Developing A Constitutional Anti-Tyranny Framework
This is a follow-up to a previous discussion on TPMM and TPMtv. It relates to answering the question, "OK, we've had the absuses. What now?"
This also builds off some of the feedback related to the abuses of Cheney; and the lines of evidence within the Ford Administration that could prosecute US government officials for illegal activity 2001-8, despite the evidence destruction.
For clarification, we distinguish between (a) the US Constitution and (b) the US government. Although the courts may disagree, it is our view that the US Constitution can say one thing; but the US government can, as happened 2001-8, do something else and not enforce the US Constitution. A "government" for the purposes of this discussion is something that may be acting outside its lawful authority; and acting in defiancde of the Supreme Law and Supremacy Clause. A government that defies the Supreme Law cannot rely on the Supreme Law as a pretext to avoid confrontation by the States over US government tyranny.
Invitation for Comments
The goal is to discuss ideas to reform the system, and justify confidence with the existing or proposed Constitutional changes. Explain in your comments how you believe legislative reforms -- which an Executive has defied -- should be the only solution; and what Constitutional reforms are needed to make irrelevant an elected official's defiance of the Supreme law.
For those who believe the following ideas are not workable, feel free to discuss your reasons for having confidence in a system that has failed; and outline what other approaches -- besides blind faith -- will ensure the 2001-8 abuses do not recur. Be specific with your criticisms of what is wrong with the following; and outline why you believe your approach would be superior to the model which failed 2001-8.
One problem has been the defiance by elected officials in Congress and the President to agree in secret to violate FISA; and the untimely action to cure a violation. Here, despite FISA pre-empting eprivilege, the Congress and Executive recognized an illegal agreement to violate FISA.
The approach going forward must consider what will be done when the US government refused to obey written law; and subordinates written law to an illegal agreement to defy the Supreme Law. The current FISA standards allow for (apparent) meaningless consequences. We must discuss solutions that will meaningfully remind the US government officials, agents, and contractors that there will be swift, timely, and meaningful consequences under the umbrella of the Supremacy Clause.
Responses To Comments
Proven problem with elected officials: We elect Members of Congress and the President. Electing an Attorney General doesn't solve the problem: The same excuses for inaction would exist as Members of Congress have used to justify their malfasance against the President. Elected officials within Congress have refused to fully assert their oath. Arguably, it is false hope to believe that electing another public official will compel action against the tyrant or those in Congress or their staff to assert their oath.
Opponents cannot explain why 535 Members of Congress have not challenged this tyranny; but we should believe that another elected official -- an Attorney General -- will do what the appoitned AG or elected Members of Congress have refused. Conversely, if we are to believe that one (1) elected AG will act, we have to ask why 535 elected Members of Congress refused 2001-8.
Anti-Tyranny Clauses Withing Constitution: We need to have a system in place that, regardless the changing political winds,does not depend on the good graces of an attorney general to do what is right. The failure to do what is right should have Constitutionally-protected consequences.
One question is what mechanism -- within the Constitution -- will challenge malfeasance: Force people to have a backbone; and put them on notice, if they refuse to challenge tyranny, they will suffer a Constitutionally-recognized diluation of power, and denial of means to support tyranny.
One problem has been, despite the legal requirement for the rule of law, for the government officials to put rule of man above the Constitution. Indeed, the Supremacy Clause would compel the opposite. The question is what mechanism within the Constitution would undermine, and check a tyrant, even when Members of Congress and the Judiciary refuse to fully assert their oath.
The Supremacy Clause would be respected with this approach. These changes to the Constitution would affirm the Supremacy of the Constitution during tyranny; and automatically dilute abused powers when tyranny is present. This approach does not argue that the Constitution is Subordinate to anything; but that when tyranny reigns, the tyrant would have fair notice that they could not be sure of sustained State or public support for their illegal activity.
The Proposed Anti-Tyranny Framework Within A Restructured Constitution
This approach reforms the Constitutional system to ensure the abuses 2001-8 to not repeat. This approach would create a Constitutionally recognized system that will, among otherthings:
A. Challenge tyranny within the Constitutional framework;
B. Perpetually remind US Government officials that if they defy the Constitution, other actors have the Constitutionally protected right and power to assert authority against a US government and its agents who are in rebellion against the Supreme law;
C. Remind US government officials of options the States and other lawful centers of power would have to challenge tyrannical manner;
D. Dilute and eventually strip tyrants - and those who abuse authority and power -- of lawful authority and power, regardless the action or inaction of Congress on impeachment or DOJ or State AGs on questions of prosecuting US government officials;
E. Recognize power centers which can lawfully confront those who say the law does not apply to them;
F. Strip this power regardless whether the Congress did or did not agree to support prosecution or impeachment of the Executive of Judicial officers. This approach would act as a check on Congressional malfeasance; and formally declare Members of Congress in illegal support of unlawful tyranny and illegal rebellion against the US Constitution.
Developing A Credible Anti-Tyranny Framework Within the US Constitution
The discussion, fact finding, and public oversight going forward should be with an eye toward ensuring that no US government is allowed - in secret - to agree to, and not enforce - the Constitution, Supreme Law, FISA, or Geneva. One problem hasn't been simply whether the laws were or were not violated; but no perceived consequence for violating the law; and the flawed perception of meaningless consequences for illegal activity.
There needs to be a greater reform effort than simply modernizing the laws (which are ignored), but create credible power centers which expand their authority once the US government and its officials, legal counsel, contractors or agents abuse authority in secret; or agree to not enforce the law. Where the law is ignored and power corrupted, the Constitution must recognize new powers which can overcome this emerging, reckless disregard for the Supreme Law.
Part I: Developing Independent Report Card To Monitor US Government
We've seen tremendous abuses of power 2001-8. Going forward, we've heard favorable comments about the President elects nominations, subject to Senate confirmation.
Our task as American citizens must be to independently evaluate whether the proposed plans, and real progress are satisfactory in meeting our requirements to have adequate oversight and law enforcement.
Oversight Questions:
Are the reforms working?
Have we created a constitutional framework that diminishes the chances of tyranny?
Have we created structures which impose legal consequences on US government officials and legal counsel for their inaction as tyranny spreads?
Have we developed a Constitutional system that will protect Constitutional power and rights of US citizens, the states, and US government officials to actively thwart tyranny?
Is the proposed structure robust enough to adequately mitigate unforeseen plans to impose tyranny in new ways?
The economic failures mirror the breakdown in legal oversight 2001-8. There were valid indicators of problems 2001-8 that did not have adequate or timely legal compliance or enforcement in the securities, FISA, and Geneva areas.
US Government Support For Tyranny Must Be Timely Challenged: At Nuremberg, judicial officers were prosecuted for failing to enforce the Geneva conventions. Some in the legal community have argued that Members of Congress and judicial officers cannot look over the shoulders of battlefield commanders; and that Members of Congress and Judges cannot second guess the President. This is a dubious argument. The Framers intended, and the records from the Ford Administration support, the conclusion that battle-field decisions - on which weapons to use or not use - were influenced by Administration officials' views of what Members of Congress would or would not support. Specifically, there was a debate over whether Congress might adjust budgets because of the decision to deploy combat aircraft from either Thailand or Guam when retaliating over Cambodia. Moreover, the battlefield decisions are highly-connected with the President; and Members of Congress' views on what was or wasn't reasonable were factored into what the Ford Administration allowed to affect their options study. Most important, the Ford Administration was highly concerned about public support for the options.
Untimely Congressional Action Requires Timely Confrontation With Tyranny: This is where the DoD emails and the role of the President in conducting domestic propaganda comes into the nexus: Members of Congress were aware of the same press releases; yet, it took multiple years for the Congress to conduct a review of the WMD intelligence statements. The US government can quickly abuse power; but it takes years to clean up the mess. In the mean time, American citizens are abused. There should be a timely system that will remedy these abuses; not let the fact that Americans are challenging this abuse be used as the pretext for more abuses.
Strengthening Lawful Challenges To Tyranny Within Constitution: The solution must ensure that the consequences for abuses are timely; and that when, as happened 2001-8, the US government refuses to put the rule of law above the abuses of tyranny, that there is something that will work outside the abuses, and put the US Constitution first.
We support creating a protected right for Americans, when faced with similar abuses in the future, a Constitutionally protected right to discuss things which - during other times - might be legally questionable. This is not to say that illegal activity should be condoned; but that, when there is evidence of illegal US government actions and malfeasance, that the courts be required to take a permissive role on what Americans can openly discuss, and retain full protections.
Increasing Constitutional Protections, Remedies During Times of Tyranny; It should be, when the abuses increase, become easier, not harder, for Americans to lawfully discuss challenges, legal remedies, or other options to lawfully challenge the US government. There should be some mechanisms in place which compel the courts to show greeter, not less, discretion in permitting less conventional approaches to open discourse, information sharing, and problem solving. The argument that the public cannot be allowed to do this is antithetical to free exchange of ideas. It is a problem when the US government shifts the burden of proof from the US government to the public on questions of whether the US citizens retains the right to enjoy rights of free association, travel, literary inquiry, public discourse, and criticism.
Timely Mechanisms To Challenge A Tyrant's Reckless Planning: Tyranny spreads, in part, because government incompetence is not challenged; and other views are, for whatever reason, suppressed. In theory, a free exchange of ideas should produce the best solutions of benefit to society, as is the assumption behind patent protection. Indeed, wartime might be a time to increase security; but this increase in security needs to be balanced with a similar mechanism that will protect the rights of the public to continue to exercise their rights. Especially when the US government states that the nation is at war requiring increased security protection - but that US government refuses to mobilize the population through a draft - the question is whether the US government's planning can be credible; and whether the US government's failure to plan (as measured by a failure to mobilize) becomes a fair basis to increase protections of the public to peacefully, lawfully disseminate different views.
However, since 2001 is that it took combat losses for the President to awaken to his defective planning; and had he had his way, the DOD emails would have implemented a massive propaganda effort to expand reckless planning from one flawed theater to another. This is not to ask that controversial views enjoy special protection; but that controversial views have specialized preservation. When the Executive declares a state of emergency, but refuses to heed the lessons of history and plan to effectively use resources, that President must be stripped of the presumption of competence, and greater deference must be given to opposing ideas, solutions, and options. Deference cannot be one that simply, in name, defers to another; but creates Constitutionally protected power centers with the ability o compel the tyrant to heed the demands of outside forces.
Part II: Developing an independent report card to monitor US government progress in overseeing, monitoring, and investigating these abuses 2001-8.
Like the public statements of the President elect on reforming the economy and including the public in mobilizing support and understanding, we favor a similar approach to the abuses 2001-8: As raised with the net roots at the cited August 2008 meeting, we need to take time to understand what happened.
We need to hear independent announcements of government-level support of these investigations and fact finding. Whether they do or do not result in immediate findings of fact within the legislative or executive departments, the public should conduct oversight of the Congress and State level legislatures with the following in mind:
Have we understood the problem - and the proposed Constitutional remedies, not just legislative reforms - to ensure this abuse of power does not recur. We've seen with FISA that the law - as it is written - will get ignored by both the Congress and Executive.
We need to understand whether all lawful options were exhausted; and ensure that the legal options to enforce the Constitution remain on the table, even if there is an (apparent) illegal agreement not to conduct fact finding, hold hearings, or conduct criminal investigations.
What system of independent oversight of Congress, not just the Executive Branch, is needed to ensure that we have mid-term oversight, not merely bi-annual referendums at the voting booth. The voters should not be the only check on the US government. One question are the contracting systems: Where were they; and why did the contracting community continue to facilitate the transfer of assets, material, and resources for this illegal activity; and why were there not independent contractual legal disputes to not perform on contracts which were providing illegal support to unlawful Presidential actions.
We need to understand what information the IGs and state level personnel had about this illegal activity; and, going forward, what circuit breakers are needed to ensure that the means to implement this unlawful activity are adequately disconnected from those making the illegal decisions, and the locations where those resources are being illegally used in violation of the law.
The White House counsel, when it decides to violate the law or ignore the US statute, should not have the upper hand in dictating that the States are obliged to follow this illegal activity; nor are legal counsel immune from prosecution for facilitating these illegal agreements, or supporting the transfer of false information to hide evidence required to make an informed decision about whether the illegal activity is or isn't being supported by state-specific resources.
Had the White House legal counsel and GOP propaganda machines succeeded, there is little to stop future President from, out of desperation, declaring that controversial citizens with evidence of illegal activity, should be quarantined, or that those who refuse to obey these illegal orders are not systematically disappeared. From 2001-8 it appears many Americans were inducted to remain silent; or the systems of compartmentalization were abused: This suggests that there were many cells within the US intelligence and national security system designed and organized not to protect state secrets, but to pervert common knowledge of how the resources were feeding into larger illegal efforts.
Our job as American citizens must be to keep an eye on the larger picture: What is the real solution required to ensure that this type of abuse - and other abuses that will exploit flaws which are not remedied - are timely detected, stopped, and adjudicated.
Constitutionally Protected State Level Options To Assert Power Against US Government Officials
There could be legal tests the courts or other new entities use to make their case that the US government has met specific criteria meeting the definition of tyranny; and that this determination then opens the doors for others to lawfully do things they are not otherwise allowed to do during non-tyrannical times.
Some of the tests of tyranny might include several factors, which open the door to the States to take specific legal actions, including mobilization of state resources against the tyranny, and US Constitutionally protected state assertion of power against the tyranny. This approach could be based on a judicial review of the Executive or Legislative abuses, as measured by:
Legally Recognized Measures Of Tyranny Creating Rights of States To Expand Assertion of Power
- Delays in processing claims against the US government;
- Numbers of reports jailed or not accounted for without a suspension of Habeas;
- Number of civil suits against independent media
- Number of legal counsel who refuse to cooperate with compliance audits
- Number of DOJ OLC legal opinions permitting unconstitutional conduct
- Number of military campaigns in violation of Geneva without investigation or prosecution
- Number of legislative bills passed which violate the US Constitution
- Percentage of state level resources, manpower, and goods used to support illegal US government actions
Possible Legally Protected Assertion of Power At State Level Once States Determine Tyranny Exists in US Government
During non-tyrannical times, the States should be bound to specific legal standards. However, when there is a determination that the US government is tyrannical, some of the legal restrictions on the States should be subject to review, and subject to waiver and express violation. The prospect that these legal requirements - when the US government is operating in a tyrannical manner - should be something that expressly reminds the US government officials that they face an imminent, measurable, and substantial challenge should they continue down the road of tyranny
Some of these legal restrictions applicable to the states that might be waived during a period of tyranny might include:
- Legal power and authority of the state governors to not cooperate with a suspension of the writ;
- A determination of the State governors or other lawful authority that the US congress has not, as required, made a valid suspension of the writ; and that the suspension is not based on rebellion or invasion, as required
- Legal options of the State governors to declare specific contracts with the US government unenforceable; and granted specific authority to arrest and detain US government officials, contactors, or other civilians who attempt to enforce a US government contract that in any way supports a tyrannical US government
- Legal power of the State level officials to conduct secret, no-notice monitoring of US government officials while the US government officials work to implement tyranny
- Developing an internal alliance of other state officials in other states who have similarly agreed not to cooperate with the tyrannical US government
Constitutionally Protected Counter-Rebellion Against the US Government's Unlawful Rebellion Against the US Constitution
The above would in essence codify some of the inherent powers the States retain through the 10th Amendment, and attach with those powers specific legal duties on state-level officials to compel actions against the US government to thwart tyranny. These powers afforded to the states would be US Constitutionally protected rights and powers of the States and People to assert when there is a reasonable determination that the US government has drifted into illegal tyranny, is oppressive of the rights of the people, and the US Congress has not timely taken action to investigate illegal activity; or the US government is in a state of rebellion against the US Constitution by its malfeasance, inaction, or failure to assert the oath of office.
Projects:
A. Promulgating rules which prohibit secrecy agreements related to illegal activity. These are contracts which cannot be lawfully enforced by a tyrant; and when agreed to, the terms of this illegal agreement cannot be subject to any lawful classification authority; nor can the disclosure of this illegal agreement be subject to any criminal prosecution
B. Terms and conditions which impose legal consequences on legal counsel for their failure to remove themselves from illegal activity
C. Codifying expansive powers and rights of grand juries to secretly review evidence of tyranny without fear of retaliation, monitoring, or adverse consequences
D. Promulgating special rules related to grand jury protection during times of tyranny to ensure that tyrants have no lawful power or authority to impede a grand jury even under times of tyranny.
E. Developing well understood legal standards imposing legal consequences on White House, DOJ, Congressional, and other corporate counsel for their defective legal arguments turning a blind eye to tyranny; or supporting tyranny through their legal opinions or memoranda
Statute Review For Counter-Tyranny Standards: One way to review the statutes -- to ensure they are comprehensive in checking tyranny -- is to review the new legal standards created to oppose terrorism. DOJ OLC and the White House counsel need to explain why there are not matching statutes to combat domestic support for tyranny.
Anti-Tyranny Laws To Confront Law Enforcement Complicit With Tyranny: Law enforcement is charged with the responsibility to detect possible illegal activity. Where the US government and courts say that law enforcement is permitted to violate the law in specific situations, the forces which are charged with counter-acting terrorism should have a balanced power to violate the same laws the courts say law enforcement are not bound. The duty for counter-tyranny forces should include the constitutionally protected right and power to mislead law enforcement suspected of possible involvement in tyranny; and the legal duty to arrest law enforcement suspected of possible involvement with tyranny, or possibly involved with potential future plans to implement unspecified tyranny.
Fusion Centers To Combat Tyranny: These are constitutionally protected enclaves outside the lawful authority of the US government to review, investigate, or infiltrate. By analogy, there are groups within DHS whose job is to gather information about possible terrorism and these are consolidated at the fusion centers. A balancing system would create a similar system to counter-tyranny. This tyranny-monitoring system would gather information about domestic efforts to impose, create, or suppress knowledge of tyranny; and ensure there was a standing committee to review this ongoing domestic intelligence gathering system that is perpetually aimed at the US government to detect, thwart, and expose possible attempts to support tyranny at the state, local, and federal levels.
Questions For Discussion
Inherent Powers (Plural) of the States To Lawfully Confront US Government Tyranny: What recognized powers do the states retain under the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution to impeach US government officials; and compel public trials for their malfeasance, reckless enforcement of the law, or illegal agreements to keep silent about unlawful US government FISA and Geneva violations?
Contracting Officer Obligations To Deny Support For Illegal Activity: How many reported reckless plans will create a legal right of the states to lawfully refuse to provide material to the US government because of reckless mismanagement and squandering of state-level resources. The US government may be able to pay for state-level resources; but should the states have a legally recognized right and legal obligation to refuse to provide material resources for those contracts when they have evidence the material and resources are being used for illegal objectives?
Denying A Tyrant of Lifeblood For Illegal War Machine: Arguably, a war machine cannot continue if there are legal consequences on contract counter-parties to refuse delivery; and where they have evidence that specific resources and material are used for FISA-Geneva or other illegal plans, the States should have a legal remedy to demand return of the resources to the States; and the States should have the power to enforce this against US government officials who refuse to return the improperly used goods. The public decided that during wartime the President's NSA-related activities can be monitored. There's little to stop the public from demanding judicial review of state claims against the US government over allegations that state-level resources are being misused by the US government to implement illegal plans to violate FISA, Geneva, and other US Statutes.
Mandatory Obligation of States To Recognize New, Counter-veiling US Government Structures During Times of Tyranny: As written, the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Until changed, it is binding on all. However, the problem is when tyrants put themselves above the law; but hold others to the laws. The remedy is, during times of recognized tyranny, for the States to have the obligation to recognize a different structure within the US government: One that creates new centers of power that automatically revoke powers the tyrant is abusing. This would be within the existing Constitution; and, when tyranny existed, it would in effect, force the American public to recognize a new structure of the US government that is most offensive to tyranny: One that dilutes powers the tyrant is abusing; and one that automatically creates new centers of power, and increases public access to information that are otherwise protected: Evidence of auditor firings, copies of illegal memoranda, and meeting minutes between Members of Congress and US government officials related to illegal plans not to enforce the Constitution.
Mandatory Restructuring Within Constitutional Framework During Tyranny: The US Constitution, as the Supreme Law, would, in times of tyranny, have a recognized dilution of power stripping the executive and those who are complicit with the illegal activity of the current powers they have. The aim would be to more quickly transform the US government into one that makes the tyranny more obvious, less able to operate, and one that would be more vulnerable to collapse and abandonment. This would achieve the legal requirement that the US Constitution would remain, even during times of tyranny, the Supreme Law; and have a documented problem for a potential tyrant: Should they attempt to impose tyranny, the US government structure will automatically adjust to make legal counsel efforts to bypass the laws transparent and uncertain.
Under this model, which we do not favor, the structure of the US government would remain the same during non-tyranny times. We prefer a model that would, regardless the presence or non-presence of tyranny, create new centers of power within the US government; and create recognized power centers at the State level that have the legal authority and resource support to credibly challenge tyranny at the Federal Level.
Once tyranny was declared, the US Constitution would recognize new power centers; and the existing budget authority of the President would be stripped and redelegated. All expenditures of the President related to implementing the tyranny, or thwarting the tyranny would be illegal; and all contracting officers in the government and private industry who facilitate these secret funds transfers would be subject to prosecution for engaging in material support for tyranny.
Ideally, the States should have a timely mechanism to step into the picture, assert power, and force the US government officials to meet their legal obligations, protect the Constitution, and ensure the legal requirements in FISA, Geneva, and other statutes are enforced through either impeachment or prosecutions. Perhaps there could be some state-level statutes that compel the governors and state-level prosecutors to begin formal criminal investigations of their state-level officials who are working in the US government. There should be legal consequences on prosecutors who refuse to permit legal action against US government officials for allegations of malfeasance, or other activity which supports tyranny
Creating Legal Obligations On Committee Staff: One concern is the failure of the minority party 2001-8 to independently conduct fact finding, and issue public reports to the State Legislators asking for assistance to enforce the statutes against US government officials. We would like to see the Committee leadership in both houses openly discuss why, despite the option to provide information to the State AGs, that we have no public accounting of why findings of fact from any of the minority parties were forwarded to the State AGs. The failure to act at the US or State levels could be entered into court as evidence of complicity with an illegal US government rebellion against the US Constitution; and/or material support for tyranny.
One problem has been the Executive's defacto oversight and corruption of the federal law enforcement and department of justice. This should not have been a final answer; nor an absolute bar to any legal enforcement against Members of Congress, the Court, or the Executive Branch or their contractors. The Congressional committees in the House are not subject to a Senate Filibuster, and they do have the power to conduct minority investigations.
Are there times when the filibuster option is abused; and a tyrant is blocking legislation that would otherwise remove funding?
-How do we explain how the House continued to provide funds to the Executive, when the President cannot veto a bill that never arrives?
The House cannot be called a body that is a check on power when, as it whines about the abuses, it continues to rubber stamp funding bills for the very abuses it supposedly decries. During times of recognized tyranny, one option is to create a separate chamber comprised of state-level officials across all fifty states which have an independent vote on whether the proposed funding is or is not supportable by the States; and whether the States will or will not provide resources to the spreading tyranny. If the US Congress and President spend money during recognized times of tyranny without getting this state-level approval, then these expenditures would be attached to the indictment against individual members of Congress, their staff, and the executive branch personnel who contract, obligate, or spend funds for this illegal activity.
It is reasonable to have some concern about public statements when - as history shows - the results, not the words, matter. We need to discuss back-up plans so the DOJ under Obama - if they choose to ignore these Geneva and FISA violations - face some credible public pressure to ensure the Constitution, oath of office, and Geneva-FISA legal obligations are fully enforced.
Some of the options include: -
Expanding National Archives To Cover Member of Congress Records: Telling Members of Congress, like the President re National Archives, to work with the knowledge that their documents are national records; and that their records and communications are subject to later review, outside their respective branches. Members of Congress would know that their records and documents would, like the Executive, but subject to public examination, especially on matters of tyranny.-
Legal Standards Declaring Rights, Obligations Related to Unlawful Secrecy Agreements: The legal consequences for making these types of agreements could be severe, especially when, as now, the Congress in secret decided the law should be ignored; but did this without suspending Habeas. Congress can't have it both ways: Pretending that the Executive is above the law; but then not taking the legal step of formally stating that Habeas has been denied-
Removing Public Records From Exclusive Control Of One Branch: There could be independent electronic monitoring of the Executive by a fourth branch; and the other three branches have the responsibility to argue in public why the data that has been collected should or should not be released. It makes no sense to argue that Presidential records should be retained; but then have no independent system - outside Control of the courts, Congress, and Executive - to ensure that that information is protected, safeguarded, and subject to lawful review and release.-
Recognized Dilution of Deference To US Government on Evidence, Privilege: As the courts and public determine that tyranny exists, legal counsel would have the Constitutionally protected right and duty under the attorney standards of conduct to enter into the court evidence of tyranny. This evidence would be used by the courts to make adverse determinations and rulings against the US government, Members of Congress, Executive, and legal counsel over claims of privilege, evidence suppression, or non-cooperation with subpoenas
American Legal Systems: A Resource and Reference Guide
No comments:
Post a Comment