May be slow to load,items coming from other servers.
I. Powers and Rights Reserved To We the People, Never Delegated or Violated Without Consent
A. The People are expressly defined as human beings and does not refer to corporations or contractual relationships.
B. No contract, agreement, or promise may ever bind any human to refuse to enforce the law, or prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest.
C. We the People may believe anything, including the possible belief that this Constitution must be discarded and replaced with a superior document which defends the People and protects their power to enforce this Constitution against the Government.
D. The People are educated to apply the lessons of history to ensure rights are preserved, power asserted, and this Constitution is protected from domestic and foreign enemies.
E. The People have the enforceable right and power to review any public document and access any public official.
F. The People have the enforceable right to engage in any speech, communication, or discussion on issues of war crimes, government incompetence, or allegations of reckless government planning and maladministration.
G. Government officials, agencies, departments may not invoke any power or right they have denied to the People.
H. The People have the right to affordable housing. Where none is available, the government is denied the power to prosecute anyone for not living in a home, or residing in a public park, open forest, or public lands.
I. The People have the enforceable right to freely travel, without questions, and without delay. Any law enforcement officer, agents, or contacted security official who uses any ruse, scheme, or deception to engage in pretextual stops shall be enforced as a violation of this Constitution.
J. The People have the enforceable right to compel govenment officials, contractors, and securty personnel to identify themselves, disclose their policies and procedures, and respond to complaints about violations of this Constitution, the Supreme Law, or laws of war.
K. The People may not be subject to any electronic surveillance except on probable cause and a warrant before a judicial tribunal. The President, Congress and others are expressly denied the power to enact, create, use, or rely on quasi-judicial tribunals to self-certify warrants to conduct surveillance.
L. All denied powers to the US Government in this Constitution are reserved to the People to be used to defend the Constitution.
II. Powers and Rights Reserved to States
A. States shall have authority to enforce any law within their jurisdiction. Failure to enforce the laws of war shall be prosecuted as a war crime.
B. States shall, when the Federal Government refuses to enforce the Constitution or Supreme Law, enforce the national and international law against contractors, legal counsel, state or US government officials.
C. Any state may start impeachment investigations or proceedings against the President, Member of Congress, or US government official on issues of international laws of war, domestic rebellion, or violations of the Supreme Law oath of office, or Geneva Conventions. The States shall, upon receipt of an impeachment investigation or conviction from any other state, shall within 10 days debate that resolution. If convicted by 2/3 of the States, that US government official shall be removed from office. Any effort to thwart State efforts to enforce the US Constitution through impeachment investigations or impeachment proceedings at the State level may be construed as a subsequent violation of this Constitution and laws of war.
D. The States may, without notice, organize themselves to collectively defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the United States government. The States Governors have the standing power, right, and authority to use deadly combat force to enforce this Constitution against US government officials.
E. A failure of any State official to enforce the laws of war shall be subject to a war crimes trial within 90 days of discovering that evidence. Where there are credible allegations of war crimes, a failure to investigate shall be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty.
F. States have the power to enforce contract obligations between contractors and the US government which affect the rights of their State citizens. Failure to enforce these contractual obligations against the contractors or US government could be construed as a subsequent violation under the laws of war and US Constitution against legal counsel, state officials, or court officers.
III. Independent Branch
A. All US government, contractor-provided, and legal counsel data shall be retained in an independent branch.
B. The President, Congress, and Judicial branches have no power, right or claim to not fully fund this Independent Branch.
C. The Independent Branch conducts electronic surveillance of the US government, stores that data, and ensures there are independent, safe, retained records of all US government transaction, including conversations and memos between legal counsel and government officials. Once created for the government or connected with any legal or illegal activity, these records are public records.
D. The data may be seen only upon a showing of reasonable belief or suspicion by the United States Congress, Court, or Executive Branch that the information may be useful in enforcing the Constitution, Supreme Law, or Geneva Conventions.
E. Private citizens may view any data, unless the US government provides sufficient, detailed evidence why that request for information should not be met for bonafide, lawful secrets. Any effort to hide evidence behind a claim of "state secrets," where that claim is linked with an effort to bypass the Constitution, oath of office, Supreme Law, or laws of war may be punishable by the death penalty.
F. All government data belongs to the People. Any legal counsel working for the US government shall ensure that the People's right to reliable information is protected. A failure to protect this information could be construed as a war crime.
IV. Prosecutorial Branch
A. All prosecutorial options are denied of the President.
B. The Prosecutorial branch has the power to raise independent combat power, support them, and may lawfully use that deadly combat force to confront Members of Congress, the Judicial Branch Officers, or the Presidents upon showing of probable cause for war crimes.
C. The prosecutorial power is the exclusive power of the prosecution branch. However, anyone may make a claim of illegal activity, and enforce the laws of the United States and States respectively. Any effort to block anyone from unilaterally attempting to enforce the laws of war through discovery, investigation, and open discussion of those alleged war crimes shall be construed as a possible subsequent offense under the laws of war.
D. Legal counsel are subject to public review, audit, and can be required, with fair notice, of a requirement to demonstrate before any court their compliance with the laws of war.
E. Legal counsel may be denied authority to conduct discovery during any investigation when that discovery is linked with efforts that would thwart war crimes investigation, enforcement of the Supreme law or Geneva Conventions.
V. Judicial Branch
A. The Judicial Branch is above the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch only in order of precedence. The Judicial Branch is a co-equal branch, and closest to the People and Constitution. It is least responsive, and most slow to the People's daily interests to enforce the Constitution and Supreme Law or Geneva Conventions.
B. Where the Judicial Branch does not timely enforce the Constitution, Supreme Law, or laws of war, the States and People retain the power and right to investigate and prosecute allegations of US government illegal activity, war crimes, or violations of the Supreme law.
C. All precedents under the laws of war are binding on the Judicial Branch, US government, and the People through enforcement actions.
D. Any decision by any judicial officer not to fully enforce the laws of war, Supreme Law, or this Constitution may be construed as a war crime, subject to the death penalty.
VI. Legislative Branch
A. The Legislative Branch is listed after the Judicial Branch because it is less responsive to the People.
B. The Members of Congress may be stopped between sessions and held to account for their failure to enforce the laws of war.
C. Refusing to investigate or impeach the President, Judicial Officers, or any current or former US government official for alleged war crimes, maladministration, illegal warfare, or other crimes against the People, States, or US Government shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to not fully assert ones oath of office, and punishable by the death penalty under the laws of war.
D. There are three chambers to the Congress. The Senate and House have a legal duty to fully enforce the laws. Any decision to not timely review evidence of impeachable offenses, or not investigate war crimes or maladministration could be construed as subsequent offenses under the laws of war.
E. The Superior Chamber shall decide, before any debate, whether the proposed bill is or is not Constitutional. This determination is subject to approval, challenge, and rejection by the People, States, and Judicial Branch.
F. The Congress is denied the exclusive power to make rules. Any rule which prohibits any investigation into alleged malfeasance in re the laws of war, Supreme Law, or oath of office is illegal, and may be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.
G. The Congress shall comply with public audits, and timely provide within 45 days of an audit report a statement of remedy, and outline a plan within 90 days to fully comply with all legal obligations under the Statute, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
H. The Congress may raise and support an army, and independently order that army only against the President when the President refuses to enforce the laws of war, or comply with his legal obligations under this Constitution.
VII. Executive Branch
A. The Executive Branch is led by three Presidents, co-equal with non-overlapping jurisdictions. The Executive Branch has one power: Executive Power. All actions taken under that one power are lesser authorities not powers. The Executive Branch has no power to create new powers or assign itself broader power.
B. The Executive Branch is listed last because it is the least responsive to the People, and the greatest threat of tyranny to this Constitution. The President is a clerk, not a King or Emperor. The President only manages programs. The President has no power to ignore, rewrite, or refuse to enforce the law. Each of the three Presidents shall have an ongoing requirement to demonstrate to the People and States and Congress and Courts compliance with the Constitution, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
C. The Domestic Affairs President is responsive to the States and US Government on internal affairs.
D. The Foreign Affairs President shall have exclusive power to interact with foreign powers. The Foreign Affairs President is denied any power to violate the laws of war, or use covert activity against American citizens.
E. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs President are denied the power to thwart any lawful State action to organize with foreign powers and agents to defend the US Constitution, enforce the laws of war, or protect the rights and powers of the People and States against domestic encroachments by the US government, legal counsel, or other US government officials.
F. The Commander in Chief shall only have power to lead combat operations during war time. Congress shall conduct ongoing, public reviews whether the Commander in Chief is or is not competent in managing combat operations. The Presidents and Commander in Chief are denied the power to prohibit Congress from using electronic surveillance or use separately raised and supported armies to conduct this oversight during wartime and peacetime.
G. The Executive Branch is denied the power to block anyone from getting access to illegal activity related to the laws of war.
H. During Peacetime, the Commander in Chief shall periodically cooperate with ongoing Oversight of US combat forces to ensure they are combat ready, fully trained on the laws of war, and prepared to lawfully be used to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.
I. The Executive Branch and Presidents and officers, agents, contractors, and personnel are denied the power, right, or authority to order anyone to ignore any statute, law, legal requirement, or obligation under the Constitution.
J. The Executive Branch has no power or authority to directly contact the Legislative Branch by name. The President may only request, not order other branches of government. All Communications between the Executive and Legislative Branch shall pass through the Prosecutorial Branch, and retained in the National Archives. Those records are available for public inspection at any time. The People have the enforceable right to compel the Executive Branch, Legislature, and Judicial Branch to produce documents.
K. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judicial Branch, and Prosecutorial Branch, and States are denied the power to wage warfare, information warfare, or harass American civilians through his agents, combat troops, or third parties in the United states or from overseas. Any funds used for this illegal purpose belong to the People and States. Contracts used to enforce, compel, or organize this illegal activity are not enforceable, and contrary to public policy.
L. The Presidents are denied a presumption of competence until proven. The President shall always have the burden of proof, and is expressly denied a presumption of good faith until demonstrated with overwhelming evidence in public. An election result is not proof of competence nor does it satisfy a presumption of good faith, only of mastery to win an election through legal or illegal methods and deception.
M. The Executive Branch and Presidents and subordinate agency head, contractor, and employees are expressly denied any assurance any conversation he has related to illegal activity, war crimes, unlawful acts, or other threats to the US Constitution shall remain secret behind any shield, scheme, agreement, or technology. Any order a President or anyone gives to anyone to hide, destroy,not provide, or conceal evidence of illegal activity may be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty. This restriction against following illegal orders may not be bypassed by claiming the order was from a non-person, electronic device, or other non-Constitutionally recognized entity, database, policy, guide, or other document.
N. The Presidents are denied the power to use any combat force, technology, or other military weapon or plan against American civilians, except in cases of internal rebellion which only the Congress shall approve in writing. When the Congress fails to act, or abuses its authority, the State Governors may lawfully use deadly combat force to detain and enforce the laws of war prohibiting illegal use of force against American civilians.
O. The Presidents are denied the power to induce any civilian to take any action that might deny them on any Geneva protections as a civilian. Any order, ruse, scheme, propaganda, or unreliable information to induce anyone to wage war, information warfare, or any action to harass civilians is punishable by the death penalty, and may be enforced as a violation of the laws of war.
P. The President, when delegating any power to any agency head, agrees that that agency shall be organized as if it were a separate, lesser, and not coequal branch. Those agencies shall fully cooperate with the other branches of government to ensure power within the branch or department is divided. There is no single agency, division, or office in the Executive Branch that is beyond ongoing oversight by the other four branches.
Q. The President shall have no power to block the Congress, States, Judiciary, Prosecutorial, and Independent Branch from a having co-equal status to oversee, manage, and organize that lesser branch. If the President refuses to substantially comply with that requirement, Congress may not lawfully provide funding for that agency, and the funds return to the States and People.
3 comments:
"Efficient breach" is another way of saying, "rendition". It's legal if all other options have failed.
However, "efficient breach" assumes -- incorrectly -- that the benefits outweigh the costs. The approach assumes that the persons detained will be treated humanely. "Efficient breach" may be lawful to enforce the law and bring people to justice in the US; but it cannot be used to ignore the law, and remove people from the protection of justice.
37 Cornell Int'l L.J. 389: "Toscanino represents an abducting state's self-imposed regulation. The notion of self-imposed regulation buttresses both the traditional justifications for self-help - protecting citizens and self-defense - and the efficient breach arguments because regulation of law enforcement officials by the domestic courts assures the international community that the accused will receive humane treatment."
One cannot argue "efficient breach" is permitted, but then fail to humanely treat the prisoner.
A policy of rendition can only be lawful of the US permits outside reviews to ensure prisoner treatment is humane. The US cannot have it both ways: Arguing rendition is required to enforce the law; but then ignore the law and abuse the prisoner. Where self regulation is a requirement behind "efficient breach", efforts to fund that breach, without enforcing any regulation of that rendition is alleged malfeasance, and actionable under the laws of war.
Rendition is narrowly legal if other conditions are met. This President appears to have -- again -- picked from the statutes he likes to justify expanding power; but ignores the legal conditions attached to that assertion of power. He remains constrained by law; and Congress is constrained by oath to enforce that law, not make excuses to turn a blind eye to justice.
Rendition, as practiced by the US, it's not a state secret. It's illegal, and unlawful to use "privilege" to hide evidence of those war crimes.
The evidence below suggests:
1. Reasonable Fact Finders Could Conclude Members of Congress Have Breached Their Fiduciary Duties in re 5 USC 3331, and Geneva obligations [Investigation, malfeasance]
There are reasoanable grounds to question whether Members of Congress have breached their fiduciary duties under 5 USC 3331 in re Geneva; and
2. Reasonable Discovery
There is admissible evidence -- and grounds for discovery -- in re alleged war crimes discussions between Members of Congress and the Executive Branch, which are not protected by any priviege.
- - - - - -
I. Expert witness for Grand Jury investigating alleged malfeasance by members of Congress in re Geneva violations:
A. Witness reports that Congress has not met its legal duty, supporting allegation in re malfeasance
SENATOR HART: "I don't think this Congress has done its duty under the Constitution to ask tough questions." [From: 43 Idaho L. Rev. 7 ]
Cross Examination:
Senator Hart, you were a Senator for how long?
Do the words at the quotation correctly report what you said?
Do you stand by that report of what you said?
Is it your assertion here, before the grand jury today, that -- in your professional, expert judgment as a former Senator -- that the standard of conduct of Members of Congress in re Geneva has been breached, not meet, and has fallen short of their 5 USC 3331 oath of office requirements?
Do you have any other examples, evidence, or other things that would help the Grand Jury decide whether the Members' of Congress conduct in re Geneva has or has not breached their fiduciary duties as Members of Congress, or their 5 USC 3331 oath of office obligations in re Geneva?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
II. Witness Reports negotiations between Executive Branch and Legislative Branch.
Notes:
A. Evidence related to illegal activity or cross-branch discussions cannot be absolutely shielded by privilege: Information related to the conversation has been disclosed.
B. Privilege only shields executive branch or legislative branch. There is no combined "executive-legislative immunity". The President cannot claim privilege for a conversation involving non-Executive branch personnel. The Shield only insulates conversations within the Executive Branch.
C. Case law supports disclosure of evidence where that conversation has been disclosed, even inadvertently.
- - -QUOTE - - - -
[ From : 2006 Wis. L. Rev. 1 ]
Senator Feingold: "As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, I held a hearing on October 3rd called "Protecting Constitutional Freedoms in the Face of Terrorism." [ See note 26 ] But the process quickly deteriorated into a closed door negotiation between the Administration and congressional leaders, with only a handful of members in a position to influence the direction of the legislation."
See note 26:
Protecting Constitutional Freedoms in the Face of Terrorism: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 107th Cong. (2001).
= = = = = = = = =
Cross Examination of Witness:
Senator Feingold, you are reported in this law journal as observing closed door negotiations. Please define any confidentiality agreements you signed, agreed to, or promised before attending this meeting.
Were you advised by counsel that there was a joint "executive-legislative" shield that would allow the two separate branches to exchange evidence; but that the details of that inter-governmental transfer between branches would be shielded?
What contemporaneous notes (admissible) do you have related to these discussions?
Were you ever advised to destroy, conceal, modify, or not disclose any of these notes related to this joint meeting between Congress and the Executive Branch on this or similar discussions?
Are any notes related to these discussions under seal, in any safe, or somewhere that you cannot easily obtain them?
Have you been advised to not respond to questions about any notes taken related to these meetings?
Have you been issued with any NSLs advising you that discussing answers to these questions may subject you to legal proceedings?
Is there anything the grand jury needs to know about any other agreement, promise, or other legal action that is prohibiting you from disclosing all the details related to these conversations with the Executive Branch?
Were you promised any reward, or threatened with any retaliation if you did not provide truthful, complete information related to these discussion; or other discussion you and other Members of Congress had with the Executive Branch?
Were you or ony other Member of Congress to your knowledge ever induced to not investigate any action of the President, Executive Branch; or any alleged Member of Congress misconduct in re alleged malfeasance in re oversight of alleged Geneva violations?
Are you aware of the JAG working group memoranda Senator Graham commented on?
What types of negotiations did you other others Senators have related to these now disclosed JAG memoranda related to prisoner treatment?
When did you engage in any discussions with any DoJ or WH legal counsel or Executive Branch personnel related to any activity or conduct of prisoners of war?
What year was that?
Why did it take that long after the 2001 JAG memos were first written for the Senators to discuss, investigate, or review this issue?
You were involved with what kinds of discussions related to funding?
How could you ensure that the funding decisions for these renditions, prisoner treatment, and other alleged breaches of Geneva were or were not adequate?
Was the Administration, officials, or others in the GOP or DNC making threats to pass bills without full Senate review of the conduct?
Which investigations did the Executive Branch "negotiators" say did not need to be completed before you -- as a Senator -- voted on the funding for this bill?
Was there any option -- including a bill hold -- that you and others could have exercised that would have prevented funding for this illegal activity?
Can you explain why the option you discussed, as reported at this law review article -- the option to use a hold -- was not used to slow down funding for things which the President and others did not permit full review: Prisoner treatment, alleged breaches of Geneva, FISA violations, use of data illegally captured for unlawful purposes.
When did you first discuss your legal concerns with Congressional counsel after this meeting-negotiation?
Did you regularly rely on Congressional counsel to seek advise on whether you as a Senator should or should not block a bill on Constitutional grounds?
Who did you talk to to ensure your concerns with the Constitutional issues of this bill were sound, reasonable, and had a legal basis in law?
Was there anything stopping other members of Congress from making other inquiries to other legal counsel of their choosing before voting for this funding?
These guyz are gonna need awfully good lawyers, they ones that they've had are strictly BOZOs.
I say that cuz any good lawyer would tell you the BEST defense in situations -- such as those presented by the current US admin -- is a good offense.
Which in THIS case would have been to DO THE RIGHT THING. Follow your oath of office, read up on war crimes and make sure you didn't fall over in the sandbox when the sand got thrown in yer eyes, which clearly some of these big players did NOT do. Things just preceded to get worse.
I still find shocking after all these days of genocide, to see that they still just stand by the sidelines knowing the carnage.
I learned TONS about CONgressional/ DoJ checks and balances during my refugee hearings, as a lot of the charges I brought about persecution had to be PROVED via a Constitutional framework. That breach was really put into play during Clinton/Gore, aided and abetted by Reno. She once allowed herself a moment of pity and commented about and helped out some Cuban boat people which was not COOL. So, after that she was "made to "toe the line." Check that out if you like; it's true. The person who was fronting for the DoJ at the time of my international 'incident' was none other than Sheila FOSTER Anthony, Vince's sister - an old friend from Hope, Arkansis. She knew diddly squat about the law, and didn't "do her homework" on international law at all
Have you, by any chance, checked out the obligations of the Solicitor General? I checked that out a few months back when researching the Federalist Society wheels within wheels program. Another thing to INVESTIGATE. Handles, or supposed, any manner of COMPLAINTS. During Clinton, they figured out how to have that office just be a phone number that took messages and NEVER returned phone calls. Europa Handbook wrote about it. Hence I had EVIDENCE of persecution. That is where you call to lodge a complaint about persecution/deportation. It had to be pursued, as every single legal option within the US had to be pursued for me to get refugee status. I did WIN The first case, but they rewrote the law (I could explain that to you, just how and what and what happened AFTER that) and thus lost the second hearing. That was the FIRST second hearing in the IMRB in Canadian history.
In both cases I used legal argument, never resorting to pleas for pity or sympathy. The first one was ruled legally sound; opinion printed in the Ottawa Citizen officially. That's why the LAW was re-written. It seems the Bushistas know that strategy. The Canadians have a long history of using security certificates, indeterminate detention, politicized government bodies, trotting out "appropriate judges" and legal opinions as the "Mood" sticks and serves the political agenda. (surprise! Surprise!!) I can show you some interesting papers on it.
Google this name, Wahid Baroudh or Baroud. You'll get a document all about Canada, "safety" certificates and INTERNATIONAL law and procedures.
The real "outcome" of my case came later, when the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into play as so many abuses came to light!! It's known as IRPA.
POINT: Those who play fast and loose with International law EVENTUALLY must face the music, no matter what the entangling alliances might happen to be, NATO be damned. Many lost their jobs about two years after I got landed as the dust settled.
I once heard a "rumour" that some grand jury in Virginia was looking into war crimes. Do you know if this is true? Or if it IS, anything about it ??
Post a Comment