Calling DU legal...

[hootinholler]

Edited for a sexier headline.
The headline was: The United States Code,Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Section 1001

States:

1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Such a simple law. 5 years or a fine. For each count. No mention of being under oath being required. I'm confident we can find many examples of this law being broken. The most obvious being "the 16 words."

I posed a question in one of UnderstandingLife's threads pointing to the example of "the 16 words" which asked basically why this wasn't prosecuted and could a prosecutor be compelled to pursue the case. I offered to start a legal fund to pursue this avenue. I actually called the ACLU and found out that one cannot compel a prosecutor to take a case.

I submit that if the case had been taken up, the Iraq war would not have been entered into. That Congress would not have approved the IWR had the willful false claim in the SOTU been prosecuted, even if it was only a speech writer charged.

I submit that each american who will pay taxes has been damaged by at least $30,000 to pay for the cost of the war that the lack of prosecution of this offense enabled.

I submit that every soldier who has served a tour in Iraq has been mentally harmed.

I submit that each wounded soldier was further seriously damaged above the financial burden.

I submit the families of every soldier killed have suffered the gravest harm a citizen can be subjected to.

Now, I seek help from DU. I'm seeking help because while we cannot cause a prosecutor to pick up a case, if we can demonstrate these actual damages we can pursue a civil suit. So, OldLeftie et. al. can we build this case?

Seriously.

-Hoot

[Faux pas]

1. Kicking Because I Think This Is Very Important! n/t

[leftofthedial]

2. they are criminals

maybe this is the way to prosecute

[Red_Viking]

3. I'm a law student, not a lawyer

But, I can tell you that to prove this, you'd have to show that someone violated the statute "knowingly AND willfully." That means they knew what they were doing, and did it on purpose. That's difficult, especially with all the layers of confusion this administration has added. I think that's why Pat Fitzgerald has been so cautious with what he's charged so far. He has to be able to prove each and every element (including the "knowledge" elements) beyond a reasonable doubt.

These vile bastards have created so much confusion, specifically to defeat claims like this. They know what they're doing, but just try proving it!

It really sucks.

Hope this helps.

Peace,

RV

[hootinholler]

4. The knowingly part is easy...

Similar language was left out of prior speeches. Does a speechwriter write anything that isn't willful? Especially for a speech as important as the SOTU? I think not. I think a jury would agree.

Thanks for the input.

-Hoot

[Gregorian]

10. I have to say that I loved your post.

Thanks.

Those same words have echoed through my head for ages. Very maddening to know what we know, and yet not be able to do anything about it. Yet.

[hootinholler]

12. Yes, that's the worst part isn't it?

I keep looking for a way to raise hell.

-Hoot

[serryjw]

24. I'm not a lawyer either but

to PROVE anything we would have to have evidence that would be protected under national security.
NOW, my question is under the 1st amendment I have a right to 'petition my governemnt for a redress of grievances".WHY has someone not started this? I have a lot of grievances!

[Amonester]

25. There's this lawsuit against * by Doug Wallace but I don't know

what's up with it so far.

WALLACE Vs. BUSH LAWSUIT

BUSH HAS BETRAYED AMERICA IN HIS LOYALTY TO RIGHT WING IDEOLOGUES WITHIN THE REPBUBLICAN PARTY SEEKING A THEOCRATIC EMPIRE TO CONTROL THE WORLD. HE AND THEY NEED TO BE STOPPED IN THEIR TRACKS FOR WHAT THEY PROPOSE AS THE WILL OF GOD IS IN FACT JUST THE OPPOSITE. PEOPLES OF THE WORLD NEED LIBERTY AND PROTECTION AGAINST MOB RULE OF MISINFORMED PEOPLE IGNORANTLY SUPPORTING FASCIST CONTROL DISGUISED AS "DEMOCRACY". BUSH HAS LOST THE MANTLE OF OFFICE OF PRESIDENT FOR IT IS BEING HELD BY THE US DISTRICT COURT IN RENO NEVADA. JOIN DOUG WALLACE AND HELP HIM BUILD A STRONG PROSECUTORIAL TEAM TO RID AMERICA AND THE WORLD OF CONTROL BY THE EVIL AMERICAN DREAM TRAITOR GEORGE W. BUSH!

AN ANCILLARY AND COMPANION EFFORT TO WWW.RECALLTHECONGRESS.COM

DOUG WALLACE

FOUNDERS FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND

Law suit against the current American administration alleging that the Government has exceeded its constitutional authority by implementing a scheme for global dominance called "Project for the New American Century."

A lawsuit was filed on January 14, 2005, in the U.S. District Court in Reno, Nevada against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The lawsuit alleges that both defendants have acted outside the scope of their job description in waging a war against Iraq. The complaint alleges that both defendants and others working within the White House and Defense Department have covertly implemented a white paper called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” as presented by the Project for the New American Century or PNAC in September, 2000 two months before the murky elections of that year. Among the persons signing the paper were Richard Cheney and Jeb Bush. While the paper was published on the internet, implementation of it by the White House has been in secret. Comments and further detail, see Founders Freedom blog.

As we begin 2005, the most prominent and urgent need is to disassemble the fascist government that has taken over the United States in the past four years. To that end I have filed a lawsuit in Reno Nevada on January 14, 2005 against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in order to let Americans have a chance of assisting a court ordered dismantling of the PNAC which has been adopted by the White House.

http://www.wallacevbushlawsuit.com

:shrug:

[serryjw]

26. Is this guy a nut case..Who is he?

I never heard of this?

[Amonester]

27. I think he is very serious: he's a Lawyer (if I'm recalling well).

More at: http://www.democrats.com/node/4660/print

He knows he needs help (he keeps asking for help), though.

[serryjw]

28. I see nothing more current on this?

n/t

[Amonester]

29. The last entry in his blog was in January, it seems.

http://foundersfreedomdefensefund.blogspot.com/

I truly wish nothing "bad" happened. (BFEE?)

Did he take small planes? :scared:

[0007]

5. Interesting! Got more infomation?

[hootinholler]

9. Not really, thus the post. n/t

[wordpix2]

6. I think you're right---maybe ACLU could help? They helped our little

antiwar group when the mayor told us we couldn't protest on the town green. Wrote him and the city council a nice letter saying it was illegal to prevent us from peacefully assembling. Perhaps they'd take up this case. If only we could find out who (in US) ordered the uranium from Niger fake documents--that would help.

[PDittie]

7. .

[ArbustoBuster]

8. Recommended and kicked.

I want to see them frogmarched out of the White House, darn it! :)

[fooj]

11. K&R!

Peace.

[Canuckistanian]

13. Glad you made this into a new post

Kicked and Rec'd...

[EFerrari]

14. Isn't this the case John Dean made in his book, "Worse Than

Watergate"?

[hootinholler]

15. I haven't read it, you tell me.

Pointing out that this is an actual crime is not origininal to me. The idea to sue the Attorneys General over it perhaps may be as I don't recall seeing that angle before.

-Hoot

[EFerrari]

17. Dean doesn't include suing Torquemada in his argument.

His book is a great read, btw. :)

[hootinholler]

18. I bet it is...

I'm reading some fantasy these days to balance the outrage and recharge the ideas of chivalry and hope.

Still no Lawyers checking in.

-Hoot

[EFerrari]

20. Someone will. It's a holiday and isn't it close to a tax filing deadline?

They'll be back.

[hootinholler]

22. Hope so. n/t

Bed time :kick:

[Hissyspit]

32. Dean does mention Title 18 in a footnote on page 156, but...

his main argument is that the deceits and lies are IMPEACHABLE offenses.

Worse Than Watergate

The contention of several witnesses that prior presidents' having engaged in such activities justified Nixon's actions was rejected by the Senate, which pointed out that in several instances it appeared that the administration's conduct involved a criminal conspiracy to defraud the government of the faithful execution of its laws.*

*The committee cited Title 18 of the United States Code, section 371, which makes it a crime to conspire to cheat the government by improperly carrying out federal programs and laws or by denying it of the proper work by its employees.

I guess you could infer from this an argument by him, but mainly he mentions impeachment:

Had Bush, Cheney, and their administration been honest, they would have explained what they did, and did not know. The reason they did not is obvious. They wanted war and felt that without their distortions, they would be unable to muster public and congressional support.

Deceiving Congress - An Impeachable Offense

When it came ot the war against Iraq, Congress was deceived, just as the American people were, only what happened with Congress deserves a very close look because it reveals that Congress did not give the administration a blank-check authorization. In fact, Bush deliberately violated the very authorization that he sought from Congress, which was not merely a serious breach of faith with a trusting Congress but a statutory and constitutional crime.

[gglor]

35. Even I understand what dean said

that was an excellent summary. Another blogger said du has attorney's, do they?

Then why not get dean behind us. I would have voted for dean but never got the chance. Dean is outspoken, but he really is a patriot and loves this country.

Its early am on Easter and everyone is on holiday, but maybe monday we could get this ball rolling. I am going to send your letter to Dean and ask for help. Maybe there is hope with this idea, we can all send your letter to dean. I know, I do not know the law.

Congress will not take action with the republicans in charge. Senator Reid said if the dems try to impeach, they would not have the votes to win. 06 is my silent prayer, however voter fraud and the bus nazi regime could and plans to knock it out.

[gglor]

36. Even I understand what dean said

that was an excellent summary. Another blogger said du has attorney's, do they?

Then why not get dean behind us. I would have voted for dean but never got the chance. Dean is outspoken, but he really is a patriot and loves this country.

Its early am on Easter and everyone is on holiday, but maybe monday we could get this ball rolling. I am going to send your letter to Dean and ask for help. Maybe there is hope with this idea, we can all send your letter to dean. I know, I do not know the law.

Congress will not take action with the republicans in charge. Senator Reid said if the dems try to impeach, they would not have the votes to win. 06 is my silent prayer, however voter fraud and the bus nazi regime could and plans to knock it out.

[MiniMe]

38. Hmmm, wouldn't this apply to DeLay when he sent DHS after the

dem senators in the redistricting?

[gglor]

39. good thought

[Hissyspit]

33. See my post #32. n/t

[hootinholler]

16. Where are the DU lawyers?

What elements do we have to prove to make this case and sue the Attorneys General?

-Hoot

[SeaBob]

19. Simple little law

OOOOO thanks for that Hoot
I can use this.
:evilgrin:

[hootinholler]

21. Isn't it though?

I think it could tie some things up nicely. Throw in two or more people working together and then you get conspiracy in the main counts.

-Hoot

[oasis]

23. I'm not a lawyer but I'm an expert on criminals. Bush is a criminal. (n/t)

[Marie26]

30. This law is to protect the gov., not citizens

This statute is intended to prevent fraud against the government. People can be prosecuted under this statute if they make "false or fraudulent statements" to a government official. For example, someone could be convicted under this statute if they lied to an IRS tax auditor, or if they lie to the Secret Service about embezzling government funds. And it's a criminal statute w/o civil liability, so you couldn't create a civil suit or class action suit for damages. In addition, there is no "private right of action." An individual person couldn't bring this case to court; the government entity (IRS, etc.) would have to do it.

If you wanted to prosecute Bush, I think you'd have to somehow show that Bush made these fraudulent statements to the federal government, not the American people. (There's no such law protecting us.) Then a different question arises about whether the President, as head of the federal government, can even be charged under this law. But, here's where it gets interesting. Giving false testimony in front of Congress has been considered a violation of 18 USC 1001. This falls within the statute because Congress is a defrauded government party. In the 80's, the Iran-Contra special prosecutor indicted Oliver North under 1001 for giving false testimony to Congress. North tried to have it dismissed, arguing that "executive privilege" & "executive authority" in foreign affairs precluded such a prosecution. This argument was slapped down by the court, who said:

"Though the parameters of Congress' powers may be contested, Congress surely has a role to play in aspects of foreign affairs... Executive officials have a statutory obligation to provide intelligence information to this {House Intelligence) Committee on request. 50 U.S.C. § 413 More generally, congressional committees act well within their authority when they seek explanation from Executive Branch officials regarding matters that may affect substantive legislative decisions. It is essential that Congress legislate based on fact, not falsifications, in the realm of foreign affairs, as well as in domestic legislation." US v. Oliver North The executive can refuse to answer, but he cannot affirmatively mislead Congress.

I think a creative prosecutor could make the argument that Bush "affirmatively mislead" Congress when he made the false Niger claim during his SOTU. In addition, there's probably plenty of examples of Bush Ad. officials giving false Congressional testimony about Iraq's WMD's, the extent of NSA spying, etc. Of course, the prosecutor would have to prove that they knew these statements were false when they made them (and that could be difficult to do). We as Americans can't sue the Bushies, but a federal prosecutor could seek an indictment for false statements Bush & co. gave to other governmental entities. All it would take is a Congress, and a prosecutor, with the guts to do it. Maybe you should email this to Fitzgerald! :) Realistically, this probably is not going to happen as long as Republicans control Congress, but if Dems take back the Congress in 2006, I think it is a real possibility.

[Hissyspit]

34. See what John Dean said in my post #32. n/t

[hootinholler]

40. Thank you for your considered reply, I have some questions.

Yes, I understand that this law is to protect the government and there is no right of private action to enforce it.

My angle is that by failing to prosecute it, grave harm was done to a class of citizens. Essentially suing Attrneys General who have jurisdiction to recover damages caused when they failed to take up the case. Is that actionable? We all were harmed, where is our avenue of redress?

The goal is not to punish the President, but, rather to punish those who should have taken the President and his staff to task over this law. What a precedent that would be!

In the singular case of the yellowcake reference in the SOTU, it is easily shown that at least the speech writers knew it was false because the point was removed from speeches prior to the SOTU speech. That count shold have been a slam-dunk. Because of that failure to prosecute was either incompetence or collusion.

Thanks for the US v North cite.

-Hoot

[Marie26]

42. I'm sorry, I don't think so

So, we're not really talking about Sec. 1001 itself, but about whether some law exists to punish the DOJ for failing to prosecute Bush under Sec. 1001. And I don't believe such a law exists. Prosecutors have almost total discretion to choose which cases they decide to prosecute. It's a lot of power & there's not much recourse if the public disagrees. For example, let's say someone is arrested for assault, but the prosecutor decides there isn't enough evidence to try the case & the suspect is released. If he assaults someone else, the victim has been incredibly damaged by the DA's failure to prosecute, but she has no course of action against the prosecutor himself. A cause of action does exist for "abuse of prosecutorial discretion," but these cases are usually brought by a criminal defendant, who alleges that the DA is choosing to prosecute cases based on impermissible reasons. (eg. only prosecuting African-Americans, or Democrats, etc.) It's used to stop a prosecution; I've never heard of it being used to compel prosecution. And it also doesn't create civil liability for damages.

Basically, you're wondering if there's some way we can punish the DOJ through the civil court system for failing to prosecute Bush. I'm not aware of any such civil cause of action, & I kind of doubt one exists. Prosecutors are in a delicate position & must be able to make decisions that will often anger some political group. If people who are upset by a decision could file a civil case against the pros., DA's would constantly be subject to civil suits & unable to do their jobs effectively. I think it's a good idea to try creative methods to get something done here, though. And I admire that you're seeking some way for citizens to hold the government accountable. However, I don't believe that this plan would work (sorry). This is just one opinion, though; maybe somebody else can see a way to do this. We can hold the gov. accountable by throwing out the Republicans in 2006 & 2008, so that a federal prosecutor can start indicting these guys. IMO, they very well may have violated Sec. 1001 & other laws - we just need a government that is willing to enforce these laws.

[hootinholler]

43. Yes, that's it. I'm looking for a way to punish unelected officials...

Who have not done their jobs. Thinking that in the future DOJ officials will be more careful.

I cite sec 1001, because it is so clear cut, and agree there are manifold other violations that are not so clear.

Is not demonstration of damage a standard to pursue a civil action?

Again I appreciate your input, bleak as it may be. I suppose there are many examples of a government unwilling to enforce its laws in our history.

-Hoot

[Marie26]

46. Too many examples

Sorry, I wish I had better input to give you. I'm kicking this again; maybe another attorney knows of some private civil actions that can exist for these kind of violations.

[hootinholler]

48. Thanks for the kick.

Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't, eh? As long as ther's no shield law that comes into play.

Thanks!

-Hoot

[understandinglife]

31. I'm grateful that you are persisting Hoot. Have you considered ...

... calling Congressmen Conyers and Waxman and discussing with their staff?

Also, it might be worthwhile to contact Sean Patrick Maloney who is running for NY AG.

He has posted a draft complaint dealing with the illegality of the NSA wiretapping of New York State citizens (http://seanmaloney.com/globals/docs/NSA_Complaint.pdf).

Anyone being that creative, might find your case of merit and he certainly has the legal background and connections to make something stick, if he's convinced the case has merit.

Thank you.


Never Forget: George W. Bush willfully violated National Security to cover-up his willful launch of a war of aggression and illegal occupation of Iraq. (and he's spending OUR money doing it ...

[hootinholler]

41. He would be able to prosecute the offense itself

But I think the suit is perhaps a pipe dream. I seem to be grasping at straw these days trying to find the mechanism whereby I save the Constitution. This situation has literally made me ill.

Still, so many have not done their jobs that would have prevented us from being in this position.

-Hoot

[understandinglife]

44. Take care. Just keep moving your message to all these folk ...

... and one of them may just commit. But, you do need to take care of yourself, as we all do, because the scale of the task of saving our Constitution is something we will be doing whatever each of us can, for the rest of our lives.

That's the kernel of reality that our system of government cannot escape - "We the People ..." is a 24/7 relationship with Our government, as you well know.


Peace.

[hootinholler]

45. Peace unto you and yours also my friend.

Damn, I cried.

-Hoot

[DemReadingDU]

37. K&R

[adwon]

47. Fun

A couple of answers (I hope):

1. There's serious doubt as whether a sitting president can be tried in a criminal court. Presumably, a president is absolutely immune from suit (criminal or civil) if the reason for the case arises from the job. Before anyone says Paula Jones, the court went out of its way to state that the suit was allowed because the matter wasn't related to the duties of the president. In a situation like this, a court is highly likely to find a separation of powers problem.

2. The cited section is criminal. It doesn't appear to support a private cause of action.

3. The tax damages argument doesn't fly. I'm sure any judge would repeat the old adage, "Taxes are the price of civilization."

4. The other damages arguments would require evidence. It's unlikely that such claims would be allowed as, though I'd have to check to be entirely certain, there is an exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act for foreign policy actions.

[hootinholler]

49. I seem to be having trouble getting the concept of what I wish across...

The cited section is the slam-dunk infraction that should have been prosecuted. The suit would not be against the President, but rather, against those who are responsible for enforcing the cited section. Assumedly that would be Attorneys General Ashcroft and Gonzales and other Federal Prosecutors in the DC circuit.

The point being that even if the only person prosecuted was a lowly speech writer, it would have prevented the passage of the IWR, and thus prevented the Iraq invasion.

Simply put the DOJ did not do its job. What is the avenue of redress?

-Hoot

[adwon]

50. I did understand you

The section doesn't support a private cause of action. That means you can't sue to force the enforcement of the law.

The remedy is electoral. After all, the alleged violations of law are inherently political, not legal. The best forum for them is the political forum (just my own opinion).

[hootinholler]

51. I guess I don't understand what you mean by a political violation.

There may have been a political motivation to violate the law, but, the law is apolitical, the DOJ positions are appointed, no? How can the remedy be electoral?

-Hoot

[adwon]

52. Here's my take

The example you gave in the OP was the debate over the IWR. In such a case, the courts have no role. Foreign policy is not a justiciable question, per the Supreme Court. Additionally, failure to prosecute, assuming the violation is within the scope of the law, isn't necessarily a violation in itself.

Additionally, the cited section does not provide a means for private citizens to sue for a mandatory injunction to compel DOJ to prosecute for the alleged violations. While it is sometimes possible to sue to compel government to enforce the law, it doesn't appear that it's possible in this case.

Essentially, war and foreign policy are not legal questions. They are political questions. That's the position of the Supreme Court. I agree with it. After all, justices aren't really accountable for their decisions. Their focus is more narrow, as well.