This law brief to The European Court of Human Rights is, as I have instructed, to be filed in the case of my bodily seizure for purpose of forced deportation, other arrest or if I simply have ‘vanished’

A synopsis of the legal rationale of this law brief is: when the USA joined the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (among other multi-lateral Human Rights treaties with force of international law) but held out these treaties would be “non-self-executing”, the USA essentially claimed its own constitutional principles would enforce the several treaties’ provisions. This places the USA in a unique circumstance of substituting its own provisions of law for the provisions enumerated in the International Covenant and other instruments of international law. In this case, it is argued the Obama administration’s demonstrable violation of foundational American principles of law are subject to interpretation in diverse jurisdiction under international Human Rights law, in a nation any American citizen should apply for asylum in.

Restated, an American seeking asylum can put the USA’s record, in relation to its own civil liberties provisions, on trial in any suit they might bring in jurisdiction where Human Rights treaty law may be enforced and subsequently the European Court of Human Rights.

In the case of the USA signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, example given, and the several other Human Rights treaties in relation to American basic or foundational law, The American constitution’s Article Six is straightforward on its face: “any treaty made shall be the supreme law of the land.”

But it is, of course, not this simple. Any treaty in question which been ratified by the Americans in large part as “non-self-executing”, constitutes a legal fiction indicating American law already covers the most fundamental rights promised by the treaties. In other words, the USA claim in relation to the treaties is one of ‘our laws are already in compliance and we have all of the treaties’ demands covered.’ And so it is, in any USA court, although a judge may consider the treaty in her/his ‘finding of facts and conclusions of law’, the laws applied will in fact be American laws and interpretations in relation to any question of rights promised by the International Covenant and other Human Rights specific law.

This preceding would place an American’s rights squarely in law of the USA, were one to be tried in any American court, in actuality the rights promised in the treaty itself are already become in a sense moot in relation any American prosecution, where there is no political will to enforce the treaty’s provisions, demonstrated in any decision to prosecute to begin with.

In the USA, federal judges are political appointments, pure and simple. The executive provides lists of desired appointments to fill court positions to the senate for confirmation and that is it. That the senate often fights among themselves over the appointments, that the appointments are often long delayed, cannot conceal the fact every sitting United States federal judge is the result of raw politics. That merit does not presently play in this process is amply demonstrated by the fact Bush administration torture lawyer Jay Bybee became a sitting federal appellate judge and there is no movement whatsoever to impeach and remove Bybee from the bench, since it had become public knowledge Bybee authored memos justifying torture.

That American judges are not bound to the rights promised in the International Covenant and other Human Rights treaty law is ably demonstrated by the fact a sitting supreme court justice had, as a federal judge, let an innocent man rot eight additional years in prison on a rules technicality, when exculpatory evidence showing the man’s innocence had been produced for the court, prior to the justice’s appointment by  Obama and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the United States theory of law there is a known and in the past applied concept called ‘color of law.’ Color of law is when the apparatus of state puts up a pretense of legitimate authority to pursue what are in fact illegal acts.

In the case of the FISA court authorizing PRISM and one must presume XkeyScore revealed by Snowden, there is ZERO constitutional foundation for any secret jurisprudence violating citizens’ rights laid out in the first through eighth amendments or American Bill of Rights, which the FISA court in fact sets out to do. When the constitutional language authorizing congress to create courts is construed in a way to cancel out other clauses of the constitution, there cannot be legitimacy where a constitutional oxymoron has been created. It is precisely the American Bill of Rights the USA holds is binding it to conformity to the International Covenant.

Any actual criminal acts defined as treason in the American sense in the authentic American ‘de jure’ rule of law are those persons putting forth a pretense the secret court authorizing civil liberties violations are legitimate. This points first to the Congress authoring patently unconstitutional legislation, then second, to any president signing and implementing such unlawful authority and subsequently, any Chief Justice appointing members of said secret court, and finally those persons accepting and serving FISA, these are the ‘traitors’ if the USA constitution were to mean anything in the present day, when in fact it would appear it does not.

American present political structures disregard for the American foundational law is perhaps best demonstrated by Congress granting immunity to the telecoms, when the telecoms had played ball with criminals in the Bush administration (we now know likely had been authorized by the FISA court, on account of Snowden’s revelations), participating in what amounted to warrant-less searches and eves-dropping without a warrant, stealing and handing over peoples personal information in criminal acts Americans had been historically protected from by the USA constitution and pertinent laws, the 4th Amendment of the USA Bill of Rights particularly.

These violations should have opened the telecom corporations to both criminal penalties and civil liabilities. There were crimes committed which should have been prosecuted and people have a right to sue. The potential liability looked pretty big and the telecoms lobbied for immunity. The following constitutional violations were enacted by Congress:

1) ex post facto. The USA constitution specifically prohibits Congress making any “ex post facto” law, as typically or historically applied that means a behavior cannot be criminalized after the fact and applied retroactively, or more broadly, new laws cannot be made governing an event that is in the past. In this 2nd case we have a valid constitutional claim prohibiting making a law excusing past criminal civil liberties violations against our citizens, violations which had created liabilities. What is required for the criminal aspect solely, is a PARDON

2) legislative pardon: Congress cannot give pardons to the individuals within the telecoms who’d signed off on and perpetrated the crimes, that is reserved by the USA constitution to the president and neither can the congress or the president pardon corporations in any manner excusing civil liability, the corporations must be held accountable and seek any leniency based on possible mitigation factors from the courts, because [3 & 4 combine to make a constitutional principle]

3) the” right to petition for redress” is promised to every citizen who has been wronged and

4) “suit at equity”, that is, the courts existing to do what is right by the citizen, is the avenue provided by the USA’s constitution to fulfill the promise of every wronged citizen’s ‘right to petition for redress’ or it should be said there is no right of corporate or government impunity. Citizen’s petitions for remedies and compensation may not be preemptively denied fair hearing, in the USA’s courts of law by the Congress.

The oath to uphold the USA’s constitution had been meant to prevent such patently wrong laws in the first instance. When this oath is become patently meaningless, as in the case of the majority of congress, points squarely to the core of corrupt process usurping the USA foundational law.

Obama’s proposal to create a court to oversee the USA’s drone strikes are an admission the targeted killings of Anwar al-Awaliki and his son, both American citizens, were extra-judicial assassinations:

Read the facts laid out at the Guardian HERE

Obama’s task force proposing to amend the FISA law to create an advocate for the American public in presentations before the secret court, which to now has only heard the executive side arguments, are an admission there is no compulsory (constitutionally required) due process for citizens in the secret venue:

Reuters article on the task force recommendations HERE

Both of these proposals underscore overwhelming fact the USA institutions of governance have become removed practically altogether from its foundational rule of law. The very fact nearly the entirety of any ‘legal rationales’ related to the preceding phenomena are classified ‘state secrets’ reinforces the argument of a regime denying the people and the peoples advocates any avenue to right the ship of state per the constitutional order:

Legal Times on ‘state secrets’ HERE

REPEATEDLY, the Obama administration’s Department of Justice has denied discovery in evidence in suits brought by victims of both; torture and warrant-less surveillance, citing “national security” and “state secrets” arguments, which have been too often routinely rubber stamped by American federal courts, denying the fundamental “Right to petition for redress” per the American foundational law. This, despite a past Supreme Court decision finding federal common law prohibits executive privilege denying the right to petition for redress in the case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) in illegal invasion of a private home, pointing to the present regime of American law patently ignoring its own principles:

Federation of American Scientists compendium on ‘state secrets’ HERE

Obama’s Department of Justice has assiduously protected the Bush criminal regime by refusing to bring warranted prosecutions. Directly relevant to this, because of Snowden’s revelations, we now know both the Bush and Obama administrations had engaged in egregious crimes against the American constitutional order, all with the approval of the secret FISA court:

Facts laid out at the Guardian HERE

Furthermore, present CIA Director Brennan has helped construct and justify the Obama Administration’s claim that it can kill people, including American citizens, abroad on its own authority, even when those people are not in countries with which the USA is at war:

Brennan ‘kill list’ facts at the New Yorker HERE

Insofar as the secrecy of this list, we cannot know which Americans has been added or what names have been taken off:

Brennan’s phony ‘kill list’ reforms at The Atlantic HERE

If the USA were to claim the petitioner, Ronald Thomas West, is not on any such kill list, there is ample evidence the present American executive routinely lies in such matters:

Facts of relevant lies laid out at The Guardian HERE

How the preceding arguments can be tied to the American obligations to the International Covenant and other international Human Rights law is quite simple; “no nation may go against its own acts” is an international common law principle as old as Rome, and when the USA asserts its own constitutional principles are the glue that binds its obligation to uphold the International Covenant and other obligatory international Human Rights treaty law with its ‘non-self-executing’ ratifying rationale, the USA cannot undermine its own constitutional principles in regards to individual rights and be construed to be in good standing with the multi-lateral Human Rights treaties.

It is not only going against the act of its own foundational law, the USA is doing these violations having bound its foundational law to the International Covenant and is therefore going against the treaty it has committed itself to, when by act of non-self-executing rationale, it entered American individual rights per se into force of international law, subject to adjudication under the general principles of international Human Rights law in diverse jurisdiction.

Furthermore, were Ronald Thomas West not to have been on the White House ‘kill list’ (which cannot be proven but certainly inferred), there is ample evidence to make a case rogue elements in the American security apparatus endanger his life:

According to a Washington Post investigative report in 2011, “some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States. An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances” :

Washington Post investigative report HERE

This is bolstered by a bloomberg.com article: “Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said. These programs, whose participants are known as trusted partners, extend far beyond what was revealed by Edward Snowden, a computer technician who did work for the National Security Agency” :

Bloomberg exposes the facts HERE

Additionally, the US Congressional watchdog GAO [Government Accounting Office] reports as a result of faulty data, US intelligence agencies: “are not well-positioned to assess the potential effects of relying on contractor personnel” :

Read the Government Accounting Office findings HERE

And then, a US Army Intelligence Officer stated to Buzzfeed: “I think if we had the chance, we would end it very quickly.” [USA intelligence would like to find Snowden] “Just casually walking on the streets of Moscow, coming back from buying his groceries. Going back to his flat and he is casually poked by a passerby. He thinks nothing of it at the time starts to feel a little woozy and thinks it’s a parasite from the local water. He goes home very innocently and next thing you know he dies in the shower” :

Read the murderous intent of the NSA apologists HERE

In fact most of the unlisted events in the associated chronology detailing the experiences of Ronald Thomas West had to do with evading stalkers whose behaviors profiled for action as described in the paragraph preceding.

This points to the utter corruption of American intelligence, where a corrupt Pentagon, that has thrown the rule of law under the bus, and associated corrupt corporate personalities (e.g. Christian extremists Condoleezza Rice and former NATO Supreme Commander & Obama National Security Adviser General James Jones, in association with CHEVRON) can access top secret material via the Pentagon’s NSA (National Security Agency) for essentially any purpose they please, up to and inclusive of assassination.

It is the position of Ronald Thomas West he should not have been forced into application for political asylum but that Germany should have issued warrants for arrest and pursued prosecutions of the several criminals engaged in attempted assassination of the same.

Germany shirking its responsibility to uphold the rule of law has resulted in a grant of impunity to criminal elements in the Western democracies intelligence/security services, up to and including attempted assassination for purpose of concealing crimes, when in fact if warrants for arrest were issued and extradition demanded, the USA and associated corrupt personalities would be confronted with a choice; upholding the rule of law or dropping its sheepskin concealing corrupt, criminal cabal at the apex of its security services.

Ronald Thomas West therefore requests that (LOCATION COUNTRY REDACTED) be prohibited from expelling his person and Germany be directed to refer all relevant evidence to the proper legal body for prosecution of the crime of attempted assassination and cover-up of the same.

“It’s been a wild ride” -Ronald Thomas West