agents to monitor the warrants issued to review all funds send through the SWIFT system to support OVP or overseas entities.

# E. What will be done to ensure OVP does not raid black programs in DoD, DoJ, Commerce, or issue debt in secret to pay contractors for activity which OVP has been prohibited?

Recommendation: Congress may direct immediate impound of all funds used for any unlawful purpose. Bounties may be awarded to any OVP personnel who reports evidence that the Vice President or anyone in OVP has received any funds from any black program to circumvent the Congressional ban on funds to OVP.

# F. What will be done to ensure OVP does not, as was done during Iran-Contra, use “other methods” to raise funds outside what Congress prohibits?

Recommendation: Congressional committees may subpoena SWIFT records to review any funds going into any OVP-related entity; and direct all OVP-related entities to provide a regularly accounting of all money received, funds directed, and accounts debited.

# G. Where does OVP plan to get the money if Congress prohibits transfer of funds from DHS, DoJ, or DoD to OVP to circumvent this asserted authority outside Article 1 Section 8?

Recommendation: Congress may issue subpoenas for all records of funds transferred from any entity to the OVP; any activity which supports the OVP may be declared illegal and issue arrest warrants to compel witnesses to explain why funds have been used in contravention to Article 1 Section 9.

# H. The Constitution does not prohibit Congress from cutting the salary of the President. The Constitution is silent on whether the Vice President’s salary may be cut. What if the President asserts that he alone has the power to decide how the OVP funds shall be used; and Congress has no power to state how these funds may be used?

Recommendation: Congress alone has the power to impeach. However, Congress may through legislation direct the State Attorney Generals to prosecute a sitting President when the US Attys refuse to enforce the law, or when Grand juries have been blocked from reviewing this evidence of illegal OVP/POTUS conduct.

# I. What will Congress do to monitor whether OVP-related personnel are floating in and out of EOP to hide their connection with OVP; and maintain funding despite Congressional efforts to shut that funding down?

Recommendation: Congress may direct OMB to provide quarterly accounting of all personnel transfers. All OMB personnel who refuse to comply with this reporting requirement may be issued with subpoenas and, if warranted, prosecuted 5 USC 3331.

================

TO which, someone replied:
Submitted by Anonymous on 24 June 2007 - 3:40am.

just impeach

[L. Coyote]

17. MORE: Lawfulness of Expenses

A1 Section 9 -- Lawfulness of Expenses
Submitted by Anonymous on 23 June 2007 - 4:35pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29170#comment-6570


There is no basis for Addington to argue that there is an "imminent" threat mandating the OVP keep these plans secret; or that the OVP must "secretly" do osmething that is unconstitutional. NSA has FISA-consistent software that can lawfully comply with the Constution and FISA requirements. OVP directs otherwise.

Would encourage a review of the Article 1 Section 9 Clause: If Perino will not say that Cheney "is" part of the Exeuctive Branch, what evidence does she have that the OVP is spending money only for lawful things?

If the OVP will not comply with any or all EO, and the OVP will not assent to Congressional review, then the adverse inference:

# OVP has illegally ordered, outside COngressional authority, personnel to support consolidatation of judicial-legislative-exeuctive power in the OVP

# OVP has drafted secret contracts, as with FISA NSA violations, to gag contrators and other entities from discussing unlawful OVP judicial findings, which unlawfully assert non-delgated Article III powers

# OVP has unalwfully created rules only delegated to Congress in ARticle 1 Section 8

# OVP, outside COngress, has used funds to raise an independent army, to violate the laws of war.

Questions for OVP

What similations has OVP funded outlining a "hypotehtical" attack on the District of Colubmia?

What combat forces has the OVP assumed the President and Congress will raise to "defend" the District of COlubmia from these forces under the direction of OVP?

What situation would the OVP forsee that it could "legally" issue orders to order an attack on the Congress or District of Columbia?

Which contractors have been issued gag orders, as with NSLs and FISA violations, to keep quiet about the OVP private militias which are outside COngressional oversight?

Does the OVP plan to share with the Congress the details of any funding spent on simulations using simulation software on movement of resources, troops, and fuel to support these "hypoethical" plans?

Which contractors have been gagged from discussing the document destruction orders related to these plans; or other unlawful direction to contractors, intermediaries, and other entiteis to keep quiet about Unconstitutional plans of the OVP?

What is the plan of the US Marshalls to seize evidence in the OVP related to these illegal plans which do not fully inform COngress?

Why is the PResident's public satements on Iran not consistent with the private intelligence given to Memers of Congress, as was the case with Iraq WMD?

Is it the intent of OVP to rely on knowingly falaw public Presidential statements related to Iran to "justify" an illegal support for combat forces otuside Congress?

How does OVP plan to support its "private" army once the contracts related to these illegal efforts have been disclosed, and funding terminated?

[L. Coyote]

18. CREW: Bush invokes "executive privilege" to prevent testimony of Miers and Sara Taylor = 9 July 2007

Bush invokes "executive privilege" to prevent testimony of Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor
Submitted by crew on 9 July 2007 - 12:24pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29370


No oath, no transcript. That's the position of the Bush administration when it comes to testimony about the U.S. Attorneys scandal. Today, Bush raised the stakes with Congress again:

President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors.

The White House, however, did offer again to make former counsel Harriet Miers and one-time political director Sara Taylor available for private, off-the-record interviews.

This is going to end up in the courts, for sure. The Bush administration does not want any staffers -- or former staffers -- swearing to tell the truth to Congress. Now, that says an awful lot.

===================
COMMENT:

Declaration of American Dictatorship
Submitted by Anonymous on 14 July 2007 - 4:33pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29370#comment-10343

Declaration of American Dictatorship

We the People shall use lawful methods to share, disseminate, and publish this declaration.

Declaration of Illegal Dictatorship

We the People of the United States of America, under authority of Amendment 10 of the US Constitution, having reserved to ourselves the unreviewable power to declare this government an unlawful dictatorship: Do declare the United States Government separate from the United States Constitution, and illegally acting without lawful authority as an unlawful dictatorship.

Precedent For Declarations

The Declaration of Independence is precedent for We the People to issue any declaration; courts may not review this declaration by We the People; courts only have power to review, issue orders; declarations are not within the delegated powers of the Judiciary to Review.

We the People As Sovereign Are Unreviewable

Having declared the United States government an illegal dictatorship, we reserve and exercise our retained powers to insulate this declaration from any review by any judicial, executive, or legislative officer. The Assertion of non-delegated powers by We the People is an unreviewable power.

We the People are not the 4th branch, nor a competing faction, but the sovereign.

The President has no power to undermine the enforcement of law. This is impermissible.

The Congers has no lawful power to refuse to enforce the law: This defies their oath.

The Judiciary has no power to remain silent on unconstitutional US government action – speech is not a freedom but a duty. The oath was freely taken, but not asserted.

Assertion of Non-Delegated Powers

We the People in asserting our retained power which have not been delegated to the US government, nor reserved to the states, assert our unreviewable power to

Declare all contracts supporting an illegal dictatorship to be unenforceable;

Collect evidence of illegal US government dictatorship

Seek assistance and do things Congress, the States, and the Judiciary, and the Executive have been denied or not delegated.

We the People retain the sole power to review the acts of the illegal dictatorship using any lawful method. All evidence of the illegal government dictatorship is assumed admissible. Legal counsel, aware of this illegal dictatorship, may be persecuted for having impermissibly rendered their legal services to support this illegal dictatorship. They are innocent until proven guilty.

Where the courts refuse to act as a referee to constrain all three branches from assenting to this illegal dictatorship, We the People retain the right and power to recalibrate this US government when it becomes a dictatorship.

We the People Broadly Assert Unreviewable Powers

All retained powers of We the People may be broadly asserted without review. We the People are absolutely immune to any oversight by the Congress, the Executive, or judiciary to the expansive assertion of all powers We the People retain, reserve, and have not delegated to the Federal or State governments.

We the People broadly assert our powers. The United States government has no power to abrogate the US Constitution or declare illegal the US Constitution; nor may it block the assertion of our unreviewable, retained powers. This illegal dictatorship has no standing to review, challenge, modify, or change this declaration. We the People assert this power broadly; and the US government has not been delegated any power to review, interfere with, comment on, or thwart.

We the People broadly assert our powers with the express intent that they are not reviewable. We the People have awoken to our responsibilities and shall lawfully assert broadly all power retained, reserved, and non-delegated powers until this illegal American dictatorship is no more.

Congress, the President, and Courts are not delegated any power to rule, conclude, or obstruct the full enforcement by lawful action this assertion of power by We the People. Congress, Judiciary, and Executive have not been delegated any power to void declarations that they have illegally supported a dictatorship

Illegality of Orders, Documents, Contracts Supporting Unlawful Dictatorship

Illegal contracts supporting this dictatorship may not enforced or performed.

Illegal signing statements may not supplant their exclusive rule making power delegated only to Congress through Article 1 Section 8;

Illegal assent by the Judiciary to unconstitutional assertions of Presidential power remain reviewable by We the People

Illegal assent to war crimes remain on the table as a subsequent war crime.

We the People declare this President’s war making against the Constitution and the People illegal and not a supportable by any thing, order, singing statement, contract, or private agent.

All Presidential orders, Congressional acts, and judicial orders supporting this illegal dictatorship are contrary to We the People and this Constitution. All illegal Executive Orders, signing statements, and administrative rules putting into effect this illegal dictatorship have no force over we the People -- They are only applicable to those who choose to unlawfully cooperate with this illegal dictatorship.

We the People are broadly asserting our retained, inherent powers to decide when or if we choose to case lawfully confronting this illegal American dictatorship. We the People:

May broadly assert our powers without any constraint but law;

Retain the power to enforce this Constitution;

Retain power to block illegal shipments and efforts to support an illegal dictatorship;

Retain the power to openly report, track, monitor, and gather evidence of all Congressional, Judicial, and Presidential activity to put this illegal dictatorship into effect.

We the People are not required to wait until the US government finds it convenient to review this declaration; nor in having exhausted all options within the US government. We the People may – without warning – arbitrarily assert our power to declare this US government an illegal dictatorship.

Whether this illegal dictatorship shall or shall not survive is beyond what Congress, the President, or Judiciary can control. We the People retain the power to use all lawful options and newly created, retained, and non-delegated powers to lawfully end this illegal dictatorship.

Unresponsive US Government

The power to declare the US government an illegal dictatorship is one we reluctantly exercise. We the People may, without review, exercise this power anytime we choose, regardless the inaction or decision to not yet use this reserved power. We the People have attempted to work with the existing political and legal process to no effect.

The US government has well demonstrated it is an illegal dictatorship:

Congress has illegally discouraged the state from passing proclamations for impeachment; has not taken action to enforce the law against illegal efforts of the Executive to thwart prosecutions.

The President has refused to end illegal warfare; Congress has refused to end funding for that illegal warfare

Congress has refused to impeach and blocked state efforts to prosecute this sitting President and Vice President;

The President has illegally retaliated against prosecutors attempting to enforce the law. The Executive asserted illegal power has self-made law, then defied it. This is an illegitimate dictatorship.

The Congress – by refusing to challenge illegal power – has unlawfully assented to illegal assertions of power, not cut off funding for illegal activity, and has continued to provide full funding despite the power to zero-out budgets for unlawful things

The Judiciary has illegally assented to unlawful assertions of non-delegated powers: IT has impermissibly assented to Executive intrusion into the Judiciary; and remains silent on illegal efforts of Congress to assent to Presidential discretion on the oath and laws.

The US Government has, by its action, well demonstrated it is an illegal dictatorship: IT engage in illegal warfare, but refuses to end funding for that illegal activity; the US Government is engaged in an unlawful rebellion against the US Constitution, We the People, and Supreme Law; it refuses impermissibly to honor its oath

We the People retain the sole power to declare when this illegal American dictatorship has recalibrated itself, and ended its illegal rebellion against the US Constitution. Congress is only delegated the power to define treason and rebellion; but the Constitution is silent on whether Congress has any power to declare this government a dictatorship. Where the Constitution is silent, that non-delegated power is expressly reserved to the States and People. Congress has thwarted State efforts from asserting their lawful powers to issue proclamations calling for impeachment. Where the Congress refuses to permit States from taking action on reserved powers, We the People may reasonably presume those powers remain with the People.

Oath

Our oath is not to marginalize the Constitution from enforcement against this illegal dictatorship; but to preserve the Constitution from domestic enemies supporting this illegal dictatorship. All procedures and activities to support this illegal dictatorship are contrary to Our Will.

We the People are exercising our retained power and responsibilities to defend this Constitution from this illegal dictatorship. We the People remind Members of Congress, the President, and Judiciary of their oath – to defend this Constitution from domestic enemies. All US and State government officials are reminded of their oath not to the President, but to the US Constitution.

The oath exist to deny discretion and compel action when times are difficult. The US government officials supporting this unlawful dictatorship have said things are different and avoiding action despite their legal duty to confront and prevent this illegal dictatorship. That is impermissibly. There oath requires action, a clash, prosecution, impeachment, and a refusal to provide funds for what is illegal and unresponsive to the law – Our Will.

Foreign Allies To Lawfully End this Illegal Dictatorship

We the people may cooperate with our allies around the globe to lawfully end this illegal American dictatorship using lawful, non-violent methods. Constraints exclusively for the US government and states do not apply to We the People.

Non-Delegated Powers Denied, But Asserted By This Illegal American Dictatorship

Congress has the sole power to declare war; the President was never delegated any power to declare war abroad, at home, against we the People or the Constitution.

The US government does not have any power or authority to assent to an illegal dictatorship; the Courts may not assert a non-delegated power, nor subject powers not delegated to the United States Government to any judicial review.

Any acts or orders of the Judiciary, Congress, or Executive to ignore this declaration are unconstitutional; no power was delegated to any branch of government to both support an illegal dictatorship, but then strike down a declaration of that unlawful dictatorship.

Any effort by Congress, the Judiciary, or Executive to review, interfere with, obstruct, or delay full assertion of these powers is illegal, unenforceable, and evidence of illegal activity.

The Constitution remains the Supreme Law. All Statutes remain in full force. Any activity contrary to law and/or in support of this illegal dictatorship be entered into evidence

Illegal Contracts Unenforceable

We the People shall revoke, not perform on, and reuse to cooperate with any and all illegal contracts supporting this illegal dictatorship: Resources, supplies, services and other contracts not limited to fuel, food, material, commodities, legal assistance, and safe harbor. The illegal dictatorship may not lawfully procure, contract, or use any resources, commodities, funds, securities, instruments, expertise, services, material, goods, documents or electronics to support this illegal dictatorship.

We the People declare all contracts supporting this dictatorship illegal and evidence of unlawful activity. Destruction of those contractors, records, and other ongoing activity to support this illegal dictatorship may be entered into evidence as obstruction of justice. All attorney-client agreements supporting this illegal dictatorship are not lawful and cannot be recognized.

We the People may discuss the lawful means to revoke all illegal contracts supporting his illegal dictatorship; and may freely refuse to perform or render services to put into effect all unlawful contracts supporting this illegal dictatorship. Contracts which support an unlawful objective or an illegal dictatorship may not be legally enforced to support this unlawful dictatorship and its unlawful purposes

The President, Congress, and Judiciary have no legal authority to compel performance of these illegal contracts to support this illegal dictatorship. This impermissibly would ask that the US Government enforce illegal contracts; but not be accountable for failing to enforce the Supreme Law: The US Constitution. Imbalanced enforcement of contracts is a sign of an illegal dictatorship.

Nuremburg is precedent for prosecuting civilians for war crimes when they provide goods and services for illegal dictatorships continuing illegal warfare. All contracts to support this illegal dictatorship by not be legally enforced. All contracting officers are reminded of their oath so the US Constitution: Money, funds, consideration, and securities may not be expended nor exchanged for illegal activity.

Unlawful Support of Illegal Dictatorship

Those illegally supporting this unlawful dictatorship are in unlawful rebellion against the Constitution; and have violated their oaths of office.

This is an internal dispute. All laws are in full force. The President, Vice president, Members of Congress, and all Judicial Officers retain all lawful power and authority until lawfully removed from office.

This declaration shall have full force of power by We the People. It may or may not be made available to the US Government. This declaration shall be fully available to all citizens, residents, and members of the international community.

Any precedent related to any powers We the People retain, but have no asserted do not apply. We the People may not be held to any standard, only those we freely choose to recognize and are bound:

- The Supreme Law and US Constitution
- The Lawful statutes
- All treaty obligations

We the People shall develop oversight guidance to assist Congress in recognizing illegal dictatorship powers to assist with evidence gathering

Personal Safety and Security Contracts Not Subject to This Declaration

One exception -- to this broad assertion of power in declaring all contracts illegal -- is the requirement that all physical safety and personnel protection services shall remain in full force, despite those contracts supporting an illegal dictatorship. The primary purpose of the contract is not to directly support an illegal dictatorship, but to safeguard the personal safety and security of personnel. That they may be engaged in or supporting an illegal dictatorship does not remove the contractual obligation to ensure their physical safety.

We the People expressly deny ourselves the right or power to interfere with the personal safety of Members of Congress, the President, or Vice President’s office. All action which may affect the physical safety of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, or the Judicial branch is illegal; all contractors which exist to support the physical safety of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and Judiciary shall remain in effect despite that protection supporting this illegal dictatorship.

[L. Coyote]

19. CREW: Bush on Libby: Full pardon still possible = 3 July 2007

Bush on Libby: Full pardon still possible
Submitted by crew on 3 July 2007 - 1:26pm.
http://citizensforethics.org/node/29260


George Bush was asked directly about the Scooter Libby case today. His response left open the possibility that Libby would receive a full pardon according to Reuters:

President George W. Bush on Tuesday refused to rule out a pardon for former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a day after sparing him from prison in a case that helped seal his Iraq legacy and gave ammunition to Democrats.

Bush, who angered Democrats but reassured conservatives by saving Libby from serving a 2-1/2 year prison sentence, told reporters who asked about an eventual full pardon for Libby: "As to the future I rule nothing in and nothing out."

======================
COMMENT:

House Could Pre-Empt Libby Pardon With Impeachment
Submitted by Anonymous on 3 July 2007 - 3:31pm.
http://citizensforethics.org/node/29260#comment-8942

The House could prevent a pardon by impeaching Libby.

"he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment"

Yes, former US government officials have been impeached after they have left office. This is not unprecedented. whether they are convicted by the Senate is a separate issue; pardons have no effect once impeachment starts.

The Court and Jury have provided all the evidence warranting an imediate impeachment. There is no review required. The House Judiciary could take the Court verfict and vote to affirm the conviction with an impeachment.

Let the Senate GOP show they are not willing to affirm the Grand Jury.

[L. Coyote]

20. CREW: Administration needs to explain repeated violations of PRA = 28 March 2007

Bush Administration needs to explain repeated violations of Presidential Records Act
Submitted by crew on 28 March 2007 - 11:45am.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27374


CREW wants a public explanation as to how the White House complies with the Presidential Records Act. Today, we sent a letter to the Director of White House Administration asking for that explanation.

As we've reported earlier, CREW wrote to Representative Henry Waxman asking for an investigation into whether the White House has violated its mandatory record-keeping obligation under the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

Melanie Sloan made CREW's position clear:

It appears that White House staff members routinely violated the law by using RNC email accounts for official business. The public deserves to know how the White House explains this end-run around the law. Congress passed the PRA to make clear that White House records belong to the American people; this administration is prioritizing legacy over legality.

Recently, emails have been released showing that top White House staff routinely have used Republican National Committee (RNC) email accounts

===============
COMMENT:

And what about security?
Submitted by Anonymous on 11 April 2007 - 7:06pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27374#comment-4816

Is no one concerned that they also used GMail, AOL and everything else to conduct these communications? For an administration that harps about security, they can't even plug the breeches in their own office, never mind worry about national and international security. It's truly no wonder that the public has no confidence in this band of incompetents. When is someone going to begin impeachment proceedings before they completely destroy our nation?

[L. Coyote]

21. A question comes to mind. Was there a "Deep Modem" RUSE at work?

I have the impression that the Deep Modem frenzy may have been a clever ploy by some politico to divert traffic from CREW.
Was someone copying and pasting portions of this material, then also creating the frenzy in the blogosphere for rank in search engines?
Was the "Mystery Poster" "Deep Modem" event designed to divert traffic from these posts and the CREW site?

I think I know the answer. It is late. I'll look for more "Anonymous" comments over my morning Java.

[Buttercup McToots]

22. WOW...

Holy Moly...

[Buttercup McToots]

26. What LC?

I'm confused...
Was DM just a plant?
And who is anon from Crew...?
Sooo confused...:crazy:

[L. Coyote]

30. How search engines determine rank for web sites is what I'm considering

in assessing the possibility that some "Deep Modem" posts may have been a RUSE.

One way to divert traffic from a high ranked web site is to create another site that uses all its keywords, then also create more links to the, in this scenario, "diversion" site than there are links to the one attacked. Understanding the search engine algorithms is how this is accomplished, usually by competing business interests.

So, I wonder if someone was attempting to keep people from finding all this incredible legal scholarship on CREW. I'm thinking it is the Occam's razor explanation for the buzz about those few other posts elsewhere that mimic "Anonymous" on CREW.

Did I mention, DONATE to CREW:
https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/CREW/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1299&t=Redesign.dwt

ON EDIT: Further reflection on this prompts another question for Josh Marshall and other website owners where the "pseudo- ?" Deep Modems were posting.

"Was any of the diversion done from USG computers, in a possible further violation of the Hatch Act?"

Now that would be an entertaining bit of irony!! :rofl:

[L. Coyote]

40. PORNO Search Engine Attack at CREW: Comment has 5,000 GIBBERISH links in RANK sabotage

One way to defeat a web page's ability to attain high rank in a search engine is by filling it
with gibberish words and links, especially so with porn keywords.
Someone posted 5,000 links from gibberish words and spam keywords like "sex" and "pornosexo" etc.
This type of assault appears intended to lower the rank of the CREW website by making it appear to be a porn portal.

Help CREW overcome the attacks they are subjected to:
https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/CREW/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1299&t=Redesign.dwt

The posted Comment is in the page:

BREAKING: CREW files Ethics Complaint against Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Submitted by crew on 5 March 2007 - 12:28pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27270

CREW just asked the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) for his role in the growing scandal surrounding the dismissal of David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney from New Mexico. As noted below, Senator Domenici called Mr. Iglesias to discuss the status of a pending corruption case. The release and our complaint against Senator Domenici can be found here:

Today Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to investigate whether Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) violated Senate Rules by contacting the U.S. Attorney in Albuquerque, New Mexico, David C. Iglesias, and pressuring him about an ongoing corruption probe.

Sen. Domenici has acknowledged that he contacted Mr. Iglesias to inquire about an ongoing corruption probe ...........

==================
Scroll down for the sabotage comment.

[L. Coyote]

23. CREW: Why doesn't Vice President Cheney want Americans to know who visits him at home? = 30 May 2007

CNN's Cafferty asks: Why doesn't Vice President Cheney want Americans to know who visits him at home?
Submitted by crew on 30 May 2007 - 7:53pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28590

A very good question indeed:

===============================
COMMENT:

Cheney's Created A Separte Archive in Violation of 44 USC 2207
Submitted by Anonymous on 31 May 2007 - 1:52am.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28590#comment-5968

Once Cheney destroys one set of records, he is, by default, creating a separate repository for all non-destroyed documents. This is not in compliance with the statue.

I would like the DOJ OLC to provide all memoranda to the Vice President and his counsel on this issue; and release a copy of that memoranda to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. This data retention problem needs to be reviewed in the context of the US Attorney e-mails; RNC e-mail accounts; and the funds going from the RNC to the Libby-lawsuit-fund website/and the RNC hosts.

I'd like for Cheney to produce all records related to the apparent decision to block the archivist from having any input; and find out what attempt if any the archivist has made to secure these documents outside the VP Control: "the Archivist may, when the Archivist determines that it is in the public interest, enter into an agreement for the deposit of Vice-Presidential records in a non-Federal archival depository."

A. What documents sent through the RNC e-mails has Cheney sent directing the Archivist to do or not do anything?
In effect, what Cheney is doing -- by destroying things -- is creating a separate archive, which is expressly illegal: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the establishment of separate archival depositories for such Vice-Presidential records.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002207----000-.html

B. Where are these records being housed, and why is Cheney creating a "separate" depository in violation of 44 USC 2207?

C. Does Cheney comprehend that _his_ electronic data sent through the RNC servers, and not archived, amounts to a separate archive expressly _prohibited_ by 44 USC 2207?

[L. Coyote]

24. CREW: Monday is the day for Senate vote of "No Confidence" in AG Gonzales = 8 June 2007

Monday is the day for Senate vote of "No Confidence" in Attorney General Gonzales
Submitted by crew on 8 June 2007 - 5:24pm. Alberto Gonzales US Attorneys
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28744

Monday will be a big day in the Senate for the troubled Attorney General. The Democratic leadership is going to bring the "no confidence" resolution to the floor:

The Senate will take a procedural vote Monday afternoon that Democrats will call a "no confidence" vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The vote essentially determines whether the Senate can take up and debate the resolution offered by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) that simply states Gonzales, "no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and the American people"

This vote, called "the motion to proceed," requires 60 to pass.

========================
COMMENT:

Beware
Submitted by Anonymous on 9 June 2007 - 4:08pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28744#comment-6184

No confidence vote on Gonzalez: It will be a litmus test to see where Members of Congress stand, sit, or refuse to assert their oath. Legislative action may not necessarily be protected when it is evidence members of Congress have not fully asserted their oath, 5 USC 3331.

One Step To Accountability

I'm reluctant to "applaud" Congress -- or the Senate through a no confidence vote on Gonzalez -- for doing what it took an oath to do: Defend the Constitution without any mental reservation. Their applause came November 2006; to date, they've not demonstrated they take their oath seriously. No celebration, but prosecution.

There are several ways for Members of Congress to defend this Constitution, each has been rejected, and more evidence of 5 USC 3331 violations:

# A. Impeachment;
# B. Prosecution of a sitting President ;
# C. Responding to state proclamations for impeachment ;
# D. Enforcing 5 USC 3331 violations against their peers, VP, and President for violating their oath; and
# E. Forwarding information on Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports, which the President and AG have not filed, documenting their decision not to enforce the law, or report to Congress decisions not to fully comply with the statutes, as required.

The evidence of inaction, malfeasance, and recklessness not just by this President, VP, AG, and Members of Congress is overwhelming. Normally, we would have -- with this level of illegal conduct -- have had an impeachment. Because of the unfavorable weather, Congress has refused to do what it took an oath to do: Enforce the law.

American citizens in the wake of these abuses have been told -- not asked -- to believe the fiction that Congressional inaction on impeachment is the final word. This is a grave, fatal error.

Americans are not stuck with a destroyed Constitution, nor a reckless Congress, nor a decision to accept this President. Rather, the reality is the opposite: We still have a Constitution; inaction is not a problem, but evidence; and there are other options to prosecute this sitting President and Vice President.

However, the legal community appears to have gotten things as equally wrong as the White House has done in Iraq: Poor assumptions, invalid plans, and a failure to face reality. The legal community in America does not enjoy immunity to accountability. They can be prosecuted, disbarred, and -- if so adjudicated for war crimes by a lawful tribunal -- executed, as was done at Nuremberg.

Impeach Or Prosecute

America's legal community does attend conferences, conducts Continuing Legal Education (CLE), and if the weather is favorable communicates with their peers in the ABA practice area, going so far as to celebrate their involvement with the ABA as evidence of their reputation, standing, and competence. Sadly, America's citizens have been told -- not asked -- to embrace the fiction that once someone is a lawyer they are immune to oversight, questions, or commentary. Wrong answer.

The District of Columbia Attorney Disciplinary Rules -- as meaningless as they might be, as evidenced by the lack of visible, public enforcement of the DC Bar rules -- clearly states that attorneys hall resign and remove themselves from illegal activity when their clients3 are using the lawyers advice and expertise to advance unlawful objectives. Lawyers cannot permit their presence to support in any way illegal activity. (See DC Bar Rule 1.6, 1.16 on mandatory withdrawals.)

Against this backdrop, the American legal community -- when confronted with the grave war crimes, illegal FISA violations, prisoner abuse, illegal surveillance, unlawful interrogations, grave breaches of Geneva, Constitutional violations, and other illegal activity -- has sought fit to pretend nothing can be done. They are wrong. Congress has no power to prevent any attorney from enforcing 5 USC 3331 violations; nor blocking any attorney from filing a complaint against their peers in the law profession.

CREW, in part, stands for "responsibly for ethics in Washington," and is not isolated to a profession, career, but a physical location: The nation's capital. Ethics implies an adherence not just to government standards of conduct, but to the important legal principles and standards of the DC Bar. Where the DC Bar has apparently recklessly not enforced its standards of conduct because of the passing winds, it is incumbent upon CREW -- as a group of citizens -- to look at the options on the table to defend this Constitution.

Failure To Remove Oneself From Illegal Activity

This Congress and legal community has not asserted its oath, nor has it fully exercised all options to defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the White House, Congress, Department of Justice, and the DC Bar:

# A. Prosecutions of a Sitting President. This option has bee been rejected, not asserted, and not implemented; and the lack of action is, in the face of well known discussion of this option, admissible evidence of malfeasance and 5 USC 3331 violations.

# B. Impeachment, responses to State Proclamations calling for impeachment. Congress refuses to keep impeachment ton the table; and has actively thwarted state efforts to pass proclamations, in accordance with House Rule 603, permitting state legislators to forward proclamations calling for the House to investigate, and if warranted impeach the VP and President.

# C. War Crimes indictments. Contrary to the assumption that hat the German war crimes prosecutor would lead where Congress and American lawyers/courts have shown recklessness, the German courts deferred to the United States asserting that nothing is stopping US courts from adjudicating these matters. Sadly, the German prosecutors did not look through the rain of confusion in the legal community, nor comprehend the malfeasance of the legal community on issues of prosecution, impeachment, and state proclamations. All legal counsel have an Article 82 duty under Geneva to ensure the laws of war are enforced, not explained away with inaction as this Congerss and legal community have recklessly done.

# E. DC Bar Ethics Investigations. The DC Bar is arguably reckless in not taking the public information related to Gonzalez, and linking it swiftly with the evidence of war crimes, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and timely disbar DOJ, DoD, and WH counsel.

# F. Title 28 and Title 50 Exception Reports Despite mounting evidence Congress did not receive reports -- as required -- in writing from the AG and President that they would not enforce the law, Congress is silent.

# G. Oath of Office Enforcement, 5 USC 3331. Given the above inaction and evidence of having not fully asserted ones oath, is not being litigated.

Inaction, Malfeasance As 5 USC 3331 Evidence

As you can see from the above, there are many options to defend this Constitution. Yet, the lawyers and legal community leadership have -- for whatever reason, perhaps because of the pitter patter of rain drops -- been asleep since 2001, and somewhat twitched their eyes thinking today might be a good day to create another excuse for their inaction. More evidence of not having fully done their jobs, 5 USC 3331.

The options on the table able are simple: Either do your job, assert your oath, and defend this Constitution; or you will be prosecuted. Members of Congress freely took an oath with the other leaders in the US government to do exactly the opposite of what they are doing: Defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies.

Even then-Senator John Ashcroft as Senator eloquently discussed the two main options to enforce the law against a sitting President: Either the President is impeached; or the President is prosecuted outside impeachment. Those are Ashcroft's words, sentiments, and clear policy which the Bush Administration well knew before pushing for Ashcroft's confirmation by the GOP. Bluntly, the GOP endorsed the two prong approach which Ashcroft advocated: Where impeachment was not timely being used, prosecutions remain on the table.

Yet, the fiction being peddled by the American Congress is that once Congress takes impeachment "off" the table, that there is no option. Wrong again. Prosecutions remain on the table, regardless what table Congress pretends it is sitting. We make no comment whether that table is before the Constitution, in the jailer's cell, or at the foot of a noose, in the wake of a lawful execution order.

Today, we are being asked to evaluate whether the Senate "idea" of "possibly" "voting not to have confidence" in Gonzalez is a good idea. This Congress must be joking. Impeachment remains an option which this Congress refuses to assert; this Senate and DNC leaders have collectively worked to thwart state proclamations; and they've taken no action to visibly forward evidence of 5 USC 3331 violations to ensure this Constitution is defended. This Congress voted to rubber stamp more appropriations for an illegal war; it is hardly of any significance that a rubber stamping-DNC-GOP-combined-poodle-Congress is going to tip the scales when it issues a vote of no confidence against Gonzalez.

The only thing which will inspire any attention in the DOJ Staff counsel, White House political office, VP, EOP, or the President's office is one thing: The prospect of jail time without possibility of pardon. Ken Lay and his cronies at Enron refused to stop their abuses until they self-destructed; the same has happened, and continues to occur with this President and his cronies.

It is arrogant for this Congress to believe that if they choose to take impeachment off the table, that nothing will be done. No, this decision about our future has been made, and is not up to the voters in 2008. The issue is now, and what this Congress will or will not do to choose between the Constitution and this President. The two are not in the same corner. Similarly, the job of the legal community, and the legal leadership in the ABA is to decide whether it will or will not enforce 5 USC 3331 indictments against their peers; and work with State officials to enforce and defend the Constitution from their peers in the DC bar who have arguably failed.

Going forward, all citizens are reminded of one thing: Your Constitution remains a real document, it has not been destroyed, and it is safe. The illusion that it has been "destroyed" is meaningless: Those who assert this are making excuses to assent to a fiction -- excuses to not defend this Constitution, as required by the oath. This Constitution remains the Supreme Law, to which the legal community in the DC Bar have a legal obligation to defend, even against their peers.

Unlawful Assent To Illegal Use of Legal Services For Unlawful Purposes

Yet, as we've seen with the GOP, the DC Bar apparently has a loyalty not to the Constitution, but to their personal relationships, and common agreement to do nothing. The illusion is that a decision of Congress to do nothing is a final decision. No, the other option is to force the legal community to explain why it has not -- as required under their oath -- to fully assert their obligations and defend the Constitution with prosecutions of a sitting President, VP, and Attorney General. The Senate has no power to block any prosecutions; rather, any assertion that prosecutions should "wait" is more evidence of recklessness: The lawyers and Congrats are pointing at each other arguing, "We have to wait for . . ."

War Crimes: No Statute of Limitations, No Deadline

No. The American voters told you the waiting was over. ON the table are 5 USC 3331 indictments against Members of Congress, and legal counsel who have recklessly defied their oath; blocked impeachment efforts; and decided not to prosecute those who are threats to this Constitution. Delays until 2008 is not a "strategy" but Evidence of 5 USC 3331 violations.

On the table are two main options to defend this Constitution -- one is legislative through impeachment, which the Senate has no power; and the second is through prosecutions, a judicial tool to target, and, if warranted, impose the death penalty on those who have been complicity with war crimes. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes; and "waiting" until 2008 to do something isn't relevant: The war crimes issues will still be on the table, regardless the voting date.

The American public numbers 300 Million. The legal community is less than 1Million; Congress is 535. Here's a hint for Congress and the legal community -- you are outnumbered. We the People continue to gather evidence of your 5 USC 3331 violations; and your delays are not inspiring, but evidence. It remains to be understood how your decision to "wait around" until 2008 will or will not be seen as evidence of 5 USC 3331 violations.

The two options before We the People are not options that only Congress, the legal community, or government officials can control. Rather, We the People may gather evidence of 5 USC 3331 violations; and elect to state levels of government those who will enforce and defend the US Constitution, even bringing indictments against Members of Congress and their peers in the legal community.

The short answer for Gonzalez and the Senate: You remain targets of 5 USC 3331 violations; and in 2007, this many years after impeachment has not been exercised, you are not the targets of war crimes indictments related to allegations that you have failed to enforce the Geneva Conventions. Impeachment is an option which you have refused to assert; and state proclamations are options which you have openly rebuffed. Your inaction is evidence of war crimes, recklessness, and 5 USC 3331 violations.

Jail Time As Catalyst For Legal Counsel To Honor Oath

State Grand Juries may also hear evidence of Federal Crimes. The DC Bar well knows that an empanelled grand Jury at the state level -- when it hears evidence of federal crimes -- that evidence is considered admitted; and all other courts must accept that State Grand Jury's finding of facts. Congress has a job to do: Defend the Constitution. Congress is communicating, with the legal community, that it is not a reliable partner in asserting its 5 USC 3331 oath of office, or defending this Constitution.

We the People have options. The issue is not waiting until 2008, but finding the leadership at the state level that will issue indictments, prosecute Members of Congress, disbar counsel, and litigate the legal issues against the VP and President. Congress has no lawful power to deny, thwart, or obstruct lawful efforts to enforce 5 USC 3331 against legal counsel, Members of Congress, and the VP or President by state officials.

War Crimes Indictments Against Members of Congress, Legal Counsel

The issue is not whether the President can escape impeachment or convince Congress to do nothing ;but the opposite: Given the decision not to impeach in a timely manner, there is no excuse for the legal community and others to have not fully exercised the second prong: State Prosecutions of this VP and President. The legal community has an explanation due to the public, and this does not come in the form of rebukes, but in an answer: Why should the public believe you should not also be indicted -- all of you -- for failing to assert your oath, defending this Constitution, and fully assert 5 USC 3331? There is stunning silence.

It appears the legal community knows fully well it has a problem; and that the DC Bar has no real response other than more excuses. Yet, the oath of office, not the excuses, is the measure by which We the People through grand juries indict the lawyers, Members of Congress, this President, and the Vice President.

It is time for the Congress to awaken. On the table is this Constitution, the option to impeach, 5 USC 3331, and state proclamations that have been thwarted. Also, is the option to prosecute under Geneva Members of Congress and the legal community who have refused to fully assert their oath and enforce the Geneva Conventions. The issue is not a voting decision, or politics, but whether the Congress an and legal community will awaken to reality: When impeachment is not used, prosecutions must be used; when the oath of office is not asserted, then that is a secondary cause of action though the eh judicial system to lawfully target lawyers, Members of Congress, and other government officials.

We the People took a vote on November 2006. We voted for change: Leadership to enforce the law, not make excuses. This Congress is giving us excuses. A vote in the senate that it has "no confidence" in Gonzalez is meaningless: It may be a litmus test, but We the People have seen enough tests: State proclamations have been blocked, we see no impeachment, and prosecutions have not occurred. The test was 1776. We the People won. The test results were codified in 1789; and Members of Congress took an oath to defend the test results. This oath of office was taken freely, without any mental reservation, and with the promise to God that they would use all lawful options to defend this Constitution.

This Congress and this legal community have failed. There is chance for correction: They can put impeachment on the table, start investigations, prosecute their peers in the legal profession, and ensure there is no more additional effort to block state officials from fully defending this Constitution. The way forward is for the Congress and legal community to decide whether they will assent to the Constitution, or make excuses. Prosecutions of this Sitting President, VP, Legal community, and Members of Congress are on the table; along with indictments for war crimes, FISA violations, illegal warrants, and other breaches of Geneva.

Time for the Congress an and legal community to wake up: We the People have the power -- all 300 Million of us -- to drat a New Constitution outside the amendment process, and ram it down your throat. It's been written, and you will not be happy with the increased oversight, diluted power, and less defence given to Congress and the legal community. You have squandered your public standing, not asserted your oaths, let this Constitution fall into disrepair, and told -- not asked -- the public to put up with your wreckage. Wrong.

Lawfully Confront Legal Community, Congress

Time to remind the Congress and legal community:

# 1. Your 5 USC 3331 oath office is a legal requirement to do the opposite of what you are doing -- nothing;
# 2. Impeachment cannot be taken off the table; inaction on impeachment is evidence of 5 USC 3331 violations;
# 3. Regardless the impeachment decision of Congress, prosecutions are a second option which can be used when impeachment is not timely asserted; and
# 4. The DC Bar needs to be publicly reviewed to get a clear story why they have not reviewed the evidence, and brought their evidence to the public and Grand Juries/US Attorneys on issues of 1.16/1.6/5 USC 3331 issues as they related to illegal activity which WH counsel has not timely withdrawn.

If there are no impeachments and no prosecutions of this AG, legal community, President, or VP, then the Congress and legal community have given the world clear evidence that the US leadership and legal community are not taking their oaths of office seriously; not interested in using all options to enforce Geneva or the Constitution; and are not willing to assert their power through prosecutions when the political leadership refuses to impeach.

Attorney Prosecutions On The Table

It is a serious matter when the national leadership and legal community communicates they will not enforce treaties using their own system of laws. Other nations have two options: To use judicial power to impose discipline; or to take this dispute to the battlefield. Indeed, the US Congress and legal community, despite well demonstrating in Iraq that they will not comply with either nor perform well, have no hope of prevailing either in court nor on the battlefield. We see no evidence that any lawyers has a "master plan" to lead American combat forces to create a magical buffer around them to insulate them from war crimes indictments, combat losses, or reciprocated violations of Geneva directed at US legal counsel and Members of Congress. But, despite no track record of competence in either the legal or combat forums, on the Congress and legal community trudge pretending nothing will happen.

Small problem: We the People; 5 USC 3331, the oath of office; no statute of limitations for war crimes against lawyers and Members of Congress; and the expansive power of the grand jury to issue subpoenas against Members of Congress and lawyers to support indictments for oath of office violations, war crimes, and reckless malfeasance.

There is one Constitution. The rule of law shall prevail. The issue for the legal community and Members of Congress to decide is which side of the table they want to e on: With We the People and the Constitution; or with the illegalities and the President.

The lawyers and Members of Congress have illegally chosen to join the President on the wrong side of the table. We the People in 1789 told you where to sit. It is time for the legal community and Congress to get up from their wrong position, join we the People, and prosecute this Attorney General. 5 USC 3331 violations attach to legal counsel who sit at the wrong side of the able, especially wen they well know DC Bar Rules mandating a withdrawal.

It is a grave error for the Congress and legal community to have jointly chosen to recklessly ignore their oath of office, not impeach, block state efforts, and not prosecute. There is no evidence the Constitution is gone; there is plenty of evidence Members of Congress and the DC Bar could be facing 5 USC 3331 issues in re war crimes indictments. The error was for the Congress and legal community to believe they could "wait around" for something to happen. Wrong answer. The waiting ended in 1776, and the answer was what you took an oath to defend, but have recklessly ignored: The agreement between We the People: This Constitution.

If you do not impeach or prosecute this AG, then that inaction becomes additional evidence for your 5 USC 3331 indictment. You have no option but to assert your oath fully, and keep all options on the table. We the People shall compel you to assent to the rule of law: Either trough this Constitution, or through a New Constitution. You have no choice: This Constitution remains the Supreme law,and you shall protect it, or become legal targets for grand jury indictments, 5 USC 3331. These are issues of war crimes, malfeasance, and decision by the Congress and legal community to collectively not assert their oath to defend this Constitution with impeachment and prosecutions of a sitting President, VP, and AG.

Bad choices, faulty legal analysis, and additional evidence of recklessness by the American legal community. You are outnumbered, and remain on the wrong side of the table. Time to get up, join We the People as we broaden this public investigation of recklessness by Members of Congress and the legal community. Go ahead and have a "vote of no confidence against Gonzalez"=- additional evidence you are not asserting 5 USC 3331, not using all lawful options to prosecute, and not timely asserting all powers to defend this Constitution through impeachment.

War crimes indictments in re 5 USC 3331 against Members of Congress and American lawyers are on the table. There is no statue of limitations for war crimes. WE the People were betrayed in the wake of the November 2006 election; we're not going to "wait around" for the next one. The investigation continues, broadens, and will continue for eternity until this Congress and legal community assent to this Constitution. You have no choice, and you freely choose to ignore your oath.

Beware.

[L. Coyote]

25. MORE: State Prosecutions of Sitting President

Anonymous responds to other comments:

==============
State Prosecutions of Sitting President
Submitted by Anonymous on 11 June 2007 - 7:26pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28744#comment-6231

When Congress is stuck in the headlights, time to take them off the road, and get some brighter lights inside the EOP: War crimes prosecutors going after EOP/DoJ legal counsel.

Congressional inaction on Gonzalez shows Congress has marginalized itself. Time for Congress to wave the white flag, and give way to the State AGs who can prosecute the Attorney General: For failing to ensure the States have a guaranteed enjoyment of a Republican Form of government . voting to do nothing about war crimes is a "legislative-discretion"-option, but evidence of reckless defiance of 5 USC 3331, the oath of office compelling action to defend the Constitution.

I found this comment interesting :

"the threat of impeachment could bring Gonzales' resignation because Bushco can not stand the investigation which would ensue."

I have little comfort the desired-implications of the threat might materialize.

1. Congress isn't inclined to threaten anything;

2. Even if Congress threatened impeachment, it wouldn't be any different than another threat: This President doesn't respond to the law; threats to enforce the law seem absurd, hollow, and meaningless.

3. The President has no legal basis to block enforcement of the law; yet, despite having no power to block enforcement, he is doing just that. Refusing to respond to Congress, although Nixon learned the heard way, is not impossible, especially if your party-faction puts the party above the Constitution, and in effect controls the minds of the majority-opposition. The President doesn't appear to be swayed by any "fear" about investigations, as the investigations Congress starts -- outside prosecutions -- appear to be easily derailed.

4. Even if there were investigations, not clear that the Congress -- through any means, except a direction for a prosecution -- will have any power to dissuade this President. The House has the power to discuss any issue, but refuses; and the Senate could refuse to pass all appropriations, but keeps rubber stamping. Why would the President possibly bother to respond to any "threat," when the money still shows up, regardless the war crimes?

Actions, Not Threats

Overall, I would like to think that Congress can "threaten" something and the President would change his ways. But there is no prospect this Congress, even if were to threaten anyone, would get the target of that threat to take Congress seriously. Congress must accept that it is not a credible check on the President as long as the Congress (a) refuses to withhold funds; (b) conducts meaningless inquiry by granting immunity for worthless testimony; or (c) refuses to direct US Attorneys to investigate, and if warranted prosecute the President and Attorney General.

There is an option, though. Other legal counsel could organize themselves, work with attorney generals at the states, and issue indictments. Legal counsel in America need to explain what they were doing when Congress refuses to impeach; and the Federal government refused to prosecute. Impeachment is supposed to take a second seat when prosecution is the only option; however, when impeachment is not used, that does not mean Congress has spoken or that prosecutions cannot occur.

I don't agree -- in the case of this Congress -- that impeachment is the "best" option. The "available" option is prosecution and/or impeachment which Congress is not interested in. Time for the non-Federal entities to rise to the occasion, remind their legal peers about prosecuting a sitting President, and do it.

[L. Coyote]

27. CREW: NY Times to Congress: Keep up the search for Rove's e-mails (and Mehlman's ..) = 20 June 2007

NY Times to Congress: Keep up the search for Rove's e-mails (and Mehlman's, too)
Submitted by crew on 20 June 2007 - 1:39pm. Karl Rove Ken Mehlman Presidential Records Act

LIke most observers, the editorial writers at The New York Times are finding it difficult to understand why the Bush administration and the RNC can't find all the e-mails from White House staffers. The Bush administration had a legal obligation, under the Presidential Records Act, to preserve those communications. That seems not to have been a concern:

The post-Watergate law requiring the preservation of presidential records has proved to be no match for the Bush White House’s stealthy use of back-channel e-mails via the Republican National Committee’s computer system. Congressional investigators have discovered that while 88 White House staffers had accounts over at the G.O.P. computer banks, there are no e-mail archives to be found for 51 of them.

Congress has demanded that the White House and the R.N.C. provide the full e-records as it tries to figure out the story of the political purge of United States attorneys. Claims by the White House and the R.N.C. that they’re trying their best to comply are increasingly hard to believe, and we strongly urge Congress to continue the search.

We strongly urge Congress to continue the search, too. Strongly.

===========================
COMMENT:

Details: Discussion of Online Collaborative Tools
Submitted by Anonymous on 20 June 2007 - 5:37pm.
http://citizensforethics.org/node/29149#comment-6459

The Following is an opinion, not statement of fact nor accusation of criminal activity. These views may not necessarily represent the views of CREW, its officers, or anyone associated with this website.
We disagree with the NYT emphasis on e-mails. Based on Ralston's denial, it appears there is something else going on.

Question: Karl Rove didn't discuss this claim with you?
(Ralston, response): No.
Mr. Berenson (Ralston Counsel). Do you want to clarify that last answer?
Ralston. I don't recall. I don't have a recollection of anyone discussing with me specifically that claim.

Ralson leaves open the possibility that the GOP and WH-EOP have an online collaborative file sharing program such as SharePoint, which integrates with MicrosoftOutlook. However, this is a third-party website, which RNC could hide, say it is not a file system they own, and avoid providing it to Congress. What review has Congress does on online collaborative file sharing programs which are not related to e-mail, but could fit nicely within Ralston's denial above?
Prior, related, basis for statements below:
( http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29131#comment-6429 )

Details

What's curious about Ralston's denial is that she, as Goodling did, leaves open other possibilities. This information builds off the discussion related to Ralston's apparent vague, open-ended comment. Ralston stated in her deposition that she was not aware of any discussions related to this claim:

I don't have a recollection of anyone discussing with me specifically that claim.

The above Ralston comment leaves open the possibility that Ralston was aware of non-discussions: Online White House-EOP-DoJ communications in a collaborative electronic environment. As Ralston as carefully worded her denial, she does not specifically exclude the possibility that she, while working for Rove, was not aware of any online electronic data exchange; or collaborative work product review. One such product that integrates with Windows Office 2007 is SharePoint from Microsoft.

The following information is not an endorsement of this product, nor a solicitation to buy, sell, or review the product for private or commercial purposes. The information below may related to online collaboration between White House Staff, legal counsel, and other contractors on issues related to war crimes and Geneva violations. If you are in the law enforcement community, intelligence services, or legal profession and have a duty to report allegations of war crimes-related evidence, you are encouraged to discuss the information below with counsel for advise how to proceed and remain in compliance with your legal and ethical obligations under Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions.

Basis for Subpoena Discussion

The information below forms the basis to request a subpoena of all White House IT information contracts, software, and data which is used in a collaborative environment. The current Congressional Subpoenas do not appear to adequately focus on non-email data interchange. As Ralston's denial is worded, she leaves open the possibility that the White House staff has engaged in online data transfer using software and hosts outside the White House on separate software systems.

Allegations

1. There is evidence identifying Microsoft Outlook as one of the software products which Karl Rove used. Karl Rove is widely reported, and it was disclosed on the DOJ Staff e-mails to the Congressional Senate and House Judicial Committees in the "data dump", that he had an F:drive. The nomenclature and spacing for his published/inadvertently disclosed e-mail archive is in the format matching Microsoft Outlook.

2. Microsoft Outlook, Internet Explorer and Firefox have RSS-intercept capability

3. Using methods which the NSA cannot intercept, we can confirm that Sidley Austin, and personnel associated with Bradford Berenson, formerly of the White House counsel's office and Ralston's defense counsel, use RSS intercept systems to track online communications. Testing of the Sidley Austin interception capabilities confirms that personnel assigned to Sidley Austin are using software products to timely capture within hours published material matching issues, personnel, names, and key areas of interest to Sidley Austin.

4. The Scooter Libby Court identified the speed with which counsel was able to quickly mobilize within 72 hours to rapidly collaborate on a work product for the court to review.

5. The Department of Justice US Atty e-mails indicates DoJ Staff uses Microsoft Outlook, as evidenced by the calendar templates matching closely the Microsoft Outlook Calendar Options.

6. Ralston in her deposition did not exclude the possibility that the WH, DoJ Staff, and outside counsel were or were not using non-verbal methods to interact. Ralston only asserted that she was not aware of "discussions" leaving open the possibility that she was aware of online interactions, briefings, and other electronic information posted to a common website, and collaboratively updated.

7. Microsoft Outlook SharePoint has an e-mail notification system to notify users of their password; and the e-mail notifications are archived, can be deleted.

8. Using methods which the NSA cannot intercept, we can confirm that EOP and Sidley Austin have jointly met on common websites, and have connected to common websites outside the District of Columbia in websites linked with Indiana. The IP numbers for the White House EOP and Sidley Austin are jointly linked with common websites that are not obviously related to law enforcement, intelligence, national security, or bonafide official US government business.

Disclaimer

Stop reading if you do not understand this:

The following information are not statements of fact, but are allegations based on the above theory. We continue with the presumption that the information is not allegations of illegal activity directed at any specific individual with Sidley Austin, nor are they conclusions of law about the conduct of Ralston.

9. Rove's C: Drive format is consistent with Microsoft Outlook, compatible with Sharepoint. Based on information and belief, the White House EOP and outside counsel have collaboratively worked on various intelligence briefings, work products, and other "non discussions". Mary Walker of the Department of Justice General Counsel's office has been widely reported in the open media has been one of the chief architects of the policies to circumvent Geneva. We judge the speed, efficiency that these rendition-interrogation briefings supports the conclusion that online collaboration, not using e-mail, was used coordinate the communication, briefing updates, and process information from the interrogations.

10. Bradford Berenson of Sidley Austin, self-disclosed on a PBS Frontline interview that he did not personally attend briefings, but was aware of intelligence gathering operations. We judge his statements could be linked with data sharing protocols and software such as SharePoint; and the means by which Berenson and other WH counsel were informed of the progress of the intelligence gathering was through online file sharing systems similar to SharePoint; or some system of sharing files that did not rely on e-mails to send and receive data.

11. SharePoint is not the only software product related to Microsoft Outlook which would permit online collaboration, avoid discussions, and fall within what Ralston asserted. Other products the public may be familiar are LotusNotes, newsgroups, permission notes, remote access to data files. Each of these require sign-in and access authority sent through e-mails.

12. The speed with which the Military Commissions Act, and Scooter Libby Sentencing Defense documents were coordinated are instructive. As the Scooter Sentencing Court concluded, it is very unusual for counsel to be able to process this much information pro bono, yet not have major data errors. We judge the legal defense and amicus briefs related to the Scooter Libby Sentencing memoranda, and notifications about the Sentencing Letters, was widely known on WH, EOP, and DOJ newsgroups, online filing sharing systems.

13. A close reading of the Scooter Libby Sentencing Letters indicates on more than one occasion that personnel were notified of the letters, yet they were emphatic that nobody asked them to act. This suggests that there was some sort of common website, newsgroup, or method of sharing the status of the court information with a close knit group, that there were legal disclaimers on the information, and that legal counsel had access to a closely held group.

14. DoJ and WH E-mails regularly refer to issues as a "close hold." This implies that there is a file sharing system, not necessarily related to e-mail, that permits DOJ and WH personnel to quickly share information within EOP, OMB, and other divisions.

OBJECTIVES

15. We judge the Ralston change in response, prompted by counsel Berenson, is very important. As with Goodling's less than emphatic denials, prompting DOJ OPR to review issues related to the AG, we conclude that Ralston restatement has enough wiggle room in the denial to permit other methods of "non discussions".

16. One apparent assumption of Congress was that the DOJ Staff counsel and others involved with the US Atty firings and Ambramoff issues was that there was specific e-mail sent to coordinate issues. We do not dispute that e-mail was being used. However, recall the scope of Goodling's defense counsel's assertions as a basis to induce Congress to grand immunity: That unless she got immunity, she would not be able to provide valuable information which was incriminating. Goodling's counsel specifically asserted that perjury was on the table if Goodling was not granted immunity. We judge this assertion was a red herring to trump up Goodling's apparent value to the Congress, and create the impressing that because Goodling's legal consequences might be grave, she could not share any information. Similarly, we judge Berenson is doing the same in re Ralston. However, we believe that the sleight of hand in re Goodling is slightly different with Berenson-Ralston: Rather than emphasize her value, Berenson appears to be confirming the existence of Ralston's knowledge of e-mails, yet this has nothing to do with the ambiguous denial of Ralston. Note closely what Berenson keeps focusing on in the deposition -- e-mails -- and contrast that with the denial Ralston officers: Leaving open that non-e-mails were used to share information. As with Goodling, it appears Counsel is creating a red herring for Congress. If this theory is true, then we need to reconsider, in light of Ralston's half-incomplete-denial, what Berenson might be attempting to do with his objections. We judge Berenson is not a disinterested counsel acting only to assert his clients' interests, but has a personal interest in seeing that the alleged non-email communication is suppressed, not raised; and that he has a motivation to distract attention from Ralston's apparent knowledge of Rove's Outlook software products that integrate with SharePoint: Berenson would have been in a position to get access to this SharePoint information.

17. Note closely the PBS Frontline statements Berenson made in re Rendition: He was fairly open. Yet, years later Berenson asserted that the issues involving foreign countries could neither be confirmed nor denied. The issue is Bronson's' apparent inconsistent statements on whether he can or cannot discuss rendition. We judge after the first disclosures of rendition of the PBS Frontline, there was a meeting between WH Counsel, other legal counsel, and Sidley Austin personnel to develop a common media message and commentary. One possible means to review the "new policy" -- that of neither confirming nor denying information on rendition, as opposed to openly commenting on rendition -- was through a online collaborative tool which shared a policy memo. IT remains to be understood how this policy memo, if it existed on this narrow issue of rendition, was crated, reviewed, sent, coordinated; and what "not discussions" occurred to promulgate the new policy on media comments related to rendition.

18. Also implicated with the rendition-FISA violations-warrantless surveillance-Prisoner abuse are several DoD-DOJ Contractors: Abraxas, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, SAIC, Titan. Using the online collaborative tools, contractors could quickly update policies, procedures, and share information, but by pass the e-mail interception NSA uses. Whether this was occurring, or whether this assumption was reasonable remains to be seen. The speed with which the Military Commissions Act updates were coordinated after copying and pasting the UCMJ clauses suggests that there was an on-line collaborative tool which contractors, legal counsel, and other personnel were able to quickly update, make changes, leave comments, and produce a final MCA. Whether the final language was Constitution remains a legal mater outside this discussion.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCOVERY

18. It is not appropriate to focus only on E-mails. To date, it does not appear Congress has the independent means to specifically target, detect, and sample on-line collaborative tools and data sharing platforms unless Congress receives a copy of the e-mail authorization for that particular platform. We recommend Congress request for all e-mail approvals for any online platform; and that all codes related to the access of these platforms be independently reviewed by a special master and sealed.

19. We are concerned that the Congress appears to be narrowly focusing on e-mails, without necessarily considering the non-email methods for WH, EOP, and outside counsel to have "non discussions". How the online collaboration relates to e-mails, links, URLs, decisions, timing of meetings, or subsequent actions/patterns/decisions remains to be understood. Ralston's changed comment does not in any way exclude the possibility this has occurred and qualifies as a "non discussion."

20. We judge he objective of the online collaboration -- outside e-mails -- was to hide the connection between DoJ and DoD Contractors; insulate them from discovery; and hide the specific information contractors provided to the online collaboration platform. If this online collaboration model was used to have "non discussions", there would be specific contractors accessed the collaboration tool, made changes, or provided comments. Of interest to Congress within these online collaboration tools would be the legal comments related to counsel on issues of Geneva.

21. We judge Ralston's incomplete denial leaves open the possibility that these online tools exist; because their apparent method of communication would be to allegedly violate the Hatch Act, this would remove any expectation of confidentiality or privilege; and legal counsel knew or should have known because the objective of the online collaboration was not to comply with the law, their alleged illegal activity could not be protected by ORCON or any expectation of privilege.

22. Note closely again, Berenson's comments on the PBS Frontline piece: Comments were made with the expectation that they would not be disclosed; and that he "believed" the actions were lawful. Whether this belief was reasonable is another issue: Once Berenson discusses the existence of these comments, he's disclosed specific communications or "non discussions" to working products which fall neatly within the Ralston non-denial, yet would arguably amount to a disclosure that there was a specific online collaborative data exchange on intelligence, rendition, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and other alleged illegal activity. How this relates to Abramoff and the ongoing Grand Jury remains to be seen, adjudicated, and beyond this discussion.

TESTING OF THIS THEORY

Before we can accept the above theory as having any merit, there are some tests that can be done based on Berenson's comments during the Ralston deposition. If we presume for the moment that the above theory is true, but reconsider Berenson's questions and comments in light of this, we might have another view of what he was doing.

A. Did Berenson hope to focus on e-mails knowing full well that the real information which Congress needed was not in any discussion, e-mail, or meeting, but within a separate platform unrelated to e-mails?

B. To what extent did Berenson hope to mislead Congress to have them believe that the incriminating information was in e-mails, yet Ralston's denial does not exclude the possibility of non-emails to collaborate?

Once we consider the Berenson's statements, we might reconsider his objections and ask whether he was consistently making objections to protect Ralston in re e-mails; or whether Berenson permitted some questions inconsistently on e-mails, when he should have objected to all of them. Based on Berenson's incomplete and inconsistent objections, we judge that Berenson was not objecting to questions about e-mails, but attempting to block inquiry into incriminating evidence, which may or may not be an e-mail.
We encourage the Congress and Staff counsel to re-approach Berenson's objections with an open mind and reconsider whether he consistently objected; and consider the online collaboration theory:

If Berenson was objecting to having Ralston disclose anything incriminating, why Would Ralston's denial leave open the possibility that non-emails were used to "not discuss" information in the online format? Berenson's objections during Ralston's deposition do not appear consitent, especially in light of Ralston's non-denial denial.

We judge Berenson's motivation when he objected during the Ralston deposition was not to protect his client, but to act as a smokescreen from the alleged online collaboration tools and "non discussion" and get Congress to believe that Ralston was "only" worried about e-mails. It appears based on Relston's non-denial of "non discussions" that Berenson was objecting as a red herring from the real data in the common file tools connected with Microsoft Outlook.

We judge the e-mails are, in themselves, only part of the picture; and the larger story is the method by which the files were accessed by outside counsel, lobbyists, contractors, and other DoJ-EOP personnel; and to the extent that the e-mail destruction has not bee to hide information and content, but to hide connections with named legal counsel, contractors, and third parities which the Vice President hoped to suppress by blocking disclosure of the OVP entry-access list.

Again, whether the VP can create a separate data base outside the statute or block the archivists from making a decision is a separate issue; however, in light of the Scooter Libby Sentencing letters which disclose the names and meetings between legal counsel and the OVP Staff, we conclude the OVP has no legal standing to "block" disclosure of information which counsel disclosed freely, voluntarily in the Scooter Sentencing letters.

Interrogatories

1. Which software tools has the WH-EOP-DOJ used to engage in "non discussions"?

2. Which Microsoft Outlook-compatible software does EOP-DOJ use to engage in online collaboration?

3. How do we explain the speed with with the Libby defense counsel worked, pro bono, to coordinate in 72 hours this many documents?

4. What was the means by which Berenson, Walker, and other legal counsel coordinated their information sharing on intelligence briefings?

5. How many contractor visits related to rendition, FISA violations,a and prisoner abuse is the OVP attempting to hide by suppressing the entry-access lists?

6. Which online software tool was used to exchange information related to prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and share media strategy between OVP, EOP, DoJ, DoD?

7. Using the DoD Public Affairs and Information Warfare models known to Mary Walker of DoD Genral Counsel's office, was it the aim of DoD General Counsel
to coordinate the "Geneva violation plan" using online collaboration tools?

8. What was the nature of the non-disclosure agreement between the US Government and DoD-DOJ contractors on issues of rendition, FISA violations, NSLs, intermediary support for subpoena processing: Were contractors not allowed to mention that online collaboration tools were being used?

9. To what extent did the DoJ and EOP coordinate the updates to the MCA using these online collaboration tools?

10. How much input did lobbyists with access to these online collaboration tools have in updating the plans to transport prisoners, engage in interrogation and prisoner abuse, and bypass the known NARUS STA 6400 system which focus on e-mails?

11. To what extent did the GOP rely on their knowledge of the NSA intercept capabilities when developing online collaboration tools?

12. To what extent did the GOP legal counsel assigned to the White House counsel's office know or should have known that the "non discussions" using online collaboration tools did not fully comply with the Hatch Act in re data retention requirements?

13. Why is SIdley Austin's IP number connected to the same site as EOP in Indiana?

14. Which Sidley Austin RSS feeds return results on issues of war crimes surfaces while mentioning issues of rendition, outside counsel, data collaboration, and alleged legal counsel involvement with that activity ,despite the DC Bar Atty Rule 1.6 compelling counsel to withdraw when legal services are being provided to support illegal activity?

15. When Sidley Austin did the financial review of Boeing -- the mother company of the firm alleged attached to rendition -- did Sidley Austin use extensively the Microsoft Outlook SharePoint to coordinate its audit; or was the information contained only in non-electronic format?

16. How does Berenson explain his knowledge of the Ralston e-mails: IS Berenson still on the WH F:Drive access list with Karl Rove; and is this Sidley Austin access part of a contract which has been fully disclosed on the required A-76 contract?

17. Which newsgroups or data file sharing do the NSA-DoD-DoJ-DHS contractors associated with warrantless surveillance, warrantless interrogation of US Citizen not want Congress to know about; and how does Ralston wish to restate her denial in terms of these "non discussions"?

18. Who controls the newsgroup, file sharing system, or platform which WH, outside counsel, and DoD-DoJ contractors allegedly use to share information related to MCA, rendition, prisoner abuse, intelligence?

19. Is the MITRE Corporation in a position to discuss the OSIS system which they apparently know something about; or is the system "so secret" that even the Congress has not been told about?

20. To what extent have the "classified communication systems" been used not to protect national security related information, but to act as a conduit to hide evidence of illegal activity, which ORCON prohibits?

21. What platform did the WH IT department and RNC establish to share data with the GOP membership, outside counsel, lobbyists: Where is the software contract hidden; why has this method to violate Hatch been "classified" when legal counsel knew or should have known the alleged online collaboration tools were to bypass the Hatch requirements in re data retention?

22. When did legal counsel learn that the objective of the e-mail destruction was not to just hide communications, but to block Congress from discovering which contractors have been given access to these online collaboration tools; and prevent Congress from independently auditing the IT software contractors Contractors would allegedly use to gain access to the GOP-EOP-DOJ online collaboration tools to engage in a "non discussion"?

23. Did legal counsel, once they realized Ralston did not have a complete denial, appropriately forward all evidence related to "non discussions" contained in SharePoint, or any other online collaborative file sharing platform?

24. Where are the e-mail notifications sent through Outlook indicating to users, contractors, legal counsel, and WH-EOP-DoJ-GOP staff that they had been given access to this online collaborative tool?

25. What is the contract number of the SharePoint online collaboration tool which the WH-EOP apparently are using, and giving access to legal counsel to apparently assisting with data updates, and inputs from contractors on plans, memoranda, and policies related to alleged war crimes, prisoner abuse, and FISA violations?

26. Does Ralston have an explanation why her modified response does not address the SharePoint storage, and does not exclude the possibility that EOP-WH-DOJ staff were engaging "non discussions' with counsel and contractors using non-email?

27. Why should we believe Ralston's assertions that she wanted the question "repeated"; yet, Raslton when interrupted by counsel could almost recite verbatim -- with appropriately qualifications -- the exact words Congressional Counsel were asking?

28. Who is collaborating on the files in the WH-EOP on issues of Executive Orders used to by pass Congress, and not fully inform Congress -- as required by statute -- of illegal decisions not to enforce the law?

29. To what extent was the budget cutting and "civliznationation" efforts of OMB used as an excuse to "outsource" government policy making, and create an online collaborative tool which would solicit inputs from contractors, lobbyists, and legal counsel -- but without regard to whether there was accountability on those fiduciaries for alleged reckless conduct which did not fully comply with Geneva?

30. Does Sidley Austin have an explanation why it openly discusses its connection with data retention requirements; yet its Client does not exclude the possibility that the data has been retained in a "non discussion" format outside the Hatch Act requirements?

31. How long has Sidley Austin and Berenson had access to the WH-EOP-DoD-DoJ SharePoint/online collaboration platform; and has Berenson or anyone destroyed any entry-access-update information in this platform?

32. Which specific comments related to illegal activity did OVP, WH, EOP, Outside counsel, contractors not want the public to know were being made by third parties, outside the Hatch Act,with the intent to implement FISA violations, illegal rendition, prisoner abuse, and war crimes?

33. What are the terms of the contracts which outside counsel, law firms, EOP, WH, DoJ, DoD, NSA contractors, and other intermediaries relied upon to get access to these records in the common platform?

34. When the Verizon General counsel initially disclosed that it may have given the NSA access to its felicities, was this access also the other way: Verizon had access to the NSA online collaboration tools, but the agreement was that this collaborative tool -- and its existence -- would be classified "secret" because the database did not comply with the Hatch Act, compelling records retention and fully compliance with Geneva?

35. When was the last time DC-Bar Affiliated counsel read rule 1.6 compelling mandatory withdrawals when legal counsel services are used to advance unlawful activity; can all DC-Bar affiliated counsel at all firms, DoJ, NSA, EOP, and outside counsel certify in writing that they have reviewed this requirement; and are in fully compliance with this requirement; When will this certification be made in writing to the Committees without any promise of immunity to any outside counsel or any DC Bar Affiliated personnel?

36. Given all that we don't know about the online collaborative tools like SharePoint which Ralston has not emphatically denied were being used to engage in "non discussions," why should anyone seriously consider a request by Berenson that his client get any immunity: What is Congress immunizing; does Congress understand the scope of data -- outside e-mail -- which Ralston and Berenson have yet to account?

37. What review was done on all Ralston IP numbers she ever used to access her e-mail account, or access any Outlook-related software?

38. Have all IP numbers which Ralston used been resolved to the White House, EOP, or her home; or are there IP numbers which she used, when traced to SharePoint, indicate there is other activity and "non discussions" occurring using online collaboration tools?

39. Did Ralston open any e-mails at DoD, DoJ, or while traveling; or while at any outside legal counsel; or any firms associated with NSA, rendition, FISA violations?

41. What do the records from anyone in re RNC emails to Ralston say about the times Ralston reviewed, accessed, or had information related to IP access information?

42. What patterns of log-in times, unrelated to e-mails, does Ralston have related to newsgroup access, online collaboration tools?

43. Which e-mails did Ralston open first; which did she ignore; which e-mails did she delete without opening?

44. What was the timing of the openly of the blind copies of the e-mails; and how do these relate to updates on key documents RNC-WH-EOP-DoD-DOJ were updating in re FISA violations, NSA surveillance, prisoner abuse, Eastern European detention?

45. What review has been done on all opening and closing of all recipient BCC of RNC e-mails; and what method was used to specifically target with key words online collaboration tools like SharePoint, LotusNotes, newsgroups, or common file sharing programs?

46. What information does RNC and the ISP keep of when an e-mail is opened; and how does this record keeping change with opening of a blind copy: Who gets notified that a file has been uploaded to a common online data sharing platform; where's the archive of the e-mail opening data

47. What as the form of the "non discussion" and "non overheard" communication which Ralston alluded to: Memos, summaries, transcripts, media message based on an NSA intercept given to the GOP?

48. Did Ralston personally review and forward comments about NSLs?

49. What method was Ralston using to track the information, workflows to
Goodling; and how was this tracking system integrated with SharePoint or an Outlook Compatible online collaboration tool?

50. What do the records for anyone in the RNC e-mails to Ralston say about the times that Ralston or others reviewed e-mail or online tools; the IP access information thy had; the partners and groups of files reviewed and commented on; the e-mails and files Ralston and others opened first, ignored, or deleted without comment?

Review

E-mail does not appear to be the only method of exchanging information, especially in light of Ralston's non-denial denial. Ralston's incomplete denial warrants further inquiry. It is premature to consider offering Ralston immunity. Ralston has left open the possibly that online collaborative tools -- outside e-mail -- were used to engage in "non discussions".

If the Outlook compatible SharePoint was used, we may have answer why the GOP has deleted e-mails: To hide who was on n the access list to SharePoint. An online collaboration tool permits "non discussions" without using e-mail. It is possible to plan Boeing-related schedules using these online collaboration tools, avoid NSA detection, and delete information if Congress is not aware of this method of engaging in "non discussions." This method allows outside counsel and EOP-DoJ-DoD to send messages to their peers, coordinate legal briefs, share the progress of interrogations in Eastern Europe, and engage in illegal activity. Whether there is evidence of this alleged illegal activity related to rendition, FISA violations, war crimes, prisoner abuse, or unlawful CIA activity in Eastern Europe remains to be understood.

The evidence is overwhelming: Ralston's incomplete denials leaving open the possibly that there were "non discussions" using SharePoint; Rove's C:drive format showing that the EOP was using Outlook; the Sidley Austin-EOP common websites connected to their respective IP numbers; and the speed with which information is transmitted related to intelligence issues indicates there is non-email communication occurring. Berenson has previously disclosed his awareness of this information related to rendition and intelligence; and the information substantially matches the lines of evidence which Mary Walker of DoD General Counsel coordinated.

It is time for the OVP to stop wasting the Grand Jury's time, cooperate with the inquiry into who visited, and provide a full list of all contractors, legal counsel, and others who are working with Addington, OVP, and the Vice President using online collaboration tools outside e-mail to coordinate FISA violations, rendition, and prisoner abuse. It is time for Ralston and Berenson to be called on the carpet without any promise of immunity and discuss what they know about the online collaboration tools.

The existence, use, and access logs related to SharePoint and any other online file sharing, newsgroup, or file transfer system is material information for the OSC, Grand Jury, and war crimes prosecutors. Ralston's incomplete denial is arguably grounds to review all electronic means which could be used to engage in a "non discussion" as it relates to allegations of war crimes, bribery, and other issues with the Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently involved. FBI leadership needs to explain why it has, in the past, rebuffed information related to voluntary cooperation from informants; and share what they know about non-email systems used within EOP, OVP, and GOP to coordinate "non discussions" related to prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and other Geneva Violations. The FBI's track record on NSLs does not put the Bureau in a favorable light, and raises reasonable questions about the competency of the FBI leadership, compelling a review of the complaints against the FBI leadership going back to 2001; Which information did they rebuff; which concerns about illegal activity did they inappropriately decline; and which specific legal counsel provided any assurances to SACs and ASACs to rebuff information from confidential informants related to alleged illegal activity. it is arrogant for the FBI to pretend that its doing a "great" job when it was instrumental in rebuffing the very information Congress seeks, and the OVP-EOP and outside counsel appear to have hidden in the online collaboration tools. The OSC and Grand Jury need information about when these online tools were created; who knew about them; and when Rove and Ralston were aware that "non discussions" could occur without using e-mail using these systems. This is not impressive, especially given the clearly promulgated DC Standards of Conduct and the Hatch requirements.

Someone has some explaining to do. Ralston needs to get called back without any promise of immunity. Find the files, get the access-authorization e-mails, and find the IP numbers which EOP and Sidley Austin have openly permitted to be disclosed linking them to non-official websites. If anyone says that the information doesn't exist under oath, information exists outside NSA and American control showing they would have committed perjury. It's too early to talk to Ralston about immunity.

Summation

For the reasons above, we respectfully

# Reject the NYT's call for a "focus" on e-mails;

# Ask the media to broaden the call for a Congressional review of all collaborative tools EOP, OVP, GOP, DoJ, and outside contractors and legal counsel appear well positioned to use, and remain within the Ralston non-denial;

# Call for understanding how this collaborative software program integrates with the Rove_K file format linked with Outlook, as disclosed in the DOJ data dump; and

# Encourage a determination why Ralston's denial would not eliminate this means of "not discussing" an issue outside e-mail.

[L. Coyote]

28. CREW: Miers/Taylor subpoenas: Demands, not requests = 13 June 2007

Miers/Taylor subpoenas: Demands, not requests
Submitted by crew on 13 June 2007 - 4:49pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28786

The House Judiciary Committee sent a subpoena to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House aide Sara Taylor. The Chairs of the Committee were fairly blunt in the news release:

“Let me be clear: this subpoena is not a request, it is a demand on behalf of the American people for the White House to make available the documents and individuals we are requesting to help us answer the questions that remain,” Conyers said in a press release Wednesday announcing the subpoenas.

In the same release, Leahy noted that the White House has failed to respond to his numerous requests for information, and said the administration can’t have it “both ways” by claiming “nothing improper occurred” and “stonewall” his investigation.

“The involvement of the White House’s political operation in this project, including former Political Director Sara Taylor and her boss Karl Rove, has been confirmed by information gathered by congressional committees,” he added. “Some at the White House may hope to thwart our constitutional oversight efforts by locking the doors and closing the curtains, but we will keep asking until we get to the truth.”

==========================
COMMENT:

Prosecuting Recklessness In American Legal Community
Submitted by Anonymous on 13 June 2007 - 7:36pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28786#comment-6271

Oath of Office: A Promise Miers Allegedly Defied -- Prosecute!

Miers is an attorney. Let's get one thing clear with these Congressional subpoenas: They are legal actions against a member of the DC Bar. She refuses to freely do what she has a duty to do: Defend the Constitution, cooperate with a defense of the Constitution, and assent to Our Will, the Rule of Law.

Legal counsel in the White House serve the public. This was clearly established under Nixon, and one reason the President hired-consulted with private counsel, unrelated to the WH Counsel's office. When they put loyalty to the President above We the People they have chosen poorly. We the People use subpoenas and Grand Juries to recalibrate defective legal counsel. Libby is adjusting. Slowly.

Inaction As Evidence

When legal counsel like Miers have to be -- under threat of jail time -- forced to do their job -- the issue is not a crisis, nor a problem: It is evidence of recklessness, disloyalty, and 5 USC 3331 violations. We have witnessed glacial action by Congress on impeachment. Where impeachment is not used, prosecutions remain an option. Miers appears to fail to realize that her refusal to cooperate and freely disclose what she knows could result in her being prosecuted, 5 USC 3331.

Legal Profession Lazily Understands: Constitution Shall Be Defended

Congress does not have the final say. Nor are these exclusively political or voting issues. The GOP has a legal obligation under 5 USC 3331 to fully defend the Constitution, not make excuses to delay that enforcement. The Congress and EOP have proven themselves adept at blocking state proclamations calling for impeachment: Not a crimes, but more evidence, 5 USC 3331.

It would please me if there was some leadership in the legal community. Libby's defense team quickly moved to defend their client; time for legal counsel in DC to choose: Are you going to work with your friends in your legal profession to defend the Constitution through prosecutions; or do you need to be disbarred, as evidence by your apparent inaction on 5 USC 3331.

This country has been told -- not asked -- to put up with the apparent recklessness and laziness of the American legal community. There has been on the table impeachment and prosecutions. Amazingly, the legal community would have us believe that their oath of office means something, and that they deserve high fees. The results are abysmal. We have excuse for war crimes and no prosecutions.

Miers refused to appear during a confirmation hearing into her conduct. Now she gets a second time, but she has no choice. ON the table is jail time for another attorney closely associated with the President. Libby was one. Others are next. One the table is the prosecution of other legal counsel. The issue of Congressional inaction on impeachment is not a crisis, but evidence of Members of Congress apparent refusal to fully enforce 5 USC 3331.

Miers' Apparent Reckless Disregard For Oath of Office

5 USC 3331 is not a request, it is a legal duty. We the People passed through the Congress -- ass signed by the Executive -- the legal requirement to defend the document. This Congress and legal community has given the public excuses not results. We have not seen timely action. This is not acceptable.

On the table are not political questions which will disappear in 2008; nor a legal matter which will fade away after statute of limitations are passed. These are issues of war crimes which Miers -- through the US Attorney firings -- appThe Constitution is very clear: It is the Supreme Law. Members of Congress and legal counsel in the White House through 5 USC 3331 took an oath to defend that document. They have abysmally failed. WE the People compelled the oath to penalize this promise. That requirement did not work.

On the table are Miers e-mails, private discussions, and other direction to implement the President's and Vice President's illegal agenda of retaliation, non-enforcement, and defiance of their oath. Where the issues are serious as these, as attached to war crimes, Miers has a deeper problem: Once Members of Congress finish their questions, Miers is subject to universal jurisdiction for war crimes prosecutions.

Attorney Standards of Conduct: DC Bar Rules 1.16, 1.6

It remains to be seen whether Miers did or did not timely remove herself -- as required under the DC Bar rules; when it was clear, or should have bee4n clear -- when her legal advise was allegedly used to implement unlawful orders an and illegal activity.

It remains to be seen and adjudicated. She either refused to remove herself as required; or she silently condoned and did not challenge what are war crimes: Prison abuses, illegal FISA violations used to transfer information used to abuse prisoners; and illegal warfare against civilians.
Congressional subpoenas are only one option. Other options include war crimes tribunals, and direct prosecution of Miers and other associated counsel. Getting to the bottom of the US Atty firings means finding out the pattern of communications the WH Counsel's office used to coordinate on memoranda; how they interfaced with the DOJ Staff; the direction provided to DOJ OLC and vice versa; and how the illegal orders were reviewed, approved, and implemented.

Clearly Established: Civilian Legal Counsel Can Be Adjudicated With War Crimes

On the table is the same issue confronting the Nazis at Nuremberg: To what extent legal counsel will be held accountable for failing to enforce Geneva. Nuremberg reminds s that impeachment, when it is not used, does not mean that nothing can be done: Other options must be used including prosecutions. Miers must decide whether she will cooperate with Congress; if she refuses she may be prosecuted. Whether that prosecution is ultimately linked with war crimes remains to be seen.

If Miers refuses to cooperate, the issue is not a pardon, but whether her refusal to cooperate can be successfully linked with war crimes. Refusals of Miers to cooperate is not a problem, but additional evidence of her not fully asserting her oath to ensure the Constitution is defended. She appears to be putting her personal interests above that of her legal duties to the Constitution. This is impermissible. IT shall be reviewed; and the evidence of this delay shall be forwarded to grand juries for their review in re 5 USC 3331 and her alleged complicity with Geneva violations.

Miers' War Crimes Legal Issues

She is innocent until proven guilty, but these are very serious issues not isolated to the firing of US Attorneys, but run deep into whether the US leadership can or cannot be trusted to remain reliable counterparties of the Geneva Conventions. if Miers refuses, she has to answer to the law: Something we the People already reminded her she had not discretion but to enforce fully. Her apparent legal training appears to have been insufficient to reminder her of the importance of 5 USC 3331.

Arguably, Miers and others like her -- if convicted of war crimes -- have much to explain:

Why should any one believe they can be reformed?

Arguably, they have well demonstrated that legal training is insufficient and the only logical way to defend the Constitution from the likes of Miers is the death penalty.

There is no statute of limitations for war crimes; and her peers in the legal profession may be lawfully hunted and hounded by Grand Juries. She wished this: Congressional inaction in the wake of this evidence is not a crisis nor a problem: It is subsequent evidence which may be used against individual Members of Congress during -- if required and warranted -- their subsequent war crimes.

Rule of Law Shall Prevail: Inaction As Evidence

Either Congress enforces the law through impeachment; or Members of Congress may be prosecuted for refusing to fully assert their oath. Delays until "after the 2008 election" are meaningless when the President has no power to pardon anyone for international war crimes; and there is no statute of limitations. The delays are not credible defenses, but additional evidence of refusing to fully do what one should do, 5 USC 3331.

We the People reasonably expected counsel and the legal leadership to have timely acted. They refused. We the People are in a legal position to lawfully impose through grand jury indictments server legal consequences outside impeachment. It is up to Miers and the American legal community whether they awaken; or whether they must be sent to prison -- and or executed -- to serve as a reminder of the power of WE the People and the rule of law. The rule of law, not person, shall prevail.

Miers' Apparent Recklessness, Undermining Confidence in Her As Legal Counsel

Miers appears to have not quiet understood this. It remains a separate question how someone like her could get in a position of high trust in the legal community, but apparently not understand when she must do her job. Arguably, this is recklessness by the legal profession in failing to adequately oversee their peers, regulate themselves, and ensure their "experts" in the DC bar are competently regulated.

We leave it for another day how the apparent cess pool inside the DC Bar is going to be cleaned up. It stinks to high heaven. And its been leaking too long into the bowels of the Pentagon, EOP, and DoJ staff. On the table is the question of whether legal counsel like Miers can be trusted to do their job; and when they abuse that trust afforded to counsel, what methods need to be institutionalized so that --r regardless which party or faction controls the US government -- the rule of law prevails.

Material Loss of Confidence in US Legal Profession

This legal community as it is connected with the DC Bar has well demonstrated through this recklessness that it is not willing to do its job, much less imagine solutions to ensure this does not happen again. WE don't need more rules which the factions are going to ignore; we need new institutions within Government that divide the power, undermine the Independence of the legal community, and compel legal counsel to endure timely, vigorous, and painful public audits to question their competence and suitability to continue practicing law. This legal community has exhausted reasonable patience. They have proven themselves lazy, reckless, and defiant of Our Will.

The way for wad is to discuss real solutions which will transition the investigation and prosecution powers away from the President and Congress, and inject it into bodies of government that will enforce the law, regardless who controls the White House or Congress. The legal community has not been part of the solution, but it is the problem and it has illegally assented to this abuse of power and not timely prosecuted this sitting President. There is no crisis for We the People, but of the American legal community. This is their mess that they have not solved. The Constitution, not the stability of the American legal profession, is on the table.

Miers and others associated with the DC Bar need to be challenged:

# What got in the way of them asserting their oath;

# Why was prosecution of this president not openly discussed;

# What got in the way of her and other legal counsel fully asserting 5 USC 3331 and prosecuting the President and others for war crimes

# When did it enter Meirs' brain that she was aware her legal advise was being used to implement illegal activity

# Did Miers or other counsel bother to consider the war crimes implications of not fully enforcing Geneva, or blocking efforts to enforce the laws against legal counsel and US government officials?

Legal counsel have shown they are reckless, cannot be trusted to assert their oath, and are not able to self-regulate. They need to solve this problem. if they do not quickly move, a New Constitution which shall strip them of their power, and engage in forceful, intrusive oversight, shall be rammed down their throat. We the People voted November 2006 for change, not for arrogant excuses by lazy legal "professional" to spoon up more gruel as if it were the finest dinner.

1776 Rebuked This Non-Sense

This is the same disgusting mess We the People were told -- not asked -- "to put up with" in 1776. Go feed that mess to your children; WE the People have a country to run. Time for the legal profession to wake up: Either get with this Constitution, or We the People will -- through direct vote -- shove a new Constitution down your throat. You will not be happy with it because you have been denied the discretion to have any input. It's been written. The smart ones know where to find it.

We the People reminded this reckless legal community of their legal obligations. They have ignored them. They are hard pressed to justify confidence in their competence or suitability to be trusted. Kings defied Our Trust, and We imposed on King John the Magna Charta. The same is on the table for the legal community. You no longer have the liberty to defy your promises. Change came November 2006. Refusing to change is evidence of a self-discipline problem and failure of the legal community to awaken to We the People. King John lost. This legal community is losing as well. You collectively chose the wrong civilian population to defy. Poor choice.

[L. Coyote]

31. CREW: CNN: Appeals Court denied Scooter Libby's bid to stay out of jail = 2 July 2007

CNN: Appeals Court denied Scooter Libby's bid to stay out of jail
Submitted by crew on 2 July 2007 - 12:25pm. Scooter Libby
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29237

CNN is reporting that Scooter Libby lost his bid to stay out of jail during his appeal. Libby's appeal to the Court of Appeals was rejected.

More later as details become available.

========================
COMMENT:

Unitary Executive Dealt Another Blow By Judiciary
Submitted by Anonymous on 2 July 2007 - 1:10pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29237

Court Rejects OVP Lap Dog Motion

Oh, some evidence the Bush Administration hasn't corrupted all the Courts. Or is this a false flag, pending the Supreme Court's unprecedented intervention.

Darth Cheney is but one. We the People are many.

1. Illegal Claims Of Privilege To Hide Illegal Activity

Outside legal counsel cannot suppress all the evidence of war crimes, illegal warfare, illegal rendition, illegal security violations, and FISA violations.

There are ways to monitor outside counsel's concerns. This information is not protected by atty-client privilege. Counsel has released the information. Look for the third party file transfer systems. Microsoft Outlook has a sample file sharing system (SharePoint) that does not use RNC e-mails, but can be used to exchange information bewteen EOP, DoJ, and outside legal counsel. Other similar systems permit legal counsel working for OVP and EOP to quickly exchange information without using e-mail.

2. Things Convicted Felon Libby Ignored

Security violations can be investigated: 28 CFR 2800 reains a legal requiremnts on OVP to comply with the law. Scooter Libby cannot read well:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

[L. Coyote]

32. CREW: Lots of editorial backlash over Libby deal = 3 July 2007

Lots of editorial backlash over Libby deal
Submitted by crew on 3 July 2007 - 11:23am. Scooter Libby

Editor and Publisher has compiled the litany of editorials from across the country in the wake of Bush's decision to commute Scooter LIbby's sentence. As E&P notes "nearly all of them have condemned the Bush act."

Here's what's being said. Besides the Wall Street Journal and NY Post who want a full pardon for Libby, the editorials are resoundingly negative:

The Post, which had often mocked the court case, declares today: "We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did -- to probation and a large fine -- is not defensible. ... Mr. Bush, while claiming to 'respect the jury's verdict,' failed to explain why he moved from 'excessive' to zero.

.................

=========================
COMMENT:

Bush Action Defies Supreme Court Precedent and DOJ Policies
Submitted by Anonymous on 3 July 2007 - 1:35pm.

WH Admits No Legal Analsysis Done in DoJ To Establish This Was A Strong, Exceptional Case, As Required

This link to the USAM is consitent with the Supreme Court precedent:

TPM:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014963.php

Supreme court _emphasis added_

(Emphasis in original) "The Supreme Court itself has opined that '(c)lemency is deeply rooted in our Anglo-American tradition of law, and is the historic remedy for preventing miscarriages of justice where judicial process has been exhausted.' " ( 66 Ohio St. L.J. 875 )

This isn't a DoJ rule which POTUS can ignore, or something in the USAM that POTUS can bypass like an EO; this is the Supreme court which says, until all judicial options are exhausted -- which they have not -- the president's clemency-commutation is not lawful or enforceable.

POTUS cannot pick and choose from "precedent" as a basis to defy the Law; then ignore the Supreme court.

See this: A strong case is needed to overturn a Supreme court Precedent, which does not apply here:

( 419 U.S. 256 ): "These facts are not insignificant for our interpretation of Art. II, § 2, cl. 1, because, as observed by Mr. Justice Holmes: 'If a thing has been practised for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case' to overturn it." Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922).

By his admission of not involving DOJ in the discussion of commutation, Bush provides no evidence that there was a proper legal analysis to determine that there was a "strong" case or an "exceptional" case in re 66 Ohio St. L.J. 875, cited above.

[L. Coyote]

33. MORE:

Following an interrogatory reply, Anonymous provides this "brief" (as if any of his legal opinions are!).

========================
See Note 7
Submitted by Anonymous on 3 July 2007 - 3:23pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29256#comment-8941

kw = "defendant's case is considered final when".

Also, see this:

'''To begin, it is observed that clemency and executive power over punishment is "justified" when it "corrects injustice." The Supreme Court itself has opined that "(c)lemency is deeply rooted in our Anglo-American tradition of law, and is the historic remedy for preventing miscarriages of justice where judicial process has been exhausted." Often times, the correction of this injustice will not involve a full-on pardon of a convicted individual, but rather a sentence commutation, which the term "clemency" does encompass. More notably, it is not unheard of for a member of the judiciary to recommend sentence commutation when justice warrants it, but, because of current circumstances, the judiciary is powerless.'''

First, the court-judicial branch, must decide what "justice" is; but the President has trumped this. A 'complete" review of the final case is only possible after cert is denied; this was not done.

Second, "Injustice" has nothing to do with "bad things that happen when convicted felon is detained" (absense from family) as this was known before Libby testifying before the Grand jury. (See Fitzgerald's questions at beginning of Libby Deposition, that he understood consequences of perjury.)

Third, "Injustice" doesn't mean a "harsh" sentence -- as is related to perjury -- but for a sentence that fails to consider mitigating factors. Yet, the court did review these factors and letters, but sentenced Libby to reasonable punishment. That this punishment is on appeal means the judicial process has not been exhausted.

Fourth, for "injustice" to occur, that justice system must be complete and final. Now, it is premature for the President or anyone to assert that the conviction-sentence of Libby was "unjust" in that this is still a judicial matter for the Judicial Branch to review, not for the Executive to assert prematurely, as is the case here, before all appeal are over.

Again, the Judicial branch has decided that Libby shall be confined until all appeals are exhaust ted. the President has no power to trump the judicial branch until Libby exhausts all judicial options.

Common Problem

Congressional inaction is important on this. As with the MCA, the Congress defined what a "war crime" was which affected ongoing litigation, which is not lawful. Arguably, the MCA -- because it was retroactive, and affected ongoing cases -- was an illegal assertion of judicial power by the legislature.

Congress is not likely to challenge this illegal assertion of judicial power in re Libby, because to do so would invite a question about Congressional illegal assertion of judicial power when it passed the MCA, unlawfully targeting ongoing litigation.

Geneva violations occur when war crimes related evidence is suppressed; when Prisoners of War are retroactively defined as "illegal" despite no exiting standard; or when personnel like Plame-Wilson are retaliated against in re issues of truthful reports of non-imminent threats.

There are issues of international criminal law and Geneva violations, just narrowly over Judicial-Executive-legislative intrusions into eachother's lanes. Google this quote:

( "Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance in office on account of the scheming malevolence with which he administered injustice." )

The problem the US has is that its leadership have collective assented to unlawful intrusions into each other's lanes; and not held the President to account as would be required of civilized nations; and they're refusing to challenge unlawful Executive rewards for alleged Geneva violations: Retaliation for truthful reports of war crimes related information.

Summation

The President's commutation of Libby is illegal, cannot be recognized, and forms a subsequent line of evidence in re Geneva. Congress needs to review:

# To what extent executive was reckless in not consulting with legal counsel

# To what extent legal counsel knew, or should have known, that not all Judaical options had been exhausted;

# To what extent outside counsel -- linked with FISA, rendition, Geneva, NSA, and the object of the Libby perjury -- have an interest to accelerate the case, and block future discovery into their outside involvement with the RNC e-mail evidence, and their knowledge of the WH e-mil system, or reviews they did on the Boeing and AT&T systems and financial papers

# TO what extent the Executive and Outside counsel conspired to ignore the law and issue a commutation not with the objective of remedying a wrong, but to take the issues of war crimes, Libby's perjury to protect the VP, and other issues related to FISA, NSA, violations, Geneva violations, and other OVP misconduct

# TO what extent this legal position of EOP/OVP is evidence legal counsel were reckless; or they knew their legal services were being used in violation of the law; but did not withdraw as required per DC Bar Rules 1.16;

# To what extent this known, premature assertion of Judicial Power by the President -- before all Judaical options had been exhausted -- was known to reward Libby not to remedy a wrong, but to reward him for wrongly retaliating against war crimes witnesses.

Where This Is Going

A. Apparent effort to illegally assert state secrets in re other issues connected with Libby's motivation for perjury.

The above appears more related to an effort to affect ongoing litigation in re rendition, FISA violations, AT&T, and other issues related to "state secrets" which are not related to bonafide claims of privilege; but to efforts to suppress evidence of illegal activity.

B. There are other lines of evidence, disclosed, which POTUS cannot hide in the burning barn. The horses have left.

DoJ IP numbers, as are outside counsel, can be linked with open source infuriating showing personnel were not engaged in official duties, as the AG asserted; but they were involved in non-FISA-warrant related activities using DoJ computers. The Open Source information suggesting there ha been other illegal activity and recklessness by DoJ AG and Staff counsel is broad; and that there are outside counsel who have an interest to seal this issue, as opposed to having the President's commutation reviewed as a subsequent line of evidence in re Geneva violations, war crimes, FISA violations, and other things which should be prosecuted, but Congress refuses to impeach.

C. Enforcement Outside Congress Against POTUS

If Impeachment is not used, then prosecution of a sitting President remains on the table: Each of the 50 State AGs may use this illegal, premature commutation as evidence showing the Executive has illegally usurped judicial power; and that this was done in re NSA violations of State Citizen Privacy Rights. The error is to permit Executive assertion of Judicial power, but not check or stop it as would be expected when fully enforcing Geneva to prevent war crimes.

D. Sample Executive Usurpation of Legislative Power, Congressional Silence

For Example, when the President deports someone with rendition or GTMO confinement -- but that deportation is asserted to be an "executive" function not subject to judicial review, POTUS ignores the problem: The action is a legislative power, not one for the President to assert unilaterally. By putting prisoners in GTMO and exporting/deporting US citizens to GTMO the President has illegally asserted legislative power.

See:

5 F.2d 162

A pardon is for a crime (with exceptions here wholly unimportant); (**4) inter alia, it avoids or terminates punishment for that crime, but deportation is not a punishment, it is an exercise of one of the most fundamental rights of a sovereign (Mahler Case, supra, page 39), a right which under our form of government is exercised by legislative authority.

[L. Coyote]

34. MORE: Commutation: Illegal Unless All Judicial Options Exhausted

After a series of legal citations, "Anonymous" posts this brief comment:

==========================
Commutation: Illegal Unless All Judicial Options Exhausted
Submitted by Anonymous on 3 July 2007 - 12:53pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29256#comment-8925


The Supreme Court ruled that clemency is valid only when all judicial remedies have been ehausted.

Because the judicial process has not been exhausted, the President is affected the planned appeals, arguably intruding into the Judicial Branch's power.

(Emphasis in original) "The Supreme Court itself has opined that '(c)lemency is deeply rooted in our Anglo-American tradition of law, and is the historic remedy for preventing miscarriages of justice where judicial process has been exhausted.' " ( 66 Ohio St. L.J. 875)

The President has no basis to say that Libby has "suffered" in that the appeals have not been ehausted; and the Supreme Court has not reviewed the case.

Is there a reason Libby Counsel did not exhaust all options in requesting District court Review, or appealing the sentence to the supreme Court?

Summation

Until all judicial options have been exhausted -- which Libby counel have not done -- the President may not lawfully grant clemency.

[L. Coyote]

35. CREW: Watch CREW's Melanie Sloan on Hardball talking about the Libby deal = 6 July 2007

Watch CREW's Melanie Sloan on Hardball talking about the Libby deal
Submitted by crew on 6 July 2007 - 2:42pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29348

=================
Unimpressed With American Legal Community
Submitted by Anonymous on 8 July 2007 - 6:59pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29348#comment-9579

What Happened To Discipline, the oath?

I'm interested in the CREW legal perspective: What does it feel like to be in a legal profession where legal peers in OVP-EOP-OVP-DoJ are doing this: Apparent recklessness.

I'd like to hear what the appropriate oversight is needed to clean up this problem.

- What changes are needed in oversight?

- Is there a problem with self-regulation of the legal community?

- What Federal Oversight Rules are required?

- Is the only way to change the legal community to make them the lawful targets of no-notice performance audits; or create powers for the States to better discipline, oversee, regulate, and monitor atty conduct?

I'd really like to know what its like to be part of a legal profession that appears to have failed in ensuring illegal conduct is checked timely. This has gone on since 2001, and the legal community -- as measured by the DOJ Staff implosion -- is only now happening. That's glacial.

What's your view on Congress having an NSA-like monitoring system to randomly audit legal counsel's compliance with various legal requirements?

US citizens are told we have to put up with warrantless searches on e-mail and web surfing. Why isn't the legal community going to assent to those same non-standards to ensure they are similarly monitored for inappropriate conduct. Or does the Constituion only exist to shield lawyers from oversight; but is not fully protected when it comes to WE the People and your clients?

A New Constituting would put some teeth in the Atty Standards of Conduct: The oath is to the Constitution, not to a profession, or an apparent common agreement to do nothing about war crimes.

When evidence is destroyed, it means the claim of privilege was dubious: People who honestly believe a privilege claim is valid should reasonably act consistent with that expectation and preserve evidence. Let's hear it from the CREW lawyers: Once WH Counsel is linked with RNC e-mail destruction, they cannot credibly claim their expectation of executive privilege had any merit Rather, its' reason able to make the adverse inference that the document destruction was linked with one goal: To hide evidence legal counsel knew would implicate the lawyers for the original illegal activity which had been illegally shielded by privilege.

Not impressed with the American legal community. ON the table are the illegal orders, unlawful warfare, FISA violations, Geneva buses, and it has taken this long to focus attention on the problem: The reckless DOJ-EOP-OVP-WH legal community that has been complicit with document destruction, and efforts to hide a connection between the legal community and the illegal activity.

Very unimpressed.

[L. Coyote]

36. CREW: Harriet Miers fails to appear at House Judiciary Committee Hearing

Harriet Miers fails to appear at House Judiciary Committee Hearing
Submitted by crew on 12 July 2007 - 11:59am.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29408


Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers heeded the directive from President Bush today, Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker reports:

Harriet Miers, as expected, defied a Congressional subpoena and did not show for her hearing before the House Judiciary Committee this morning.

In response, subcommittee chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) ruled that the White House's claim of executive privilege was invalid.

=====================
COMMENT:

Inducing Witness Not To Appear: 18 USC 1505, 1515
Submitted by Anonymous on 12 July 2007 - 1:43pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29408#comment-10056

The double standards are noteworthy. Legal counsel appears to have enjoyed a different standard the public does not enjoy. What kind of protection racket is the legal community creating? Not clear why the White House counsel's office is gleeful:

( http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015273.php )

Would think the letters to Miers and Taylor would support some sort of legal review of WH Counsel. DC Disciplinary Board involved, or is the weather unfavorable today? Heard may assertions of "belief" which do not add up:

A. Double Standards on Witness Impeachment

Counsel (Taylor) "believed" that they could selectively invoke privilege. However, inconsistent witness statements could impeach a witness; and that rule of evidence could get raised during an attorney disbarment investigation. Not impressed that legal counsel appear immune to this standard; yet the public if they attempt to seeks advise of counsel are denied access to that counsel.

B. Reasonableness of Counsel In Light of Duty

Counsel (WH in re FISA, rendition) "believed" that their conduct was lawful, despite the court ruling that the activities could not be reasonably viewed as lawful (FISA, Judge Vaughn)

C. Evidence Destruction Belies Asserted Belief

WH Counsel "believed" the information was privileged, yet the destruction of that e-mail suggests the belief was not real; but the opposite was true: Someone did not believe the information was privileged, and communicated from counsel the conclusion that the RNC e-mail could not be protected.

[L. Coyote]

37. CREW: Time Magazine: Cheney "likes to conduct public business in private" = 1 June 2007

Time Magazine: Cheney "likes to conduct public business in private"
Submitted by crew on 1 June 2007 - 4:18pm. Dick Cheney FOIA Secret Service Visitor records

No doubt, Vice President Cheney does want to "conduct public business in private." But CREW is not just letting that happen. The controversy surrounding Cheney's effort to prevent access to the visitor records continues to grow -- as does the outrage:

Vice President Dick Cheney, whose penchant for secrecy is well known, has eliminated any public record of his guests and their visits. His office has directed the U.S. Secret Service to turn over the visitor logs so they can be treated in effect as classified documents. No copies can be kept. According to declarations filed May 25 in a lawsuit, the directive was initiated in 2001 and quietly reiterated nine months ago as the Washington Post and a public interest group were trying to track appearances by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

It is not for social niceties that Cheney claims "exclusive control" over the names of his guests. ...........

======================
COMMENT:

Sidley Austin, Cheney, and Brad Berenson: How Many Meetings?
Submitted by Anonymous on 2 June 2007 - 7:27pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28670#comment-6056

By Cheney's own fatal admission, he turned the logs over to the White House, thereby creating an ILLEGAL separate database.

This does not appare to true based on the Bybee Memon prisoner abuse, apparently through FOIA: "Since Freedom of information laws do not apply to the White House, Cheney's office had the logs turned over to the White House every month, thus protecting them under the Presidential Records Act."

The above does not cover the RNC e-mails which the WHite House has illegally sent in violation of the records act; and does not show all the e-mails Cheney used to coordinate the transfer of records from VP to EOP.

"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the establishment of separate archival depositories for such Vice-Presidential records."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/44/usc_sec_44_00002207----000-.html
Either Cheney hasn't kept the records as required; or he's created a separate databased, outside the statute; or he's illegally interfered with the Archivist who, alone, has the power to decide, not Cheney, whether the record is in the public interest.

That Cheney's hidden the record doesn't mean it doesn't have a "public interest," only that he's fooled himself to believe that something that is public can be "non public" using methods which violate the statute. That doesn't add up. It's illegal. Consider the EOP and White House counsel who is spewing out this non-sense: This is illegal activity, and DC Bar Rules 1.6 should require a noisy withdrawal. What is the WH Counsel's explanation; and where is Sidley Austin in it's discussion of these record retention requirements?

Sidley Austin says its an expert on document retention: Records Retention Plans and VP Meetings

A. What guidance did Brad Berenson give to EOP, WH Counsel, DoJ OLC, and Addington on these legal issues;

B. How did Berenson send his e-mails through the RNC e-mail system to coordinate on this approach to data retention;

C. Records retention legal requirements is something Sidley knows about. Personnel with Sidley have commented publicly on WH Administrative procedures, suggesting they know what was going on, and how the IT office operations. yet, the RNC e-mails went missing. Where was Sidley's review of the WH Admin area; was there one done; If there "goal" of VP was to hide this data in WH records, why isn't Sidley Austin advising counsel that the Hatch Act applies; or is there something Sidley doesn't want the public to know after the Supreme Court denied it cert?

Berenson and the RNC E-mails: Who was visiting the VP Office to Discuss this, when?

D. Berenson publicly commented to Waxman on the RNC e-mails. How does Berenson "know" about Ralston's e-mails in re RNC e-mail system: Did Berenson review at Sidley Austin copies of these RNC e-mails; and which of these e-mails Berenson reviewed while at Sidley Austin or in the WH 2001-2003 as counsel included VP Cheney/Addington or other EOP/DoJ OLC or VP Cheney legal counsel memoranda sent through RNC e-mail systems?

Alleged Transfer of Illegally Captured Data To support Other illegal Activity (Alleged Illegal Use of Data outside Intended, Lawful Use)

E. Berenson apparently knows alot about the NSA, FISA, and AT&T: He's lead counsel. How many of the visitor logs to the VP Office show which contractors, legal counsel, and other former WH Personnel have been working on issues of FISA, rendition, illegal warfare, prisoner abuse, and other legal memoranda which the VP knew or should have known violated Geneva; did Berenson read the e-mails related to this activity on the RNC e-mail system or did he get messages through Kyle Sampson despite Comey saying the activity wasn't lawful, mandating a noisy WH Counsel withdrawal per DC Bar Rule 1.6?

Rule 10b-5 and Alleged False Statements, Fraud On Market

F. The Securities Adt of 1933/34 have a rule 10b-5 which prohibits unlawful statements in re PSLRA and the Litigation Act. Sidley Austin provided a financial review of Boeing for various securities matters. In light of the resignations in the White House, illegal rendition, transfer of prisoners from Eastern Europe, what review of the VP logs would shed light into Sidley Austin's apparent knowledge that Boeing was involved with illegal activity, but counsel with Sidley did not, apparently, withdraw from representation of Boeing per DC Disciplinary Rule 1.6? Does Sidley Austin have a comment about possible 10b-5 violations; or is this protected by an undisclosed agreement of "immunity" which, in the words of Judge Vaughn, nobody could reasonably rely on in that the original surveillance was not legal?

G. Fraud indicators include resignations of key personnel. Bartlet and many others in DoJ and WH have resigned. How was audit scope increased per Statement on Accounting Standard 99 and Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards (GAGA) once resignations occurred in the WH Counsel's office; what will the VP entry-access logs show related to Berenson's discussion with the VP legal counsel on these personnel transfers after Bartlett's departure and other resignations; has audit scope increased in OMB after Berenson and others resigned/left/departed; or were there no noisy withdrawals as required under DC Atty Disciplinary Rule 1.6?

Outsourcing of Alleged Illegal Activity, War Crimes: Should Veterans-Turned-Contractors Be Prosecuted under UCMJ For War Crimes?

H. What kind of review of the VP entry-exit logs would shed light into Abraxas, SAIC, Lockheed Martin, and AT&T discussion on illegal activity, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, illegal NSLs, or AT&T illegal surveillance; and the use of that data as transferred through NSA intermediaries for use by the GOP to engage in media messaging to create GOP spin, unlawful interrogations of prisoners, and domestic propaganda in violation of the Smith Act?

Berenson and DOJ OLC

I. Berenson has publicly commented on his reliance as WH Counsel on DoJ OLC. Yet, DoJ wants us to believe it was DoJ relying on the WH. Very confusing. How many of the e-mails and RNC contacts related to the VP entry exit log could be compared against the worries in the wake of Comey's revelations on illegal NSA surveillance and unlawful DoJ counsel activity: Does Berenson have a comment how DoJ OLC commented on the issue, or is he no longer talking to Viet Dinh and Wendy J. Keefer formerly with DoJ?

Sidley Austin, Boeing, and Rendition

J. Berenson is also known for making statements about rendition. Yet, one day he says he can talk about it; another day he says, "Can neither confirm nor deny" something, but then goes on to talk about it. It appears the WH and VP office did coordinate on a meeting and set policy in re comments on rendition; which Berenson appears to have been part of. When did Berenson and other outside counsel meet to get the new guidance on the comments related to Rendition; how did Berenon incorporate this new guidance into his changes to "can neither confirm or deny"?

K. Could VP e-mails and entry exit logs be something that would shed light on which ppt presentation Berenson reviewed; and whether reasonable counsel was or was not reckless in enforcing Geneva in re prisoner abuse after reviewing the reports of Spike Bowman? Would the VP entry-exit logs shed some light on issues which could not be sent through the RNC e-mails; but required legal counsel involvement, despite their alleged illegality; would the VP entry-exit logs show who at Sidley Austin appeared to discuss alleged illegal activity; and ask why they did not withdraw from working with the WH on various legal issues involving the WH Public affairs, legal counsel, and political office?

Private Counsel Allegedly Used To Issue Civil Subpoenas To Stifle Public Discussion

L. No telling how many of the VP entry exit logs contain lists of counsel who should have withdrawn because the purpose of the meeting was to stifle public discussion of illegal VP activity. (See DC Bar Rule 1. 6 ) Would the VP Entry exit logs shed some light on the mad scurrying to transfer prisoners, involve SAIC in the planning, and then encourage NSA contractors to monitor those who dared to raise legal questions; and how was the VP entry-exit log correlated with various private legal counsel efforts to issue subpoenas to silence public discussion of the illegal activity, FISA violations, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and violations of the laws of war: Which contractors besides Boeing were alleged to be involved; or are the NSA contractors hoping to hide this evidence in the "non-disclosure agreements" which are part of the illegal NSLs used to get public discussion of the link between the President, VP, and others with illegal activity?

[L. Coyote]

38. MORE: War Crimes Indictment: VP Prosecution Outside Impeachment

Responding to a reply to the original comment, Anonymous adds this legal gem:

========================
War Crimes Indictment: VP Prosecution Outside Impeachment
Submitted by Anonymous on 2 June 2007 - 9:53pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28670#comment-6058

Prosecution of a sitting VP is possible. Impeachment was argued as the option that would, in effect, trump prosecutions. However, now that Congress has taken impeachment "off the table," the other option -- prosecution -- remains on the table, and the only remaining option to enforce the law. Whether Congress does or does not enforce the law through impeachment does not take the prosecution option off the table. Ashcroft discussed this option as Senator, but as you noted, impeachment was preferred. Today, we have the opposite: Untimely action, and no impeachment.

( To read more about this, take a look at the comment-thread at this blogspot: Scroll down, skip the content, and read the links in the comments:
http://indictdickcheney.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-answers-why-did-james-comey-only.html )
-----------------------------

It may or may not take impeachment to get to the bottom of this: It may be by prosecutions. Contrary to your assertion, impeachment is not a "priority" that -- when not used -- trumps all action. Rather, the opposite: When impeachment is not used, then impeachment is not a priority, but prosecutions become the priority.

It is not "well established" that an impeachment -- taken off the table -- means prosecutions cannot occur, rather they are required. Impeachment may not be a court, but the Senate decides -- outside impeachment -- whether to Convict. Whether there are or are not procedures about impeachment mean nothing:
The Senate alone decides whether to face reality, or pretend reality is something else. Whether there are or are not procedures about impeachment does not have any bearing on whether prosecutions of the President and VP trump the "do nothing through impeachment"-decision.

It is incorrect to say that impeachment is the one forum to resolve this issue. When impeachment is not used, despite its utility, prosecution remains on the table. These issues might be examined by a grand jury through a war crimes indictment against Cheney, Berenson, and other White House counsel allegedly complicit with failing to enforce Geneva; war crimes planning; FISA violations; and use of illegally captured information to implement war crimes against prisoners of war.

It remains to be understood to what extent Cheney has created an illegal database, outside what permitted under law, to hide evidence of war crimes. It is a separate matter whether individual Members of Congress are also indicted for refusing to enforce Geneva through impeachment, which is required in this case. Congress refuses to investigate and is arguably reckless in failing to assert its oath to enforce Geneva or protect the Constitution. Yes, all 535 Members of Congress and outside civilian counsel working for the President and Congress could be the target of a war crimes indictment/investigation. The American legal community has failed to assert its oath, enforce Geneva, or use prosecutions to enforce the Constitution. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes, especially -- as it appears -- outside counsel and the VP have been complicit in destroying, not preserving, and hiding evidence of Geneva violations.

[L. Coyote]

39. MORE: Prosecutions Now: Congress Reckless In Defending Constitution

The conversation continues, and Anonymous replies to the further reply:

=========================
Prosecutions Now: Congress Reckless In Defending Constitution
Submitted by Anonymous on 4 June 2007 - 6:16pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28670#comment-6105

I disagree that the question of impeachment timing is "not yet. . . " Nor can I support this assertion: "(W)hat is off the table can be put on the table when the time comes" We cannot wait: What is "off" the table is fair warning, the other option -- prosecution -- remains on the table, and will continue.

Whether Congress chooses to do its job is out of our control. The issue for the legal community is to explain -- despite well promulgated intention to do nothing through impeachment, and actions to openly block impeachment --- whether they fully asserted their oath to defend the Constitution.

Impeachment -- as an option to protect the Constitution -- remains on the table, as are prosecutions. Whether Congress wants to use it, or exercise impeachment is secondary. Yet, if they refuse to do what they must -- protect, defend, the Constitution -- the voters' silence or response does not block prosecutions for 5 USC 3331 violations, oath of office.

It is incorrect to believe that impeachment is not an option; or believe that (other's views, paraphrasing, not a quote from here/CREW:) "by taking impeachment off the table, nothing will happen." Congressional inaction on impeachment is not a vote of absolution for the President or Vice President. Prosecutions remain on the table.

The question is whether the Congressional illusion that impeachment is "not" an option as a legislative tool is the catalyst to remind lawyers they have a job to do through the Judicial branch: Continue to assert their oath and forward evidence to assert the second option: Prosecutions of this President, VP, and others for alleged war crimes.

Congress has chosen to take impeachment off the table. When the "time comes" is meaningless: Congress views "the proper time" as never. We the People need to assert our power through prosecutions, grand juries, and remind Members of Congress: If you refuse to impeach, you too may be come the target for war crimes prosecutions, especially if it can be shown that you refused to enforce Geneva; or were actively blocking impeachment efforts.

The rule of law shall prevail. Members of Congress may choose to do nothing and not impeach, possibly hoping the world believes that impeachment is "off" the table and that "nothing" can be done or will happen. Yet, there is no link between impeachment and prosecutions: If Congress decides, as it has, to do nothing through impeachment, it does not mean that other things are on hold. Prosecutions do not have to be delayed; rather, Congress is delaying mandating full speed ahead on the prosecution track.

It is a separate matter whether the GOP might, as it did with the US Attorney firings, to block prosecutions of the President, VP, and other US Government officials? What the GOP might do to block enforcement of the Constitution is meaningless speculation: The prospect of prosecutions cannot be removed on the possibility that the GOP might not cooperate. The two are separate.

Saying, "Not yet," asks that we continue to delay in the off-chance Congress "might" change it's mind. No, the issue is the opposite: Until Congress decides to act, Members of Congress can be prosecuted now; and the timing is right -- prosecute this President and VP through grand jury indictments. Inaction is not a solution, but evidence of Member of Congress complicity with war crimes. Malfeasance is a crime when it relates to war crimes; Congress deludes itself and the voters if it says, "If we do nothing about these war crimes through impeachment, nothign will happen." No, inaction broadens the net, and attached responsibilty to those who should have acted, not just those who originally acted incorrectly.

Frivolous Excuses To Delay Prosecution Decision

Hoping "The time comes" is a speculative dream that Congress might do what it has had the duty to do, but refuses despite the prospect of real legal consequences. It is one thing to refuse to do one's job to defend the Constitution; but to refuse to do that, despite the threat that one could be prosecuted for war crimes, blocking investigations, or not enforcing Geneva is a serious issue.

Inaction A Congressional Standard of Misconduct

For Congress to now act on impeachment -- despite its history of inaction -- would be an admission that it did not timely act. Congress cannot reasonably be expected to ever put impeachment on the table, especially as evidenced by the GOP efforts to take the Senate Rebuke of Gonzalez off the table. Hoping for a change, or suggesting we "delay" is not an answer, but more of what the voters rebuked in November 2006: Excuses not to do one's legal duty to protect the Constitution and act responsibly.

The time is now: Prosecutions are on the table. If Congress chooses to awaken from its coma, and believe the weather might be favorable, is of little interest. They've had their chance. Their time has come: Prosecution of Members of Congress for failing to defend the Constitution is on the table. Whether they awaken to this rude reality is of little interest.

[L. Coyote]

41. CREW: Dan Froomkin asks about Cheney's "Fourth Branch" =25 June 2007

Dan Froomkin asks about Cheney's "Fourth Branch"
submitted by crew on 25 June 2007 - 4:52pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29193

In today's "White House Briefing" column, Dan Froomkin asks "The Fourth Branch?" -- and provides a sampling of the reaction, the response and the commentary to what should be deemed an outrageous concept:

Peter Baker writes in Saturday's Washington Post: "The White House defended Vice President Cheney yesterday in a dispute over his office's refusal to comply with an executive order regulating the handling of classified information as Democrats and other critics assailed him for disregarding rules that others follow.

"White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Cheney is not obligated to submit to oversight by an office that safeguards classified information, as other members and parts of the executive branch are. Cheney's office has contended that it does not have to comply because the vice president serves as president of the Senate, which means that his office is not an 'entity within the executive branch.'

===========================
COMMENT:

FOIA Provisions in 32 CFR 2800
Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 6:55pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29193#comment-6939


Take a look at this FOIA provision in the CFR related to OVP security compliance. 32 CFR 2800 provides for FOIA compliance, and outlines specific procedures to release information related to 32 CFR 2800: The OVP Security Compliance Program:

(e) Mandatory review requests.

Requests from a member of the public, a government employee, or an agency, to declassify and release information will be acted upon within 60 days provided the request reasonably identifies the information. After review, the information or any reasonably segregable portion thereof that no longer requires protection, shall be declassified and released, except as provided in section 3–503, E.O. 12065, unless withholding is otherwise warranted under applicable law.

Ref:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

# What effort, if any, did OVP legal counsel or DOJ Staff counsel making in segregating classified information from information releasable per 32 CFR 2800?

# Did anyone ask OVP or DOJ the last time they did an audit of OVP in re 32 CFR 2800?

# How can DoJ say that "no" paperwork resulted from a FOIA request, when someone in DoJ and OVP would have had to coordiante on a DoJ workflow to review whether any or all of the 32 CFR 2800 information could be segregated, released, or not released?

[L. Coyote]

42. MORE: Talk About What OVP Must Follow: 32 CFR 2800

Talk About What OVP Must Follow: 32 CFR 2800
Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 6:11pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29193#comment-6937

Focus Attention on Applicable OVP Security Standards

Action Alert

Please encourage the media to report information security standards OVP must meet.

Ask your media contacts: Is media delaying coverage of 32 CFR 2800 until OVP has time to 'explain away' 32 CFR 2800?

Issues/Concerns

# 1. Red Herring Discussions

The MSM is embracing an irrelevant comment:

"Josh Meyer writes in the Los Angeles Times: 'Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.' "

# 2. Avoiding what Is Relevant

Irrelevant. "The moon isn't made of cheese." So what. LA Times hasn't talked about what does apply to OVP in re security standards; nor focused attention on what information should be available per 32 CFR 2800 compliance programs.

# 3. Inadequate Visibility to 32 CFR 2800

Applicable Standard to VOP Document Retention

This does apply to OVP, making LA Times' Meyer comment irrelevant:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

# 3. OVP Must Meet Security Requirements

This does not mean the OVP is or is not required to comply with any security guideline; or that the OVP is immune to any and all Executive Orders. For example, through 32 CFR 2800, this EO does apply to OVP: (Kw= "sections 1–201 and 3–103 of E.O. 12065 of June 28, 1978" )
Ref:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

# 4. LAT Article Is Incomplete

Will You Believe Your Lying Eyes; or Focus on Irrelevant OVP Denials and MSM Red Herring?

Sample: Clear OVP Letterhead Related to Security Requirements in 32 CFR 2800

Look at this PDF:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/pdfs/ec21oc91.054.pdf

Propose this question to MSM: Is LAT asking us to believe the PDF at the link
A. doesn't say, "Office of Vice President";
B. is not a Security Indoctrination document linked with 32 CFR 2800; or
C. is not required to be kept on file by OVP legal counsel?

# 5. Questions for Discussion

LA Times reports that a given EO "doesn't apply," yet 32 CFR 2800 specifically include EOs in the langauge.

A particular EO may or may not apply; but what standards do apply to the OVP security compliance program?

# 6. Where to Go For Additional Information on 32 CFR 2800

Here are some details at CREW Blog:
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6818

[L. Coyote]

43. CREW: Melanie Sloan: Cheney is "a fourth branch of government all by himself" = 26 June 2007

Melanie Sloan: Cheney is "a fourth branch of government all by himself"
Submitted by crew on 25 June 2007 - 7:09pm. Dick Cheney
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29195

Melanie Sloan was on MSNBC's Hardball tonight. Her first lines about Cheney are classic, "He saying that he's a fourth branch of government all by himself. There's the judiciary, the legislative, the executive and then there's the Cheney branch." Definitely worth a watch:

YouTube

====================
COMMENT:

Waxman Letter: OVP Subpoenas Looming
Submitted by Anonymous on 26 June 2007 - 12:28pm.

Congressman Waxman today sent a letter to WH Counsel in re SEcurity Compliance. In the notes (bottom) on page 4 of 8 of Waxman's letter there is a reference to 32 CFR section 2001, not 32 CFR 2800 which applies to OVP.

Waxman Sent A Letter:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070626110513.pdf

Suggestion

Share your information with Michael Gordon or David Rapallo of the Committee staff at [phone]; and encourage them to discuss with Waxman 32 CFR 2800.

Congressman Waxman is looking for any information which may shed light into any of the OVP/WH security issues. If you know someone who may have been assigned to, or friends with someone who may have known something about this, encourage them to review the issues and forward their anecdotes to Congressman Waxman.

[L. Coyote]

44. CREW: The "Cheney branch" of government costs $4.4 million In Exec. Budget = 26 June 2007

The "Cheney branch" of government costs $4.4 million -- in the Executive Branch budget
Submitted by crew on 26 June 2007 - 12:23pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198

Dick Cheney's position that he's not part of the Executive branch may cost him. As Melanie Sloan noted on Hardball last night:

He saying that he's a fourth branch of government all by himself. There's the judiciary, the legislative, the executive and then there's the Cheney branch."

The problem for Cheney is that despite what he thinks, there is no Cheney branch. Actually, the budget to pay for his office and its operations comes from the Executive branch budget -- to the tune of $4.4 million according to The Hill. And, leading Democrats on both sides of the aisle are threatening to pull that money -- all of it:

Durbin’s warning came as Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), No. 3 in Democratic leadership, said that he would “seriously consider” joining House counterparts in seeking to yank funding for Cheney’s office

=======================
COMMENT:

Clearly Established Precedent To Deny Funds For Unreformed
Submitted by Anonymous on 26 June 2007 - 3:37pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198#comment-7255

It is not unprecedented for Parliament to have refused to provide the King funds when he did not reform. Addington, OVP legal counsel, and Cheney have no legal standing to suggest this is "unprecedented"; or that it is not the number one priority.

If the OVP will not comply with the statute, and allow auditors to review 32 CFR 2800, then Congress would be consistent with all precedents to shut off funding. There is one person who can solve this problem: The Vice President, and his decision to comply with the law, and reform OVP.

The Congress has given the Vice President fair notice: Reform, or lose your money. The Vice President refuses. He shall let Addington discuss the precedents of Parliament in re an unreformed King.

Clearly Established Precedent

"When the third Parliament met in 1628, it presented the Petition of Right, a statement demanding that Charles make certain reforms in exchange for war funds. Charles was forced to accept the petition.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566517/Charles_I_(of_England).html

Looming On the Table

The House has the leverage to impose on the President legal demands: If the President and Vice President do not resign; the House can shut down all funding to EOP/OVP and Federal Government, but the President's salary.

The President and Vice President has no power to compel the House put anything in any budget. Comply with the law, or the US Government contractors are going to get sent home. They have on person to blame: The Vice President and his decision to violate 32 CFR 2800:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

What is the GOP going to do? They are powerless. Even if they move to remove Cheney, Pelosi would become VP: Both Houses of Congress under the 25th Amendment must approve the replacement. The GOP cannot make We the People -- through the House -- assent to this lawlessness by this Vice President; nor assent to his recklessness in re violations of 32 CFR 2800.

[L. Coyote]

45. MORE: Senator Kerry to Addington: Clarify OVP Lawlessness For Senate

Senator Kerry to Addington: Clarify OVP Lawlessness For Senate
Submitted by Anonymous on 26 June 2007 - 4:56pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198

it is appropriate for the Senate to inquire into the "thinking" that says the Vice President does not need to comply with any security requirements; or can avoid all audits. Senator Kerry's Letter:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/25/191938/668

The only way OVP can argue he's exempt from security guidelines is if he claims he's "not in" the OVP. The problem is that the essential requirements of the EO are duplicated within in the Code of Federal Regulations, which OVP has not denied apply:

A. CFR

This Regulation does apply to the OVP: 32 CFR 2800:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

B. EO

Whether this EO "does" or "does not" apply is meaningless in light of the 32 CFR 2800 requirements on Cheney:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html

For example, note closely the EO in dispute 12958 says, "PART 1 ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION", or ORCON. This prohibits classification of illegal activity. Now compare this with the 32 CFR 2800 clauses which Addington has also ignored, and not followed: (§ 2800.6 Delegation of classification and declassification authority. )

OVP needs to explain, if the EO does not apply, why it has not asserted the same argument on all Code of Federal Regulations.

[L. Coyote]

46. MORE: OVP Blinked: Congress Decides To Accept OVP Retreat

OVP Blinked: Congress Decides To Accept OVP Retreat
Submitted by Anonymous on 30 June 2007 - 8:11pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198

Prospect Congress Might Cut Funding -- Framers Liked Threat: If not now, when?

After Congress threatened to shut down funding for OVP, OVP retracted it's stupidty -- somewhat -- and admitted that it was still part of the US government. COngress decided to not block -- for now -- OVP funding. Cheney doesn't have to live in a trailer. yet.

Needed Confrontation: Congress Confronted OVP Stupidity

It was reasonable to discuss shutting down OVP CHeney's fudning in light of his absurd assertion he's in neither branch of government. It forced OVP to back down and agree: They can't make stupid assertions without timely consequences.

Ralph Regula sounds like a lapdog crying wolf. Look at this:

Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, warned Democrats that "it might come back to haunt you at some time in the future" when a Democrat holds the vice presidency. "Because some members may not like the current vice president, or any future vice president, doesn't mean Congress should use its power of the purse to eliminate funding for the office."

Funding Cuts: An Intended Threat, An Eternal Option

The Famers intended "funding cuts" as a credible check on power, regardless the faction. If Congress does something stupid, the voters can vote them in, or vote them out.

GOP Crocodile Tears: No Real Concern For DNC

Why would anyone in the DNC worry what the GOP was saying about "what might happen" in the futur? GOP ignored the GOP leadership; no reason the DNC should listen to "advice" from the GOP.

If the GOP wants the "threaten" to cut VP funding for absurd reasons, let them suffer more voter backlash. It's absurd to suggest that it's "dangerous" to do what the Framers intended: Shut down funding.

GOP is upset the Framers through of this first, but the GOP did not do this against Clinton:

"Congress should use its power of the purse to eliminate funding for the office"

. . . and why not? If Congress decides it's not needed, then Congress is stuck with the consequences. There's nothing taht says Congrses has to be responsible: Look at the legacy of the GTOM abuses: Congressional inaction on war crimes.

OVP knows Congress is willing to move quickly to challenge OVP stupidity. Fair warning if OVP remains stupid in not responding to subpoenas.

[L. Coyote]

47. CREW: Cheney lawyer told Secret Service to "eliminate data" on visitors = 29 May 2007

Cheney lawyer told Secret Service to "eliminate data" on visitors to VP residence
Submitted by crew on 29 May 2007 - 6:54pm.
http://citizensforethics.org/node/28567

In response to CREW's lawsuit over access to what should be public records, we learned that Vice President Cheney's lawyer told the Secret Service that visitor logs were his records, not theirs. That meant Cheney could prevent any public access. Before you read the AP article, know CREW's position according to our counsel, Anne Weismann: "The latest filings make clear that the administration has been destroying documents and entering into secret agreements in violation of the law."

A lawyer for Vice President Dick Cheney told the Secret Service in September to eliminate data on who visited Cheney at his official residence, a newly disclosed letter states.

The Sept. 13, 2006, letter from Cheney's lawyer says logs for Cheney's residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory are subject to the Presidential Records Act. ......

=========================
COMMENT:

Archivist Has A Say On What Is Disclosed Outside VP Control
Submitted by Anonymous on 31 May 2007 - 1:43am.
http://citizensforethics.org/node/28567

Cheney can't make an "agreement" to destroy documents, when it is up to the archivist, not Cheney, to decide what information is in the public interest to disclose.

44 USC 2207: "the Archivist may, when the Archivist determines that it is in the public interest, enter into an agreement for the deposit of Vice-Presidential records in a non-Federal archival depository."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002207----000-.html

As with the US Attorney firings and politicication of DOJ, the Archivist position has become politicized: Hide evidence of illegal activity. This isn't compliance with anything, but a cover-up of illegal activity.

[L. Coyote]

49. LETTER: The letter from VP Cheney's lawyer to the Secret Service: Don't retain anything

Here's the letter that Vice President Cheney's lawyer sent to the Secret Service:

.... Cheney_Letter.preview.JPG

=====================
COMMENT:

Letter Vioaltes Statute: Not Up To Cheney, But Archivist
Submitted by Anonymous on 31 May 2007 - 1:39am.

It is legal fiction for Cheney to argue that these are Presidential records: There's a different statute for VP Records; and an important caveat: Unlike Presidential rcords, VP records can be disclosed when the archivist -- not Cheney -- sees a public benefit.

Addington appears to have neglected to review the statute.

More Addington Non-Sense To Hide Illegal Activity

Records "subject to records Act" means the records are _public_ documents, not private records: "the Archivist may, when the Archivist determines that it is in the public interest, enter into an agreement for the deposit of Vice-Presidential records in a non-Federal archival depository."

Cheney cannot claimn that these are "Presidential" records, when 42 USC 2207 makes an exception that gives the archivist, not the Vice President, the discretion of what records to disclose to the public. It is legal fiction for Cheney to argue that his records are the same as Presidential records: They are not; they are covered by different statutes, and there are different exceptions which do not allow Cheney to hide everything.

The Vice President may also not hide anything in a "separate" repository to go around the archivists' review: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the establishment of separate archival depositories for such Vice-Presidential records.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002207----000-.html

Cheney's invoking a statute that doesn't immunize/shield documents, but requires that they be retained as _public_ documents: Official records.

If you read the Iran-Contra minority report, and compare the citations closely with the caselaw cited, you'll see what Addington did then as he's doing now: Twisting the words to do exactly the _oppsite_ of the intent.

Let's get Addington disbarred, and Cheney prosecuted outside impeachment by any of the State Attorney Generals.

[L. Coyote]

48. CREW: Papers continues to cover "nepotism" in Congress = 27 June 2007

Papers continues to cover "nepotism" in Congress
Submitted by crew on 27 June 2007 - 9:18am.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29207

CREW's report, Family Affair, continues to generate interest. This report clearly struck a nerve as people learned that members of Congress were using campaign funds to pay their family members. The term "nepotism" kept popping up as it did in the headline of this article, "Study Finds Nepotism in Congress":

There are least 64 members of Congress who used campaign funds to pay family members, including San Bernardino Reps. Jerry Lewis, Howard “Buck” McKeon and Joe Baca, according to a recent report.

The report, released by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government, lists 64 congressmen who have either paid a family member, has a family member that is a lobbyist, made a contribution to a family member’s political campaign, paid a company in which a family member has a financial interest or has used a position to benefit a family member.

According to the study ...........

==========================
COMMENT:

Expanding Oath To Impose Discipline on Members of Congress
Submitted by Anonymous on 27 June 2007 - 3:59pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29207#comment-7297

Supporting Expanded Oath, Enforceable In Any State or Federal Court

I am somewhat baffled by the Article V implications: The Chambers do not appear to be "self regulating":

"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." (Article V)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section5

I would ask that there be a discussion on the methods the States could use -- outside elections -- to lawfully discipline Members of Congress; and the possibility of using 5 USC 3331 as a tool by the states to prosecute members of Congress who refuse to clean up their chamber.

In theory, payments made for services rendered is more than bribery, it's corruption of the legislative process. Arguably defending the Constitution means immediately removing from office those who are violating the law. Whether the Congress "agrees" to be bound by law is meaningless: As the President, Members of Congress, and the Congress as a body, shall assent to the law; not use its immunity or illusory ambiguity to remain above accountability.

Federalist 78 Leaves Open Option For New Constitution

I reject the notion we are stuck with what we have; or that nothing can be done. We the People may create a New Constitution -- outside the Amendment Process -- that delegates to the States the power to lawfully remove from office through prosecution Members of the Congress.

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively" (Fed78)

Laws are the fruit of reason. Where there are rules -- as per the Roberts Rules of Order, or other rules like Mason's Parliamentary Rules ( Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure ) -- there should be a mechanism to ensure the rules of reason get injected to the oversight mechanisms.

I would like to hear some discussion why statute, 5 USC 3331, and other standards of conduct -- when Members of Congress as a body, or the ethics committee refuse to act -- are not imposed to compel reasonable Member of Congress conduct. I do not share the view that this is the "best" we can hope for, as it defies reason that a body based on rules appears to be unruly.

Impermissible: Without Enforcement, There is No Republic

Where there are rules, but not credible enforcement mechanism, we the people cannot be credibly told that this is a Republic. We the People have been guaranteed a republic, arguably one that "enforces rules."

Congressional Ethics Committee Lapses: Denial of Guarantee to States to Enforcement Mechanism

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section4

A "guarantee" means enforcing that guarantee with some credible enforcement. When Members of Congress refuse to meet their standards, it does not mean that there are no standards; nor does it mean that the rules go away; or that nobody else can impose discipline.

Expanded Oath or New Branch Outside The Current Three

The easier approach to disciplining Congress would be to expand the oath, 5 USC 3331. if members of Congress do not agree, then We the People may create a New Branch outside Congress, which shall enforce the law, investigate, and act regardless which faction controls Congress, the Executive, or Judiciary.

Congress has no power to say that it does "not agree" to enforce the law; or allow illegal conduct. When the 5 USC 3331 oath is not enforced, as it should be, the misconduct spreads. The oath should be broadened to include specific language promising not to engage in any bribery, corruption, or accepting any influence -- the core standards of conduct members of Congress are not willing to enforce given the unfavorable weather. Where Congress will not self-regulate, it would be through an expanded oath promising -- with enforcement -- to meet the standards Congress, on its own, will not agree to meet.

I would hope the legal community, including CREW, might discuss the issue of bringing suit against Members of Congress who refuse to ensure there is an enforcement mechanism of the rules of conduct. Rules which are not enforced are not rules, but illusions of legitimacy. Either enforce the rules, or remove the illusion of a Republic, and make it clear that the States have been denied their guarantee.

I would hope the solution imposes a duty and compels action regardless which faction controls Congress. I prefer creating a 4th Branch whose sole responsibility is to consolidated the investigation-enforcement mechanisms -- which this Congress, Judiciary, and Executive have recklessly refused since 2001 -- and delegate to this fourth branch the power to lawfully raise troops to compel Members of Congress and the President to assent to the Rule of Law. Of late, we have three branches of tyranny, unless the US government agrees otherwise. That is not permissible.

It is a shame that we've learned the hard way the failure of the three-branch system. The way forward means creating a system that will work, and shall work, regardless which faction is able to control and corrupt all three branches. A fourth branch -- that is not corruptable -- but has a higher oath only to the Constitution, and never to any party would be consistent with a ban on religious tests. The Fourth Branch could be one where no party could exist; and there could be no loyalty to any faction, only to the Constitution. This oath was supposed to have done that, but despite the oath it has not worked.

Summation

The Congressional Era of "self governance" supposedly collided with one of the platforms for "change" in November 2006. However, it can hardly be said that a self-regulating body, despite this mandate for change without changing, can be called responsive.

Congress may believe it must or shall move glacially. Yet, if it will not self-govern, there's little to believe behind a claim that it will effectively defend the Constitution against a tyrant, as is the case today. Where there is no example, there is no basis for belief.

We the People have voted into office Members of Congress to enact change, not make excuses to do nothing. Leadership within Congress means enacting change, not making excuses to get stuck. This Congress despite the mandate from We the People in the November 2006 elections, isn't serious about swiftly moving to set the example.

This Congress could self-establish rules, it refuses; and it could promulgate new requirements, which it does not do. The case cannot be said that voting for change will bring Change when Congress refuses to cooperate with that mandate.

On the table is the possibility for Congress to agree to expand the oath, and enforce that expanded oath with credible legislation; or there is the possibility that We the People shall collectively reject and annul this Constitution, and create new institutions outside Congress and the Executive which shall impose discipline, and compel reasonable conduct, not just meaningless and unenforced standards.

It is more likely Congress will require We the People to compel a change through a New Constitution, than for Congress to agree that the winds a re favorable. Time for We the People to stop waiting for Congress on their wind measurement, and ram down their throats standards and credible sanctions they refuse to do on their own. They've had their chance, refused, and defied Our Will. We the People are the leaders; and Members of Congress shall assent to Our Mandate. Enforce the robust standards, or We the People shall impose robust standards.

[L. Coyote]

50. CREW: Abramoff colleague/co-defendant wants out of civil case = 27 Sept 2006

Abramoff colleague/co-defendant wants out of civil case
Submitted by crew on 27 September 2006 - 11:26am.


Lots of Jack Abramoff related court news today. The Hill reports that one of Abramoff's co-defendants wants to be removed from a civil suit brought by the Alabama-Coushatta tribe of Texas:

A former colleague of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has asked a federal court to dismiss civil charges filed by a Texas Indian tribe that both lobbyists represented, claiming lack of jurisdiction.

Jon van Horne, who worked alongside Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig, filed a motion Thursday to dismiss fraud and racketeering charges against him in U.S. District Court. The suit, brought by the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, names as defendants Abramoff, van Horne, former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed, former Rep. Tom DeLay’s (R-Texas) aide, Michael Scanlon, and former Rep. Bob Ney’s (R-Ohio) chief of staff, Neil Volz.

The Texas tribe alleges that Abramoff and his three fellow lobbyists worked with Reed to misrepresent ...............

============================
Perhaps this is a different attorney writing, as the style is slightly different; I'm not having to change brackets to parenthesis!
It also antedates the others.

COMMENT:

RICO + RICO + RICO = RICO
Submitted by Anonymous on 27 September 2006 - 2:55pm.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/26669#comment-10

RICO + RICO + RICO = RICO.

The Tigua reservation and Alabama-Coushatta reservation were both created under the same Restoration Act of 1987. That Act, with the express agreement of these Tribes, prohibited gambling on the reservations. 25 U.S.C. 1300g-6, see also Ysleta Del Sur v. Texas, 36 F.3d 1325 (5th Cir. 1994). To add other complications, neither the Tigua nor AC were eligible to obtain a license to engage in gambling or gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulation Act (IGRA). The IGRA requires a State-Tribal agreement to engage in Class II gambling (cards, dice, etc.) and Class III gaming (slot machines, etc.). The IGRA reserved the power to the Department of Justice to prosecute violations of both the Federal and State laws where the respective reservation is located. 18 U.S.C. 1166(d).

It still remained undisclosed about the non-Indian gambling enterprise that actually designed, financed, supplied and developed the Speaking Rock Casino on the Tigua Reservation and managed and operated that illegal casino without State or Federal authority for approximately 8 years. The Class II Management Agreement between U.S., Tivolino, a/k/a Swiss Casinos of America, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Seven Circles Resorts, and the Ysleta Del Sur (Tigua) only recently appeared on the National Indian Gaming Commission web site.

The limitations placed upon gambling and gaming on the Tribal trust lands created under the Restoration Act of 1987 were clear and known to both the Tigua and the Alabama-Coushatta when they opened the casinos. The Texas Constitution and statutory laws prohibited gambling and gaming and made it a crime. Federal law made the State law the ultimate authority. The State of Texas officially reported the Tigua’s illegal gambling and gaming enterprise as early as 1996. The U.S. Department of Justice did nothing about this illegal gambling enterprise on the reservation trust property.

From 1998 on, the Tigua were making substantial campaign contributions to the Texas Democratic Party and to Democratic candidates. These contributions were made from the proceeds of the illegal Class III gaming enterprise. The Tigua enterprise also tried to bribe Texas officials by offering the State a percentage of the illegal gambling and gaming proceeds. This bribe, or offer if one is so inclined, was rejected by Texas State officials. Texas Governor, George W. Bush, Jr. thereafter ordered an investigation and study to be conducted into illegal Indian reservation gambling in Texas. The final investigation report found two Indian tribes to be illegally gambling in Texas, namely the Kickapoo and the Tigua. The Clinton administration did not take any corrective action against the illegal enterprises on the Indian reservations.

On September 27, 1999, Texas Attorney General, John Cornyn, commenced an injunction action against the Ysleta del Sur (Tigua) in the U.S. District Court in El Paso Texas. One year later, on September 27, 2001, the Federal trial court found the Tigua to be operating a highly lucrative illegal gambling enterprise and ordered the casino closed by November 30, 2001. See: Texas v. Ysleta Del Sur, 220 F.Supp.3d 688 (WDT 2001). This Court Order and injunction against the Tigua again mentions the Alabama-Coushatta. The Tigua appealed and obtained a temporary stay of the trial court order and an extension of time to close the casino. The Tigua Speaking Rock Casino was finally closed on January 9, 2002 when the extension granted by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals expired. On January 17, 2002, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court order and injunction. See: Texas v. Ysleta Del Sur, Case No. 01-1671. This was appealed to the Supreme Court where certiorari was denied on October 7, 2002. See: Ysleta Del Sur v. Texas, Case No. 01-51129. The matter regarding the Tigua Class II and Class III Speaking Rock Casino being an illegal enterprise within the meaning of RICO was and is res judicata.

Abramoff’s coconspirator, Neil Volz, who is also a defendant in the AC RICO case, plead guilty to the entire criminal information filed against him on May 8, 2006. Mr. Volz plead guilty to the fact that the Tigua (“Texas Tribe #1) casino was an illegal gambling and gaming enterprise and that he and others in the Abramoff team were pursuing a course of actions to influence public official to legitimize and legalize the illegal gambling and gaming enterprise. The Abramoff team solicited and entered into a contract agreement (Operation Open Door) with the Tigua in mid-February, 2002. The Abramoff team were fully aware that the casinos on the Tigua and Alabama-Coushatta reservations were illegal. These two illegal casino enterprises offered and Scanlon and Abramoff received and accepted the illegal proceeds to give effect to the corrupt influence and bribery scheme. This too is properly considered as res judicata. Neil Volz was not charged with defrauding the Tigua. He was charge with bribery and corruptly influencing public officials to reopen the illegal enterprises.

Ohio Representative, Robert Ney also plead guilty to numerous charges arising out of the Abramoff scandal. Mr. Ney was not criminally charged with defrauding the Tigua (Texas Tribe #1) or the Alabama-Coushatta (Texas Tribe #2). Mr. Ney was charged with accepting bribes to reopen these two illegal casinos.

The Alabama-Coushatta were emboldened by the highly lucrative and illegal Tigua Speaking Rock Casino enterprise. In spite of the known fact that the U.S. District Court had already ordered the Speaking Rock Casino to be closed and that the case was on appeal, on November 23, 2001, the Alabama-Coushatta defiantly opened their own illegal Class III casino. On December 11, 2001, four U.S. Congressmen requested a complete investigation into the Alabama-Coushatta casino enterprise, including the financial backers and gambling equipment vendors. Neither the DOJ nor the Department of Interior took any corrective action. Upon another suit commenced by the State of Texas, Attorney General, John Cornyn, the illegal Alabama-Coushatta casino was finally closed on July 24, 2002 by Order of the U.S. District Court. The matter regarding the Alabama-Coushatta Class III Casino being an illegal enterprise within the meaning of RICO was and probably still is res judicata.

The Alabama-Coushatta’s civil RICO case against their former agents, Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlons, Neil Volz, etc., would appear to be quite the novelty. Ralph Reed, another RICO defendant, was never an agent of the Tigua or Alabama-Coushatta. Ralph Reed’s representative in Georgia has already stated to the press that the Alabama-Coushatta RICO suit was “frivolous” upon grounds that the Alabama-Coushatta were operating an illegal casino enterprise. There are many possible defects in the Alabama-Coushatta RICO suit that could result in dismissal.

It will probably be difficult to maintain a RICO claim if the plaintiff in the case was engaged in an unlawful enterprise and then used the illegal proceeds of that illegal activity to retain agents to assist them to bribe and corruptly influence public officials to legalize their known illegal enterprise. This is particularly true when the plaintiff’s illegal enterprise falls squarely within the RICO statutes and predicate activities too. 18 U.S.C. 1961; 18 U.S.C. 1955; 18 U.S.C. 1166. The pot and the kettle, the pot and thre frying pan are black here and all were cooking the same vile brew.

The Alabama-Coushatta are claiming treble damages to their illegal gambling and gaming enterprise caused by their own hired agents. The damages are claimed to have arisen from the time that the Federal court closed their illegal enterprise on July 24, 2002 to the present. This RICO case may end in a reported case on a dismissal based upon the “Clean Hands Doctrine.” Does anyone have a bar of hotel room soap from the luxurious St. Andrews Golf Course Resort to send to the Alabama-Coushatta enterprise as a conciliation prize?

In addition, the Alabama-Coushatta are claiming that some of the defendants were illegally lobbying in Texas against their prohibited gambling and gaming enterprise while the Alabama-Coushatta and Tigua were also trying to obtain State legislation in their favor through other lobbyists. The RICO complaint does not disclose that some of their pro-gambling lobbyists were also engaged in illegal lobbying in Texas. It also does not disclose that Texas school funds and Texas taxpayer money were used to further their casino enterprises and lobbying efforts. NEXT contestant please- and bring your own chips.

This is Banana Republic and Vegas kind of stuff. RICO plus RICO plus RICO still equals RICO. If nothing else, this case may disclose some of the fine people that have taken up public offices on and off the reservation as well as some of the intricacies of real life backroom dealings that scandalized and dishonored entire Nations.

[L. Coyote]

51. My Comments before closing thread.

Mystery remains because some of the "Anonymous" postings were probably copied elsewhere, to divert traffic from CREW, and because too many posts have been identified as DM posts which simply are not. It seems some people are even posting stuff they want to put in DM's mouth, for their own blatantly obvious purposes.

However, there should now be no question about who the mystery poster is, what the caliber of legal scholarship is, and where our lawyer friend has been posting. All that's left is guessing who this lawyer is. Let me venture a first guess:

William Jefferson Clinton :rofl:

[Buttercup McToots]

52. Bump...up

:beer:

[Duer 157099]

53. Are you saying that the person posting on TPM is not the same person

who is posting on CREW?

If so, I disagree.

But in any case, thanks for compiling all those links here in this thread -- it will take me quite awhile to go through them (although I have already seen several of them on CREW).

One thing we can say for sure about "anon" -- he doesn't really *do* short posts, lol (that's always the first clue when I see people claiming a post was made by him)

[L. Coyote]

54. NO. But, not every post at TPM without a name is posted by the same person

and some of the TPM posts that appear to be by the "Anonymous" lawyer may be contrived with parts of his posts at CREW.

What is needed next is a timeline for the posts found across the web. That is why I posted the dates in the subjects.

I'm suspicious of some posts, and a timeline will help resolve some of that. My primary suspicion is that some dirty trickster was diverting attention away from the CREW posts, if not creating posts to impact the credibility of valid "Anonymous" lawyer posts at TPM.

[Buttercup McToots]

57. LC & Dot

Tp and Crew know the isp of those who are posting...is there no way we can get help
from them as to who is the lawyer and who is the trickster?
And DM has got to be aware if his posts are being chopped and posted under an assumed fake?
What do you think he is doing about it?

[Buttercup McToots]

58. And so you are saying...

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29973#comment

these posts are either legit anon posts by others who wish to remain anon or a fake DM?

Just trying tae figure it oot!

[redacted]

62. Buttercup, you can't assume that about IP's

There are several ways to shield true IP addresses.

Even assuming they might have true IP addresses in their logfiles, I'm not sure it's fair, or a good idea, to put CREW, TPM, Josh et. al. on the spot like that.

Moreover, precious time and resources spent on third party data capture may be much more productive than trying to figure out precisely the identity or identities of those involved, especially since these posts are starting to appear more like a group effort with each new discovery.

The MP has already told us that many have been involved in this process for a long time using highly secure channels, and that their work is directly on track to meet up with the public's research.

Let me also suggest that the very instant that someone posts an accurate guess as to the identity or identities of those involved in this "secret team," all the mystery postings may immediately end. I don't anyone's interests in preserving the Constitution would be served by that.

[L. Coyote]

60. DEEP MODEM Spin Off: Who is the "Anonymous Lawyer" and who is the "Anonymous Imposter"

This thread is very long, so I'm moving discussion to a spin off.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1675103

[DemReadingDU]

61. Thank you for documenting everything here

Your time is much appreciated for doing this for us.

[redacted]

63. Yes, absolutely, big big thanks to L. Coyote!

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[L. Coyote]

64. Summary of Anonymous Lawyer posts at CREW, with links

31 May 2007 1:43am	CREW	http://citizensforethics.org/node/28567#comment-5967					
27 Sept 2006 2:55pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/26669#comment-10					
11 April 2007 7:06pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27374#comment-4816					
31 May 2007 1:39am	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28576#comment-5966					
31 May 2007 1:52am	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28590#comment-5968					
31 May 2007 2:38am	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28590#comment-5969					
31 May 2007 7:03pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28616#comment-5990					
2 June 2007 7:27pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28670#comment-6056					
2 June 2007 9:53pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28670#comment-6058					
4 June 2007 6:16pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28670#comment-6105					
9 June 2007 4:08pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28744#comment-6184					
11 June 2007 7:26pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28744#comment-6231					
13 June 2007 7:36pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28786#comment-6271					
19 June 2007 7:42pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29131#comment-6429					
20 June 2007 5:37pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29149#comment-6459					
23 June 2007 4:35pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29170#comment-6570					
23 June 2007 8:18pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29170#comment-6581					
24 June 2007 5:18pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29170#comment-6693					
25 June 2007 2:56pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6729					
25 June 2007 3:53pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6818					
25 June 2007 6:35pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29175#comment-6938					
25 June 2007 6:11pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29193#comment-6937					
25 June 2007 6:55pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29193#comment-6939					
26 June 2007 12:28pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29195#comment-7242					
26 June 2007 3:37pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198#comment-7255					
26 June 2007 4:56pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198#comment-7258					
30 June 2007 8:11pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29198#comment-7258					
27 June 2007 3:59pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29207#comment-7297					
2 July 2007 12:37pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-8701					
2 July 2007 2:35pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29232#comment-8720					
2 July 2007 1:10pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29237#comment-8703					
2 July 2007 4:47pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29242#comment-8908					
3 July 2007 12:53pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29256#comment-8925					
3 July 2007 1:35pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29256#comment-8926					
3 July 2007 3:23pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29256#comment-8941					
3 July 2007 3:31pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29260#comment-8942					
3 July 2007 4:11pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29260#comment-8949					
8 July 2007 6:59pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29348#comment-9579					
14 July 2007 4:33pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29370#comment-10343					
12 July 2007 1:43pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29408#comment-10056					
21 August 2007 3:23pm	CREW	http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29947#comment-12502					

[L. Coyote]

65. Spin Off Thread: "Mystery Poster" DEEP MODEM Demystified. SOURCE Found at CREW

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1692772