Local protesters hit by Tasers resolve trespassing charges
The Associated Press
Friday, March 21
BRATTLEBORO - A man arrested during a protest last summer in which police used a Taser stun gun has pleaded guilty to trespassing.
Under the plea entered Thursday, a resisting arrest charge against Jonathan Crowell, 34, of West Dummerston, was dropped. He was fined $200.
Crowell and Samantha Kilmurray, 34, were arrested July 24 after chaining themselves to a barrel and refusing to move from a lot where they were protesting potential development. Police used a Taser on both, and they have filed a civil suit over it.
Kilmurray has been referred to court diversion.
The incident prompted town officials to rewrite their use-of-force policy for police, and a consultant who reviewed the case found that officers at the scene ignored instructions to not be "heavy-handed" with the protesters.
March 11, 2008
Vermont Towns Approve Bush 'Indictment'
By JOHN CURRAN Associated Press Writer
BATTLEBORO, Vt. — Voters in two Vermont towns approved measures Tuesday calling for the indictment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for what they consider violations of the Constitution.
Town Clerk Annette Cappy stands in her office in Brattleboro, Vt. Friday Feb. 29, 2008, holding a sample ballot with an article which voters will consider that would instruct the town's attorney to draft indictments allowing President Bush and Vice President Cheney to be arrested by local authorities for crimes against their Constitution. On primary day Tuesday March 4, 2008, its residents will vote on whether to issue warrants for the arrest of Bush and Cheney, should they ever visit. (AP Photo/Jason R. Henske)
More symbolic than anything, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit Brattleboro or nearby Marlboro or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere - if they're not impeached first.
In Brattleboro, the vote was 2,012-1,795. In Marlboro, which held a town meeting on the issue, it was 43-25 with three abstentions.
"It really carries no weight," said Brattleboro Town Clerk Annette Cappy. "Our town attorney has no legal authority to draw up any papers to allow our police officers to do so, but the gentleman who initiated the petition, got the signatures, wanted it on the ballot to make a statement."
The measure in Marlboro isn't binding because it didn't appear on the warning for the meeting, according to Nora Wilson.
"It was emotional. There were heartfelt speeches on both sides," Wilson said.
The question put to voters in Brattleboro referred to "crimes against our Constitution" but did not specify the allegations.
In Brattleboro, a steady stream of voters paraded into the Union High School gym to cast their ballots on a day when school board elections and Vermont's presidential primary were also on the slate.
Voters interviewed after casting ballots said they saw the article as an opportunity to express their frustration over the war in Iraq and Bush's tenure in general.
"I realize it's an extreme thing to do, and really silly in a way," said Robert George, 74, a retired photographer. "But I'm really angry about us getting involved in the war in Iraq and him (Bush) disrespecting the will of the people."
Ian Kelley, 41, a radio DJ, said he didn't vote on the article.
"It's not a good reflection on the town," he said. "Do I like either of them and would I vote for them? No. But I don't think it's cause to arrest them."
Barbara Southworth, a 66-year-old nurse, said she would have voted against it.
"I forgot to vote because it was on the flip side," she said.
The White House press office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee denounced the indictment effort.
"It appears that the left wing knows no bounds in their willingness to waste taxpayer dollars to make a futile counterproductive partisan political point," said Blair Latoff. "Town people would be much better served by elected officials who sought to solve problems rather than create them."
To be arrested in Brattleboro "if they are not duly impeached"
Brattleboro Town Clerk Annette Cappy stands in her office in holding a sample ballot
The courageous people of Brattleboro, Vermont have taken the lead! Frustrated that elected officials have refused to introduce articles of impeachment in defiance of their constituents' demands, the people of Brattelboro voted to direct town officials to draw up indictment papers against George Bush and Dick Cheney for violating their oath of office.
The Brattleboro vote took place during the Tuesday's Vermont primary election. Bush supporters launched a major campaign to discredit the referendum resolution and the organizers. Yet the resolution passed by a vote of 2012 in favor to 1795 against.
Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?"
The people of Brattleboro answered, "yes!"
The indictment means that Bush and Cheney can be arrested for criminal acts should they ever enter Brattleboro. The indictment would go into effect after Bush and Cheney leave office.
The Brattleboro resolution is becoming a powerful organizing model for cities and towns around the country. The impeachment movement has sunk deep roots throughout this country. The people of the United States are demanding not only that the Constitution be restored, but that the President, Vice President and other officials be held accountable for committing high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Brattleboro resolution shows that even where Congressional representatives are refusing to follow the majority sentiment demanding impeachment, that the people themselves can take action.
Please make an urgently needed donation so that we can continue to build this momentum. The movement can't do it without your continuing support. Please click this link to make a generous donation online or to get information to write a check.
When Ramsey Clark launched the ImpeachBush / VoteToImpeach.org movement in January 2003 he sparked something entirely new. In the face of the aggression and arrogance of the Bush Administration, he launched a movement for the people to take back the Constitution. In Vermont, more than 40 town councils voted in favor of impeachment. Throughout California and in the other states of the union, the grassroots movement has put impeachment on the table through referendum, resolutions, demonstrations, rallies, newspaper ads and door-to-door petitioning.
In the next two weeks, ImpeachBush.org is joining with the anti-war movement for mass protests around the country. We are organizing buses, car caravans, printing placards and banners and making sure the call for Impeachment resounds on this coming 5th anniversary of the criminal war in Iraq. These will be locally and regionally coordinated mass actions in cities and towns throughout the country. Please click here to donate to this effort.
The movement is spreading because of the commitment and sacrifice of thousands of individuals who are engaged as volunteers in day-to-day organizing. Everyone should be proud of their work because this is a movement that belongs to all of us.
Brattleboro Vermont police, who have a history of using brutal (sometimes deadly) force against political protestors who pose no direct threat to them, have done it once again. They need to be held legally accountable for their reckless and unprofessional conduct. Citizens of Vermont: you must demand that your police begin serving and helping the people of Vermont, rather than torturing and murdering them.
by Bob Audette
BRATTLEBORO - The town can expect another lawsuit to hit its attorney’s desk soon.
“We will be naming all parties,” said St. Johnsbury attorney David Sleigh, who is representing Jonathan Crowell and Samantha Kilmurray, two nonviolent protesters who were stunned with Tasers July 24, 2007, by Brattleboro police after they refused to leave private property.
Those parties include the town of Brattleboro, its police department and all the officers involved in the incident, said Sleigh.
On Tuesday, the town received a report on the July 24 use of Tasers from Gordon Black, an attorney from Bennington County. Black was hired by the town to conduct an investigation as to whether the use of force by the officers was justified within the department’s old use of force policy, which has been revised since the incident.
“The decision in this case to use the Tasers on otherwise peaceful protesters who were chained to an object was hastily made, and was unnecessary and excessive,” wrote Black.
“Tasers are not meant to enforce compliance,” said Sleigh.
Lt. Robert Kirkpatrick and Officer Peter DiMarino were named in the Black report as the officers who administered the shocks to Crowell and Kilmurray. Officer Michael Gorman and Department of Public Works employees Rick Looman and Robert Murray were also present at the time, according to the Black report.
Any and all disciplinary action against the officers is a personnel issue and will be handled internally, wrote Town Manager Barbara Sondag in a memo attached to the report.
Crowell and Kilmurray were part of a small group of people protesting development on Putney Road. They had spent the night on a piece of private property on the corner of Black Mountain and Putney roads. When police arrived the morning of July 24 to evict them from the property, they found the pair had handcuffed themselves inside a device called a dragon, which is used to hinder police efforts to end a protest.
After Crowell and Kilmurray refused to unlock the cuffs, police used a Taser to get them to comply with their orders to leave the property. After being stunned several times, the pair unlocked the handcuffs and were arrested and charged with unlawful trespassing and disorderly conduct.
While the disorderly conduct charges were dropped, Kilmurray was entered into a diversion program for her charge of unlawful trespassing. Crowell is requesting a jury trial in the trespassing charges filed against him.
Tasers should only be used to end a dangerous situation quickly where the officer or another person is in physical danger, said Sleigh.
“(Police) figured this was a problem, reacted, didn’t consider their options and went to the Taser,” said Sleigh.
“(I) reviewed the situation with the question of whether I believed, as an ‘independent reviewer,’ that the use of the Taser was appropriate at the time it was used,” wrote Black in an e-mail to the town manager and Bob Fisher, attorney for the town. “I came to the conclusion that it was not.”
The e-mail was written after Sondag and Fisher questioned Black’s methodology in reaching his conclusion.
Black reviewed reams of documents, including user manuals and suggested policies from the maker of the Taser device, sworn affidavits, arrest reports, supplemental statements from each officer involved, memoranda from supervising officers, e-mails, a sworn statement from a witness to the incident and “even a video of a portion of the incident circulating on YouTube.”
“I trust that none of us can imagine that it would have been acceptable for the officers to shoot the protesters with a gun,” wrote Black in his e-mail. “It is also hard to imagine the policemen pulling out billy clubs and using them against the protesters chained to the barrels, or the policemen hitting the protesters with their fists … If these options are almost unimaginable, how can the intentional infliction of what has been consistently been described by subjects … with words like ‘intense pain’ and ‘like getting hit with a sledge hammer,’ be acceptable?”
When should a Taser be used, asked Black in his e-mail. “Only when the officers are using the device to protect themselves or others. That was not the case here.”
“There is no evidence that they were either threatening to harm others or harm themselves,” wrote Black. “They were not described by anyone involved as being engaged in any activity that could conceivably be described as aggressive or particularly disruptive.”
Black rendered further comments that echoed sentiments that have been expressed by some Selectboard members and town residents during the town’s review of its use of force policy.
“The protest was little more than a nuisance and there seemed to be little reason to escalate matters to involve the use of pain compliance devices,” wrote Black. “The protesters were occupying a vacant commercial lot. There was no urgency to resolve the matter quickly, as the protesters were not obstructing traffic, impeding pedestrians or interfering with adjacent business.”
Black wrote that the town’s old use of force policy contributed to the inappropriate use. He also appeared to absolve former Police Chief John Martin - who was fired by the town last fall, in part because of the July 24 incident - of any wrongdoing in the event.
While use of the Tasers “may theoretically comply with the broad language of the use of force policy, it clearly shows a lack of appropriate restraint, as had been encouraged the day before by Chief Martin,” wrote Black. “The ‘laid back,’ ‘take no action’ approach suggested by Chief Martin … seems, in retrospect, to have been the most appropriate under the circumstances.”
Martin and Capt. Steve Rowell also allegedly told Kirkpatrick to not be “heavy handed” in his actions against the protesters, according to the report.
The report may find its way into court in a lawsuit filed by Martin against the town contesting his termination, said Burlington attorney Pietro Lynn, who is representing Martin in federal court.
“This (report) must have been a very unpleasant surprise for the town,” said Lynn. “It’s fair to say we will review the report and take it under consideration and choose whatever course of action that is appropriate.”
Black’s conclusions may also find their way into a report being written by Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, the result of an investigation into use of force policies around the state.
“We would hope to be done soon,” said Assistant Attorney General John Treadwell, about the AG’s report.
Black suggested the town revise its new use of force policy to prevent just such an incident from happening again.
“This policy is an excellent step forward in better defining use of force,” wrote Black. “The justification of nondeadly force, however, appears to contain the same wide grant of discretion that may have contributed to the underlying incident.”
Black recommended a use of force policy allows officers to use a Taser only on suspects exhibiting “active aggression” and who are deemed likely to harm themselves or others. He recommended “active aggression” be defined as an assault or imminent assault.
Sondag is in the process of making those changes to the current use of force policy.
While police organizations around the country rely on Tasers to subdue violent suspects, Amnesty International has claimed police agencies are using the devices inappropriately “as a routine force option to subdue noncompliant or disturbed individuals who do not pose a serious danger to themselves or others,” wrote Black in his report.
The police officers’ “quick action fails to show appropriate patience and restraint in attempting to resolve the situation.”
The Putney Road incident is the perfect example of “where officers eschew perhaps other slower solutions to a problem because they have 50,000 volts in their back pocket,” said Sleigh.
“Black points out how hastily the officers handled the situation,” he said. “He suggested an alternative which should have been readily available, a flash citation.”
The flash citation could have been used to order the pair into court that afternoon, wrote Black. Their failure to appear in court could have conceivably been used to justify the use of the Taser, he added.
The complete report is available on www.reformer.com or by calling the town manager’s office at 802-251-8100.
BRATTLEBORO — Brattleboro residents will vote at town meeting on whether President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be indicted and arrested for war crimes, perjury or obstruction of justice if they ever step foot in Vermont.
The Brattleboro Select Board voted 3-2 Friday to put the controversial item on the Town Meeting Day warning.
According to Town Clerk Annette Cappy, organizers of the Bush-Cheney issue gathered enough signatures, and it was up to the Select Board whether Brattleboro voters would consider the issue in March.
Cappy said residents will get to vote on the matter by paper balloting March 4.
Kurt Daims, 54, of Brattleboro, the organizer of the petition drive, said Friday the debate to get the issue on the ballot was a good one. Opposition to the vote focused on whether the town had any power to endorse the matter.
"It is an advisory thing," said Daims, a retired prototype machinist and stay-at-home dad of three daughters.
Commenting has been avid since this response was posted:
What did the American Bar association say about the laws that have been broken: "The [Bush] administration’s logic is flawed. ... The Article 2(4) prohibition on the threat or use of force has been described by the International Court of Justice as a peremptory norm of international law from which states cannot derogate. To date, the Security Council has authorized force only in response to actual invasion ... not to potential threats of the kind the United States claims are posed by Iraq." http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter03/lawregulatingresorttoforce.html
What do former administration officials say: Lawrence Wilkerson, a former senior US state department official from 2002 to 2005, said Mr Cheney "could be guilty of a war crime over the abuse of prisoners" http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1653936,00.html
What does a former prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg say: Ferencz believes that the United States acting under orders from Bush: "is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation." http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/
This is to be found on Common Dreams today:
Dear Common Dreams I have a true desire to create a full page NYTIMES ad, in which we demonstrate American solidarity for congress to take up the matters of felonious behavior by the Bush administration.
I have been working with Kurt and others for the Brattleboro Resolution for the Indictment of Bush and Cheney and we would like to extend the opportunity for more people around the country to stand with Brattleboro. Our vision for the ad is to have at the top half of the page a photo of a fancy table with platters steaming on it. Two candlesticks with lit long-tapered candles and a red rose. Behind the table are two waiters- you don’t see faces, they have white gloves on, they are each holding a platter with the lid opened so you can see what’s on them..
The platters on the table will have IMPEACHMENT, INDICTMENT, SUBPOENA, the ones in the hands of the waiters will have WARRANT and ARREST - Steam billows from each. The headline of the AD will read: Americans have impeachment on the table. And More.
Below will be room for a longer message, where I want to firmly establish who are serving us in congress, and name them, and suggest that everyone else may just as well pull a seat up at this table with this administration if they can’t apply the rule of law to the executive branch. and more…..
My plan is to only ask one dollar per person for this very expensive ad and describe that fact therein, making it a voice of many ad. The ad costs 167,156.- Ideally we could get it in before the March resolution is voted. I am going to collect for 3 months and make the largest ad i can with however much we generate.
We have an account at Brattleboro Savings and Loan Bank called The NYTIMES BUSH INDICTMENT FUND… Tomorrow i will get a PO box, and that will be named The Bush Indictment Box..
Think about how many people you know would give a buck to tell this to Congress publicly and tell the world as well. Check back here and find the po box number and send on what you have…Until then you can send directly to the bank itself
PO Box 1010 , Brattleboro VT 05301
with a check made out to : NYTIMES BUSH INDICTMENT FUND.
This is a petition in support of the Brattleboro Vermont Selectboard efforts to instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?
This is a petition in support of the Brattleboro Vermont Selectboard efforts to instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?
Website:http://www.MoveToAmend.orgMission:We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Company Overview:
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, The People rule.
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.
Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going?
Trying to train the next generation of diplomats what the issues that they will face are, how to survive the coming hard times and how to conduct themselves so that they, unlike most of their role models, DO THE RIGHT THING. They are inheriting a neocon Klusterfuck, are ill prepared and need whatever help they can get.
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
Dear Common Dreams
I have a true desire to create a full page NYTIMES ad, in which we demonstrate American solidarity for congress to take up the matters of felonious behavior by the Bush administration.
I have been working with Kurt and others for the Brattleboro Resolution for the Indictment of Bush and Cheney and we would like to extend the opportunity for more people around the country to stand with Brattleboro.
Our vision for the ad is to have at the top half of the page a photo of a fancy table with platters steaming on it. Two candlesticks with lit long-tapered candles and a red rose. Behind the table are two waiters- you don’t see faces, they have white gloves on, they are each holding a platter with the lid opened so you can see what’s on them..
The platters on the table will have IMPEACHMENT, INDICTMENT, SUBPOENA, the ones in the hands of the waiters will have WARRANT and ARREST - Steam billows from each.
The headline of the AD will read: Americans have impeachment on the table. And More.
Below will be room for a longer message, where I want to firmly establish who are serving us in congress, and name them, and suggest that everyone else may just as well pull a seat up at this table with this administration if they can’t apply the rule of law to the executive branch. and more…..
My plan is to only ask one dollar per person for this very expensive ad and describe that fact therein, making it a voice of many ad. The ad costs 167,156.- Ideally we could get it in before the March resolution is voted. I am going to collect for 3 months and make the largest ad i can with however much we generate.
We have an account at Brattleboro Savings and Loan Bank called The NYTIMES BUSH INDICTMENT FUND… Tomorrow i will get a PO box, and that will be named The Bush Indictment Box..
Think about how many people you know would give a buck to tell this to Congress publicly and tell the world as well. Check back here and find the po box number and send on what you have…Until then you can send directly to the bank itself
Thanks very much
we have an email address too
nytimesbushindictmentfund@gmail
thanks so much