Archives for posts with tag: color of law

The Royal Nonesuch (or something smells at the courthouse)

AT THE COURT HOUSE!
THE ROYAL NONESUCH!!
Admission 50 cents
LADIES AND CHILDREN NOT ADMITTED

 “…at last when he’d got everybody’s expectations up high enough, he rolled up the curtain, and the next minute the king come a-prancing out on all fours, naked; and he was painted all over, ring-streaked-and-striped, all sorts of colors, as splendid as a rainbow. And – but never mind the rest of his outfit; it was just wild, but it was awful funny. The people most killed themselves laughing; and when the king got done capering and capered off behind the scenes, they roared and clapped and stormed and haw-hawed till he come back and done it over again…”

“The third night the house was crammed again – and they warn’t new-comers this time, but people that was at the show the other two nights. I stood by the duke at the door, and I see that every man that went in had his pockets bulging or something muffled up under his coat – and I see it warn’t no perfumery, neither, not by a long sight. I smelt sickly eggs by the barrel, and rotten cabbages, and such things; and if I know the signs of a dead cat being around, and I bet I do, there was sixty-four of them went in…” -from Huckleberry Finn, The Royal Nonesuch by Mark Twain

Well, folks, insofar as smelly frauds put over on the American people at a courthouse, Trump’s appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court rises to Twain’s expectations, with disingenuous liberal howls contributing a good part of the numerous dead cats aroma:

Kavanaugh.jpg - 1

  1. Praised dissent in Roe. There is something fundamentally wrong with a society that is into recreational sex to a point that demands unborn infanticide. That said, there is also a long, failed history of western societies legislating morality. What is missing here is the honest underlying debate; fucking for fun is anti-Puritan, anti-Catholic and is the real target of conservatives whose underlying motive is imposing their values outside of their own community and if allowed to do this, they won’t stop there, Jesus’ message ‘judge not’ & ‘don’t throw stones’ notwithstanding. This is an unresolvable dilemma of a cluster-fuck culture that doesn’t know if it is secular, Christian or, if it is coming or going.
  2. Criticized [Chief Justice] Robert’s ruling on Obamacare. So, the much accused [by the right] ‘socialist’ Obama forced a capitalist society to buy a corporate lobby designed product it didn’t want. Claims of ‘socialist’ are oxymoron but so what. What should have been criticized by Kavanaugh is Robert’s appointing judges to the unconstitutional secret FISA court and demand instead a refusing on principle to violate our rights; and what the liberals should have been criticizing Kavanaugh over is his ruling for the USA ‘disappearing’ United States citizens abroad to ‘black sites’ (whereas Obama, sans torture, simply killed them with drones.)
  3. Says sitting POTUS can’t be indicted/can fire special counsel whenever he wants. Well, Kavanaugh is more than half right. If the SCROTUS, ahem, excuse me, I meant POTUS, is incessantly harassed with political prosecutions, that’s going to take away from ability to govern, not to mention he can fire anyone he wants from their position in the executive branch, that’s why he’s called CHIEF EXECUTIVE. How to get rid of the presumed moron Trump is set out in our constitution, the method is called IMPEACHMENT and that method was likely put there because he should be positioned above the petty political vendettas our duopoly thrives on, distracting the people from the real skullduggery that goes on.
  4. Opposes net neutrality. Well, what did you expect? Kavanaugh’s from the school of neo-fascist corporate rule, and that’s what comes with the package over on the right; it wouldn’t matter what Republican sat in the Oval Office, that’s what you’d get with a nomination. Maybe what the liberals should rather concern themselves with is, is what had been going on over on the neo-fascist corporate left, when Obama’s Department of Veteran Affairs had employed ‘search engine optimization’ technology ascertaining the true extent of the health care failures and resultant statistics concerning medically unnecessary health complications and related numbers of deaths of our returned soldiers of empire had been buried so deep, in dark, cold cyberspace, they’d have to come up with a new name for the lost domain, forget the ‘dark net’, this is something like ‘beyond the galaxy’ net.
  5. Opposes consumer bureau. Well, why not? If the left were honest, they’d admit the rights of citizens had become so buried by the time of the BUSH III administration’s end (eight years of Obama) there’s no need for one. Binding arbitration excluding your day in court is the everybody gets screwed norm now. Save yourselves the pretense, and our rigged system, the expense.
  6. Says assault weapons bans are unconstitutional. Well, Kavanaugh is right. Anyone who’d read history that isn’t revised should know that. Not that Kavanaugh is sincere, he’s likely just another deep state psychopath whose job is to see the blood keeps flowing to a point there is overwhelming social demand American citizens disarm, never-mind intelligent balance could be struck preserving the 2nd Amendment on historically sound principles AND keep the citizenry safe, we’ll never see that happen.

Beyond the preceding, it would seem Kavanaugh never encountered a Stasi-style privacy invasion he didn’t like:

According to this Supreme Court nominee, he thinks it is just fine and dandy for police and government to track you, spy on you, and dig through your personal life — without a warrant”

Not to mention Brett Kavanaugh was at the center of damage control when Iran-Contra cocaine money-man Vince Foster ‘committed suicide’ (Foster was the Arkansas governor’s liaison to CIA narco-traffickers, concerning the operation centered at Mena, Arkansas.) Blow-job Bill & crooked Hillary never had a better buddy until it was time to shut Foster up. The investigative report versus the Vince Foster official suicide story:

  • There was evidence of grand jury witness intimidation.
  • Foster’s car was NOT at the park so he couldn’t have driven himself to the location to commit suicide.
  • Foster didn’t own the gun – a 38 caliber revolver – that was alleged used and his fingerprints were not even on the weapon.  Police brought the gun to the scene and planted it there.

It was Kavanaugh, with the previous investigator removed, created the official ‘suicide’ story. Why? Foster & CIA narco-trafficking hush-money:

According to his wife, security operative Jerry Parks delivers large sums of money from Mena airport to Vince Foster at a K-Mart parking lot. Mrs. Parks discovers this when she opens her car trunk one day and finds so much cash that she has to sit on the trunk to close it again. She asks her husband whether he is dealing drugs, and he allegedly explains that Foster paid him $1,000 for each trip he took to Mena. Parks said he didn’t “know what they were doing, and he didn’t care to know. He told me to forget what I’d seen””

At this point, the corrupt Clintons & CIA’s Bush family are like a schizophrenic Briar Rabbit entangled in Tar Baby. Neither side dare let the truth out. Then Kavanaugh went on to work directly with George W Bush. Robert Mueller, James Comey and Christopher Wray, all, hail from the same criminal talent cesspool as Kavanaugh, the George H.W. Bush-CIA inspired ‘enterprise.’ Meanwhile, 300 bloodhounds and 100 dog handlers later, the ‘Department of Justice’ (what a laugh) will be able to say no stone had been left un-turned when screening Kavanaugh’s past.

Proposed astute question: how is it our President Bozo consistently makes appointments that contribute to surrounding himself with what amounts to a treasonous ‘Club Brutus’ ? Et tu? And you & you & you?

Hello, my fellow Americans, just in passing, I’d like to note to you all, we haven’t had a functioning constitution since the shadow government behind the National Security Act of 1947 came into power; introducing ‘color of law’ in its stead:

color of law: n. the claim or appearance of an act based upon constitutional authority via enforcement of statute, when in reality no such constitutional authority exists, e.g. secret FISA courts where the 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments do not apply.

Insofar as those of the 300 million Americans who still believe in the American rule of law, Thucydides saw you coming 2-1/2 millennia ago:

“Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy”

*

A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s Western educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

 

 

dianne_pc

First, use google search: “Chat Exploits” and look at the first several results, you’ll discover ‘chats’ are a hacker’s entry to your computer

Then, read this about language by Diane Feinstein’s committee inserted into a law Obama signed this month:

“Hidden in the law that authorized the government to spend more than it will collect was a part about funding for the 16 federal civilian intelligence agencies. And hidden in that was a clause, inserted by the same Senate Intelligence Committee that revealed the CIA torture, authorizing the National Security Agency to gather and retain nonpublic data for five years and to share it with law enforcement and with foreign governments. “Nonpublic data” is the government’s language referring to the content of the emails, text messages, telephone calls, bank statements, utility bills and credit card bills of nearly every innocent person in America”

Then, read a snippet of Diane Feinstein’s gross hypocrisy in relation to the right’s of people HERE (it’s about quite a bit more than ‘torture’)

“Who did Feinstein vote to confirm to the Federal Appeals court? David Barron, author of Obama’s ‘murder is legal’ theory. Nothing quite like putting people complicit in your crimes on the courts but that is what Obama has done with the generous support of Senator Feinstein:

“The most troubling issue in David Barron’s record is his role as the author of the legal opinion that justified what is rather coldly referred to as “extrajudicial killing” by the United States federal government. Put more plainly, David Barron concocted a legal justification for President Barack Obama, so that the President could order the U.S. military to execute American citizens, because of suspicion of criminal behavior, without any trial or due process”

“Recalling Bush had nominated ‘torture is legal’ Jay Bybee to the Federal bench, let’s go to the thought Senator Feinstein never encountered a 1st, 4th or 5th Amendment FISA violation she did not like, until it was the CIA spying on her committee staff. Then, Feinstein changed the label, in her case these violations are not ok because they are suddenly ‘separation of powers’ violations. The clear indication, based on her record is, violations of the American peoples’ rights are ok, just don’t violate the rights of Feinstein. Reinforcing this would be, Feinstein voted to confirm Valerie Caproni as a federal judge; the very same woman [Caproni] who’d when the FISA Court had rejected a surveillance request, had gone ahead and authorized her FBI agents to target the victim regardless. In all, over the courts first thirty three years, the FISA court had granted 33,942 warrants, with only 11 denials. Let’s make that a de facto 10 denials, recalling the Bush FBI lawyer Caproni nominated to be a federal judge by Obama, with Feinstein voting in favor”

Now, back to what I will name “The Feinstein Clause”…

“authorizing the National Security Agency to gather and retain nonpublic data for five years and to share it with law enforcement and with foreign governments”

…and what is known as ‘back door‘ exploits and how NSA engineers enter into (through firewalls) your computers and your anti-virus-anti-trojan software can do nothing about it even when the company…

“respects and complies with the laws of all countries in which it operates”

…considering Feinstein has made it legal for the NSA to take anything they like and share it with anyone they like.

Now, back to ‘chats.’ I keep chats shut down as a matter of security, it’s simply a matter of common sense. If the NSA had arranged to build back doors into chats and there is no reason to expect they would not, considering their motto of “collect it all“, they’ve built into chats an avenue for any skilled hacker to exploit. Now, google ‘key log.’

“records every keystroke made on your computer on every window, even on password protected boxes”

Now, imagine NSA slips something along the lines of the preceding into your computer, example of opportunity you hand to hackers when you have ‘chat’ enabled in likely any program, whether facebook, gmail, yahoo or now a very interesting new phenomena at WordPress; a ‘help’ chat that cannot be blocked by the user. And even when it has been ‘blocked’ by request for 24 hours (the maximum) it doesn’t seem to actually go away:

At 11:02

Chat pop-up: Howdy, how can we help?

Myself: Go away for 24 hours would help (the pop up never ceases to annoy)

Daniel – WordPress.com: Sorry about that! I’ll remove it. Have a great day!

At 14:13

Chat pop-up: Howdy, how can we help?

Myself: Block for 24 hours would help (the pop-up is an annoyance)

Sandy (at WordPress.com) is typing (according to the chat box)

And then: Oops, our operators have all stepped away for a moment. If you don’t hear back from us shortly, please try again later. Thanks!

23:16

Chat pop-up: Howdy, how can we help?

Myself: go away with blocking chat would be helpful (this is perpetually annoying)

Sam is typing… (according to the chat box)

Sam: Sorry! I can block it for 24 hours, so you won’t see it. 🙂

23:42

Chat box pops back up: Now chatting

Daniel wasn’t able to fully block the chat and Sandy seems to have gotten cold feet. Then Sam is there. The ‘chat’ it would appear is never fully blocked, or cannot be blocked or there is someone does not want it blocked. I’ve seen identical incident too many times for it to be a glitch.

Now, remember this. IF YOU DON’T WANT SOMETHING RECORDED, NEVER TYPE IT. Collect yourself first, because if in a passion of the moment you’ve typed something you think better of, it doesn’t matter if you’ve never posted or mailed it, ‘they’ already have it-

Sound paranoid? So who is the real paranoid? Someone concerned with issues like this, or a United States Senator who believes the government should know your every private expression? Dianne Feinstein is the sick paranoid and criminal who opens you up to hackers and she should be permanently locked in the darkest dungeon the rule of law can muster, that is if we had a rule of law, rather than the ‘color of law‘ that has replaced our so-called leaders ‘oath to uphold’ our Constitution-

Note on the preceding: After claiming there was no means of permanently blocking the chat (due to my complaints), Worpress appears to have indeed permanently blocked the live chat on my account not long after I’d drawn their attention to this post. Does that mean my account is not compromised by the NSA? Of course it does not. My automatic assumption is the NSA has whatever they like.

Related:

Military Sock Puppets, NSA Trolls & CIA Shills

A synopsis of the legal rationale of this article is this: when the USA joined the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (a multi-lateral treaty with force of international law) but held out the treaty would be “non-self-executing”, the USA essentially claimed its own constitutional principles would enforce the treaty’s provisions. This places the USA in a unique circumstance of substituting its own provisions of law for the provisions enumerated in the International Covenant. In this case, Snowden should argue the Obama administration’s demonstrable violation of foundational American principles of law are subject to interpretation relevant to his rights under the treaty, in any nation he should apply for asylum in. Restated, Snowden can put the USA’s record, in relation to its own civil liberties provisions, on trial in any suit he might bring in jurisdiction where the treaty may be enforced, examples given, Germany and subsequently the European Court of Human Rights.

Use of ‘The Espionage Act’ to prosecute whistle-blowers by the Obama administration is unfortunate reality. It is unprecedented persecution by a sublime neo-liberal political liar & cohorts, but it is presently matter of fact circumstance and what people like Snowden must contend with when considering any act of willful transparency in defiance of secrecy law.

Because it is unlikely use of the Espionage Act to prosecute whistle-blowing will be struck down by the courts, particularly with a Supreme Court majority aligned with the ‘Federalist Society’ whose neo-conservative agenda will sometimes converge with neo-liberal objectives, particularly in philosophy of supremacy concerning the executive in matters of security, one must develop a robust constitutional foundation for defense of whistle-blowing.

In the case of Snowden, he also should show a valid rationale of why the United States Constitution’s Article Six ‘supremacy clause’ .. “and any treaty made shall be the supreme law of the land” applied in the offensive sense versus the United States, as opposed defending himself, in regards to claims the multi-lateral treaty “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” should protect him.

How this is a legal necessity in Snowden’s case arises from the USA being party to the treaty and how the treaty might or might not be applied in American courts. Legitimacy of claim for political asylum must be established in relation to not only the treaty’s general provisions, but it must be shown the USA’s relationship to the treaty is presently a relationship of bad faith.

Other issues that play in any defense of Snowden, to show he is not in violation of the Espionage Act, is Private Manning’s conviction & what constitutes a legitimate whistle-blow as opposed to malicious leaking of secrets, what is a valid press vehicle (Manning and WikiLeaks? Snowden and the Guardian? Yes or no in individual and separate circumstance) and how Snowden’s case would likely sort out in American courts in the present climate of law and politics. And it must be shown the decision to pursue Snowden is a political persecution at odds with law.

This defense of Snowden begins with disposing of Manning as a comparable case.

The neo-liberal New York Times has on several occasions resorted to torture lawyer John Yoo for legal opinions and recently Yoo had suggested WikiLeaks does not qualify as legitimate journalism under the American philosophy of law governed by the American constitution’s First Amendment. In other words. WikiLeaks cannot be claimed as a valid outlet for whistle-blowers under American law, particularly in relation to the case of Private Manning.

Manning’s case is significantly different than that of Snowden, and in any case Yoo’s suggestion would not apply to Snowden who leaked to The Guardian. But let’s look at the at-large & uncharged criminal Yoo’s idea, to compare the two cases a bit, particularly in regards to the Espionage Act and what constitutes legitimate journalism or a free press in American law.

Firstly, American military law, the “Uniform Code of Military Justice”, should not be conflated with the American federal criminal code and associated case law, they are separate animals. When you enter the military, you surrender your politics in relation to performing your duty and the only natural avenue of dissent is to refuse illegal orders. In effect, as a soldier, the only possibly justifiable leaks would be having to do with war crimes, orders to commit crimes or concealment of crimes by the military per se, or crimes against the constitution by your superiors. Politics do not play as a defensible action for whistle-blowing in the American military. To quote an Admiral addressing a West Point graduating class, in relation to the United States military having always been under civilian control, if you don’t like the policies “vote with your feet” (leave the military.) Manning could have taken that advice to heart, his defense of moral conscience had no chance in the military justice structure. This is old news in American military experience, quoting Robert E Lee’s observation on his artillery slaughter of advancing Union soldiers: “It is good war is so terrible, or we should become too fond of it.” Manning could not expect to act on a social conscience in relation to military experience, having joined voluntarily an organization whose nature is apolitical violence, however that violence might be at the direction of politics, politics is not the soldiers job.

The hard truth is, the American constitution’s First Amendment protects several things and political lies are protected speech. In this respect, until there were to be a change to the foundational law, American law is amoral. In the case of the ‘cables’ leak, example given, there Manning made no defense of any crime against the American constitution and in fact the greater or overall thrust of the cables, as despicable as this is, concerns revealing perfectly legal political lies in geo-politics. Insofar as Yoo’s assertion of WikiLeaks as a whistle-blowing platform having no press freedom protection under American law, he may have it ½ right. When considering charges brought under the Espionage Act in an American court, one would need a trump card and crimes against the American constitution should constitute such. But Manning did not present any defense related to this and WikiLeaks has never made a case the USA’s purported violations of press freedoms meet this test per American law in relation to any failure to conform to its international law obligations. To conform to journalism standards protected by the American First Amendment, when faced with charges brought under the Espionage Act, one would have to convincingly show a political nature of the prosecution attending crimes against the constitutional order. Massive dumps of  unrelated and unorganized or functionally incoherent information do not meet the necessary legal test to qualify as journalism in this regard. In metaphor, Manning & WikiLeaks fail the law on account of behaving as a harvested organs black market as opposed to acting as a legitimate medical professional’s prescribed transfusion in a proper setting of surgery. They didn’t conform to presenting cohesive facts in telling a story that highly restricted the leaked documents to a context of making points in a socially responsible and news worthy presentation, serving society in a positive sense.

The military judge’s niggardly acknowledgement Manning was patently and illegally treated (tortured) in his detention is an altogether unrelated issue in law with no bearing on the present subject.

The case of Snowden is fundamentally different.

In the case of the USA signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 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. The treaty in question has been ratified by the Americans in large part as “non-self-executing” which is a legal fiction indicating American law already covers the most fundamental rights promised by the treaty. In other words, the USA claim in relation to the treaty is one of ‘our laws are already in compliance and we have all of the treaty’s 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.

This preceding would place Snowden’s rights squarely in the case law of the USA were he to be tried in any American federal 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 the decision to prosecute to begin with.

To show pursuing Snowden is a political decision trumping the rule of law, one must examine the facts of how American laws are applied in a negative political light.

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 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.

Congressional leaders Diane Feinstein and John Boehner have used the terms ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’ in relation to Snowden, poisoning the jury pool on a national basis, HOWEVER; 

any actual criminal acts defined as treason in the American sense under any 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. 

Obama must have been a terrible law professor or he has simply thrown out any principled view of American foundational law when ensconced in the halls of power. Diane Feinstein claiming “PRISM is legal” (one must presume she holds the same view of XkeyScore) because it had been approved by the FISA court, is patent ‘color of law’ and should be held as precisely such in any un-politicized judicial determination.

Obama’s disregard for the American foundational law is perhaps best demonstrated by his vote as Senator giving 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 endorsed by Obama’s Senate vote:

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, that, and congressmen 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. 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.

This degenerate state of American law, beginning at the top, with Obama, should be Snowden’s first line of defense, where he can correctly testify he was trapped by law requiring secrecy surrounding crimes against the constitutional order, and it had to be the American oath to “uphold the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, as a personal conviction, prevailed.

That Snowden cannot get a fair trial in the USA would be his follow-on argument in presenting the persona or legal track record of Obama’s Attorney General; Eric Holder.

Point one in fact, Snowden should not have been charged by Holder’s Department of Justice in the 1st instance, we can already see the prosecution is political punishment for revealing crimes against the American constitutional order.

To give additional legitimate legal cover to any State that would provide Snowden asylum under the International Covenant, having already shown the American political establishment holds its own citizens’ rights in contempt, we look at top American law enforcement officer Eric Holder, a political appointment who serves at the pleasure of Obama, and his track record in relation to a person’s rights.

REPEATEDLY, Holder’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 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 or state secrets denying the right to petition for redress in the case of six unknown (to the plaintiff) federal agents in an illegal invasion of a private home, pointing to the present regime of American law patently ignoring its own principles. Holder’s Department of Justice should have settled rather than shut down the cases of the plantiffs.

Holder’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

It should be noted as well, Holder having been at the nexus of a ‘color of law’ arrangement (legalized bribe) where Chiquita Corporation paid a fine, and in return the identities of those Chiquita executives responsible for giving cash and machine guns to the AUC terrorist group which went on to murder approximately 4,000 people, had their identities concealed under seal in lieu of prosecution. Obama’s Attorney General altogether fails on Ethics, he should be prosecuted for frustrating the course of justice but instead has been elevated to Attorney General of the United States and you don’t get much stronger evidence of a state in violation of its own rule of law.

Another note would be judicial forum shopping, where Holder’s Department of Justice would almost certainly choose to prosecute Snowden in the federal district most likely sympathetic to the government’s stance in this case. With a judge willing to deny any line of argument to Snowden based on his obligation as a patriotic American compelled to act on crimes against the constitutional order, his fate would be sealed, as any jury would not be allowed to consider such argument in Snowden’s defense.

How the preceding arguments can be tied to the American obligations to the International Covenant 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 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 treaty. It is not only going against the act of its own foundational law, it is doing this violation 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 Snowden’s American constitutional rights per se into force of international law, subject to adjudication under the general principles of the International Covenant in diverse jurisdiction.

With this preceding outline fleshed out with the copious evidence available in the public record, Snowden could retain excellent German lawyers, walk this legal argument into the German embassy in Moscow, file it with a petition for political asylum and sue in the European Court of Human Rights when or if asylum were turned down by Germany and subsequently the German courts.

Insofar as associating with WikiLeaks, Snowden cannot help Manning’s case except to provide fodder for pro-Manning political cannons, but association with and any legal comparisons to Manning’s case certainly could eventually bring Snowden’s case down in abject failure. A personal note to Snowden: you are being used by WikiLeaks, and this could be to your absolute disadvantage.

© Ronald Thomas West. This article may be reproduced in full with attribution to the author

 

S1

SAMSUNG

John Roberts appoints the FISA Star Chamber

*

In the United States theory of law there is a known and in the past prosecuted 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, there is ZERO constitutional foundation for any secret jurisprudence violating American citizens’ individual rights laid out in our constitution’s first through eighth amendments, which the FISA court authorizing Prism in fact sets out to do.

In the case of Edward Snowden:

 

Congressional leaders Diane Feinstein and John Boehner have used the terms ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’ HOWEVER:

The actual traitors under any authentic American or ‘de jure’ rule of law are those persons putting forth a pretense these 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 under FISA law, and finally those persons accepting and serving FISA, these are the ‘traitors’ if our constitution were to mean anything in the present day, which in fact it would appear it does not.

It is clear our core American values in philosophy, theory and practice of law, have been discarded by the national leadership of both parties.

When Senator Diane Feinstein claims ‘prism’ is ‘legal’ she is in a philosophy of law tar pit. Prism is unconstitutional from top to bottom, our constitution’s clause authorizing congress to create courts does not employ language allowing a constitutional oxymoron, that is creating secret jurisdiction undermining other clauses of the constitution or one clause empowered to undermine the other clauses.

Restated in the simplest terms; When the clause allowing congress to create courts is construed in such a way as to undermine other constitutional clauses, only one clause will count: the clause congress gave away to secrecy. You can forget about the rest, including the clauses which guarantee a trial by your peers, the right to confront your accusers, your right to freely associate, your right to peaceably assemble, your right of public speech, all of which you can now be prosecuted in secret, and now your private speech can be stolen and misconstrued in secret star chamber proceedings, et cetera, add nausea. The end result is no constitution at all. Only people living in denial, mental pygmies and deliberate liars could hold any other point of view. It is abundantly clear Color of law has overtaken the highest institutions of the USA. Does it say anything to you Dick Cheney lawyer Shannen Coffin is a big fan (and close personal friend) of Chief Justice John Roberts, the man who appoints the FISA Star Chamber judges? “The Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic human rights”  Faretta v. California 422 US 806, 821-22 (1975)

Obama must have been a terrible law professor or he has actually thrown out any principled view of American foundational law when ensconced in the halls of power, which appears to be a widespread and socially contagious disease at the apex of 21st century American politics; particularly noting Chief Justice John Roberts who appoints the members of the secret FISA court. With this ‘star chamber’ in place, one only need examine who is hunted and sent to prison or murdered without charge or trial, such as 16 years old U.S. citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, as opposed to those rewarded for crimes of unspeakable magnitude; as fans of fascism and impunity were never in short supply in ‘civilized’ peoples power structures. And so it is the power corrupt, example given, recent Director of Central Intelligence General Patraeus who’d provided cover to James Steele in Iraq for organized torture centers and death squads, is rewarded with a seat at Bilderberg, where no doubt Patraeus can offer innovative method recently applied in Iraq to the longstanding organizing of Black African militia murdering Black Africans to the advantage of corporate rip-off of African peoples’ resources.

One only need compare this to the aggressive pursuit of Edward Snowden for whistle-blowing crimes against the rule of law; to understand what is actually going on in those rarified circles of empowered White men (a term inclusive of Condoleezza & Susan Rice) knowing what is good for deliberately disenfranchised Brown people, also known as corporate money means murder around the world.

If one carefully considers what Edward Snowden has stated in the video, it was never more clear corporate boards have access to all of the information corporate criminal personalities would need to prepare ‘kill lists’ independent of any governmental ‘authority’ Read it HERE

SAMSUNG

Condoleezza & CHEVRON have access to PRISM

**

My investigation into breaking laws associated with a proposed CHEVRON drilling project stopped (nearly single-handedly) a CHEVRON exploration into what is believed by some to be one of the most potentially rich hydro-carbon domes in the USA (which happens to be under pristine wild land sacred to the Blackfeet Indians.) The subsequent dirty business of trying to take me out is in tandum with Bush-Cheney big oil personalities at the top of the corporate food chain. The George H.W. Bush White House was on board in 1989-1993 with counterfeiting the environmental laws process, and it became a Bush Jr/Cheney issue after the fact, particularly having to do with covering up the John Yoo/Jay Bybee torture lawyers earlier involvement with the Bush Sr administration’s corruption in this case.

Look at these CHEVRON personalities and their raw power:

http://csis.org/event/launch-project-us-leadership-development

When CHEVRON employs former Bush National Security Advisor & Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice together with  former NATO Supreme Commander & Obama National Security Advisor General James Jones, two of the most influential hyper-extremist Christians in the world, utilizing Congress for integrating CHEVRON policy to United States policy, I expect there is little doubt CHEVRON has access to PRISM to carry out its objectives, inclusive of when those objectives incorporate murder. These power corrupt people, responsible for numerous international crimes, actually believe ‘God’ places them above the law.

Their criminal reach has been nearly unlimited. When I had escaped the USA alive and subsequently positively identified CIA associated persons directly tied to attempted assassination of myself, I became a ‘national security threat’ on account of the extent of possible exposure of corporate boards deep reach into the security services and associated abuses of USA power. This is why nothing changed under Obama. My sense is, my story has become a threat to the entire status quo.

When the western democracies leadership preach (give lip service to) the rule of law, it includes everyone except themselves as pimps and whores for corporate boards that in actuality rule our lives using democracy as a front. It would appear this is why there has been no arrests and prosecutions related to my case, in which the relevant authorities have all the necessary information.

Watch Judge Napolitano excoriate the U.S. government’s PRISM constitutional violations HERE

Read National Security experts Valerie Plame & Joe Wilson’s take on PRISM HERE

*

Related: Letter to Parliament

*

This is about the book, not the film. The film sells the book out and is essentially worthless melodrama

Jeremy Scahill’s “Dirty Wars” is investigative journalism better described as a counter-intelligence opus; revealing the nature of a fascist state that is growing like a mushroom in the dark. I have only one criticism of the book, that is the apparent acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative overlooking un-refutable evidence we have not been provided anything close to an accurate picture of 11 September 2001. Setting aside this single aspect, ‘Dirty Wars’ is a treasure trove of information the Obama administration never wanted you to know.

The most compelling aspect of Scahill’s work is what too many (to count) intelligence professionals (includes your’s truly) have been saying for years. The war on terror generates the very terror it purports to fight. One of Scahill’s intelligence informants compares the war on terror to “a self-licking ice cream cone” in a circumstance where those who lead the so-called ‘war on terror’ are those who most profit from it, whether corporate mercenaries harvesting the money involved, or criminals reaping fear-mongering political capital to be promoted within the military power structures or the halls of Washington DC.

If the so-called ‘war on terror’ as a self generating phenomena is the most compelling aspect, perhaps the most disturbing aspect is the strong indicators of a ‘war on Islam’ in the integrated story of how Anwar al-Awlaki was driven by the USA’s security services, via years of apparent baseless and extreme harassment, from a moderate Muslim preacher who’d condemned the 9/11 attacks, into a radicalized Imam preaching against the USA. The only evidence we have of why his 16 years old son, a natural born American citizen, was killed in a separate drone strike appears to be because of who his father was. This aspect of ‘Dirty Wars’ raises the specter of literally ‘crusading’ ideologue elements integrated to the American apparatus of state security at the highest levels. Scahill does not name the ‘war on terror’ as a ‘war on Islam’ but the story has all of the elements. In this aspect, information developed separately by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, when juxtaposed to the information developed in ‘Dirty Wars’ supports the idea of a ‘war on Islam’ as a de facto reality, despite any assurances by Obama he has set out to repair relations with the Islamic world. This BS needs met head on by any and all of those who would see the value in preventing the USA’s aggressions devolving into a war of civilizations.

A followup point developed is, how easily and completely Obama lies to the American people (and the world) about his out of control murder (color of law targeted killings) program engineered by what one must conclude can only be psychopath killers (Obama favorite Admiral William McRaven, example given.) The result? Our constitution and rule of law trashed and immense damage to the American reputation both generally and particularly in relation to international law.

You can order ‘Dirty Wars’ at amazon HERE

*

Five Federalist Society Fascists

*

SAMSUNG

Spanky

His mentor getting him to the Supreme Court was Ed Meese, Meese is worshipped as a god within the Federalist Society

*

 SAMSUNG

Darla

While running a murder ring in government as vice president, her top lawyer was Shannen Coffin, Coffin is a close friend of Alfalfa

*

 SAMSUNG

Alfalfa

A Federalist Society steering committee member, Alfalfa was a professional associate of Spanky, Darla and Sidney under Reagan and George H.W. Bush

*

 SAMSUNG

Buckwheat

Advisor to George H.W. Bush, Buckwheat ran his own kidnap, torture & murder ring under George W Bush

*

 SAMSUNG

Sidney

An assistant to Federalist Society god Ed Meese, when Meese was implicated in the Iran Contra & WedTech scandals under Reagan

*

*

Scalia

Spanky a.k.a Antonin Scalia

*

Cheney

Darla a.k.a. Dick Cheney

*

Roberts

Alfalfa a.k. John Roberts

*

Rice

Buckwheat a.k.a. Condoleezza

*

Alito

Sidney a.k.a. Samuel Alito

*

In the American republic that was intended to be, the Federalist Society would be broken up with the use of ‘Criminal RICO’ law and these ‘Family’ individuals prosecuted for [death penalty eligible] treason on account of conspiracy to undermine and overthrow the Constitutional authority of the United States of America. Perhaps Roberts, Scalia and Alito should find the death penalty unconstitutional on the outside chance the rule of law will be restored and it will catch up with them 😉

Related: Color of Law

**

The Satires

%d bloggers like this: