In reply to your last email;
You said: "When you think a judge gets a decision wrong the best remedy is to appeal."
Answer: You didn't read my account did you? To say that I think that the judge reached the wrong decision is insulting, offensive and derogatory. As my account exposes, Judge David R. Lass reached the wrong decision deliberately. He deliberately misstated the facts and evidence, he deliberately misapplied the laws, and deliberately abused his authority. He not only reached the wrong decision, he clearly reached a predetermined one.
An appeal regarding the water rights was filed. That case was 04 SA 328. I submitted numerous pleadings and complaints to the Colorado Supreme Court regarding the collusion between the attorneys and judges, the lack of jurisdiction, the violations of law, etc. However, all my pleadings and complaints were struck from the record.
You said: "I/we can help with legislative reforms that create /strengthen the judicial performance commission."
Answer: The judicial performance commission doesn't work and should be abolished. Judges Lass, Ruckriegle, Ossola, and Petre are good examples of why it doesn't work. Instead, all judges and justices, should be term limited to four years or less.
You said: "I don't think impeachment is the proper remedy unless a crime has been committed and if you think a crime has been committed the proper channel would be to report to the police and DA-not the legislature."
Answer: 1. If you bothered to read my account, you would find that several crimes were committed. In all, Judge Lass violated, and allowed others to violate 22 laws. 13 of the 22 are felonies, and 9 of the 22 are State racketeering charges. I am herein adding 18-8-403(1)(a), 18-8-404(a)(b)(c), 18-8-405(a)(b), and 18-8-406 C.R.S. How much crime do you need? Show me where the general public is allowed to violate even one law without being held accountable?
In addition to the violation of laws, Judge Lass violated the Judicial Cannons, Rules of Professional Conduct, the Constitution(s), his oath of office, and more. Article XIII, Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution provides that the governor and other state and judicial officers shall be liable to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, (it doesn't even have to be a felony), or malfeasance in office. I have evidenced both, high crimes and malfeasance in office. Article XIII also provides that the House shall impeach and all impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. You are clearly provided with the power and the law, so why do you refuse to use it?
While you and the rest of the Legislators are refusing to use your powers to stop Judge Lass, he is continuing with the trial and issuing orders even though he has no authority to do so. I recently submitted two Motions to Dismiss and Vacate for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Lass denied my Motions, and instead of relying on his own Court record to show jurisdiction(there is none), and the right to continue, Judge Lass used the Opinion issued in 04 SA 328 wherein the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of issue preclusion bars Appellants from collaterally attacking the lack of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction of the Summit County Court.
Because all roads, in the abuse of authority, obstruction of justice, violations of law etc., lead to the Colorado Supreme Court, lets take a look at the jurisdictional findings of that Opinion, shall we?
First of all, even though all my pleadings and complaints were stricken, the Justices still had full access to the entire record in Case No. 99 CV 277. The court record itself evidences that Judge Lass violated the laws, allowed others to violate the laws, abused his authority, and deliberately abused, violated, and denied me my civil rights to due process, contract freely, and right to be heard. The law recognizes that the Judgment in 99CV277 was not only void, but void ab initio. (From the beginning.)
Instead of holding Judge Lass accountable, the Supreme Court Justices denied, circumvented and concealed his criminal conduct, and put the blame on me by saying I had the chance to litigate, and/or did litigate the lack of jurisdiction, and am now barred by the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion from challenging it.
I re-read the transcript of 99 CV 277, and jurisdiction was not even mentioned once. The record shows that I hired four attorneys to represent me, my rights, and that of the Association. One was hired prior to the filing of the lawsuit, two were hired during proceedings to trial, and one was hired after the trial. Not one of the four ever mentioned subject matter or in personam jurisdiction, nor the lack thereof, to me or the court in any of the submitted pleadings before, during or after the trial. None. I stumbled upon jurisdiction requirements through law discussion groups and investigated it on my own. So no, I did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the lack of jurisdiction during the lawsuit, or at trial, and the record confirms it. For that matter, due process also mandates that the court confirm that subject matter and in personam jurisdiction exists. Again, the record does not evidence the court confirming its jurisdiction in any way except to deliberately misstate the facts and evidence in order to fraudulently obtain it.
The Colorado Supreme Court then supported their findings with case laws. Case law is supposed to be used to support arguments in like or similar circumstances and determinations. Let's look at the ones they used:
1. Keystone v. Flynn, 769 P.2d 484, 488-89 n.6 (Colo.1989) This is a case regarding whether the District Court obtained subject matter jurisdiction while the parties had not yet exhausted all administrative remedies, nor had the Public Utilities Commission entered a final decision.
2. Insurance Corp. Of Ireland, Ltd. V. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinea, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S. Ct. 2099, 2104 n.9 (1982). This is a case regarding personal jurisdiction over a foreign party by sanction, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A).
3. O'Neill v. Simpson. 958 P.2d 1121 (Colo.1998). This is a case regarding a lack of jurisdiction based on defective service of process.
4. City of South Pasadena v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 1154,1157 (9th Cir. 2002). This is a case regarding 11th Amendment immunity.
5. In re Marriage of Mallon, 956 P.2d 642, 645 (Colo. App. 1998). This case is a case regarding lack of jurisdiction due to the husband not residing in Colorado for 90 days prior to the petition for dissolution being filed.
6. People in Interest of E.E.A., 854 P2d 1346 (Colo.App.1992). This is a case regarding a jurisdictional flaw because the minor child being the subject of a paternity suit, was not made a party to the suit.
7. In People ex rel. J.A.U. 47 P.3d 327, 331 (Colo. 2002). This is another case regarding paternity, and lack of jurisdiction based on mistake.
While claim and issue preclusion may have applied to the above cases, none of them state that the reasons for lack of subject matter or in personam jurisdiction was based on the unlawful, fraudulent and malicious actions of the judge. Claim and issue preclusion does not apply when unlawful, fraudulent and malicious actions are committed by the judge. None of the above case law applies to my situation, the record, or the appeal brought in 04 SA 328. Citing one case law wrongfully is a mistake, citing seven wrongfully is deliberate and a cover-up.
The Justices then stated that to overcome the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion, there would have to be a showing of "manifest abuse of authority by the trial court." Again, in spite of striking all my pleadings and complaints which did show manifest abuses of authority, they had the Court Record, and the justices cannot escape the fact that the record itself speaks to manifest abuses of authority by the trial court.
They also reference Restatement (Second) of Judgment §12 cmt.a (1982). In the Restatement, a modern rule was added wherein finality rather than the validity of a case is given greater weight. They also say that finality over validity is in the public's interest.
No, it is not in the public's interest to forego truth over closure in any case. Off the top of my head, this principle of law is unconstitutional and violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. It strikes at the very core of our judicial systems stand for due process, fairness, equality, and to get at the truth in every case. The Supreme Court Justices have a duty to strike this principle everywhere it is used, and remove it from everywhere it is written. The concept of finality over validity only ensures a revolving door employment for attorneys, clogs our courtrooms, and denies justice. Again, the quoted Restatement did not apply to my case, or the appeal brought in 04 SA 328.
In their final argument, the Justices validly cite Restatement (Second) of Judgments §12 (1982). But, because they denied, circumvented and concealed Judge Lass's criminal conduct, they say the remedy doesn't apply. Here is what it says:
Section 12, paragraph 1, states that a judgment may be attacked for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when;
(1) The subject matter of the action was so plainly beyond the court's jurisdiction that its entertaining the action was a manifest abuse of authority; or . . . .
The Plaintiff(s), not an Opinion, establishes the court's subject matter jurisdiction. The record evidences that the Plaintiff's in 99 CV 277 had NO standing to bring suit, they could show NO injury, and there was NO justiciable controversy. In short, Judge David R. Lass lacked subject matter jurisdiction, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUBJECT MATTER!!!!!! Likewise, there was NO judgment on the merits, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO MERITS!!!!!! By deliberately not addressing or even explaining the abuse of authority, or criminal conduct committed by Judge Lass, the Supreme Court Justices Opinion is biased and can only be construed to be a cover-up. Judge Lass's use of the Opinion as a defense for his continuing actions shows not only cover-up, but collusion between himself and the Colorado Supreme Court Justices. Furthermore, because of the amount of officials involved, the amount of money and property involved, this is more than just a good ole boy type system. It is a criminal enterprise, and all roads lead to the Mullarkey Court. (www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/orgcrime/glossary.htm) The Opinion, and Judge Lass's reliance on it rather than his own court record, is yet another on ramp.
The public will also be deceived by this Opinion as it will undoubtedly set precedence for someone else. They, not being privy to all the facts, and that crimes and abuses were intentionally denied, circumvented and concealed from the Opinion, will not be able to defend against it. How many more Opinions are there like this? Obviously, this case shows that a judge and/or justice can make a case, finding, or judgment have any outcome they want it to be, and the unsuspecting public has no clue. As long as the judge or justice signs it, the unsuspecting public will think that it must have been adjudicated fairly and by the rules and law, right? Again, how much crime do you need? How many more victims will there be who may or may not figure out what happened to them?
If you want to look up this Opinion yourself, the Case No. is 04SA328. A google search will bring it up easily, and while I am only herein focusing on the jurisdictional findings, the entire Opinion can be shown to be geared towards protecting Judge Lass, the attorneys, and other public officials criminal conduct.
The only remedy is impeachment, and I have herein made a partial but effective case against the Colorado Supreme Court Justices. If they are not stopped and held accountable, I as well as all other victims of this current corrupt judiciary, will hold you, and all the legislators, etc., liable for our losses of rights and property. And yes there are other victims. In fact, when I met with you in 2006 regarding this same case, Representative Wes McKinley told me that there had been another couple in to see him regarding Judge David R. Lass just two weeks earlier. Had something been done in 2006, I, as well as others would not have to be unduly enduring the continuing injustices today.
I did everything right. I filed complaints with every agency, entity and officials who are in position and power to stop the corruption, and bring accountability to our judiciary. I didn't fail, you did, and they did. (In 2007, yet another person has contacted me regarding Judge David Lass.)
2. Regarding the second part of your statement, I did take it to Sheriff Minor and D.A. Hurlbert. They both told me they would not investigate or bring charges. In fact, Sheriff Minor even yelled his statement that he would do nothing about the corruption. Here are their phone numbers. Feel free to call and ask them why they won't perform the duties, obligations and responsibilities of their offices of public trust. Sheriff John Minor - 970- 453-2232, D. A. Mark Hurlbert - 970-453-2327.
While your at it, here is the number to Summit County Commissioners Thomas Davidson, Bob French and Tom Long. Their number is 970 - 453-2561. I sent them a copy of the same account I gave you, and mailed it via Certified Mail No. 7007 3020 0002 4929 7947. Anyone can go to USPS.com, put in those numbers and verify that they did receive it. Ask them why I haven't heard from them, and ask them why they refuse to perform the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of their office of public trust.
The number for Chief Judge Terry Ruckriegle is 970-453-2241.
The number for Judges Ossola and Petre is 970- 945-5075
The number for County Attorney's Frank Celico and Jeff Huntley is 970 453-2561
The number for Summit County Planning Dept. is 970-668-4200
The number for Summit County Environmental Health is 970-668-4070
The number for Dept. Of Natural Resources is 303-866-3581
The number for Attorney General Suthers is 303- 866-4500
The number for Governor Bill Ritter is 303-866-2471
The number for Attorney Regulation is 303-866-6400
The number for the Judicial Discipline is 303-894-2110.
The above is a shortened list, but call and ask these public officials why they refuse to perform the duties, obligations and responsibilities of their offices of public trust, and/or participated in the racketeering. Article XIII also provides that those who are not liable to impeachment are liable to removal. Will I hold them liable? You bet. Again, I didn't fail, they did.
You said: "If you think the law itself is not properly written (which maybe lead to the wrong result in your case), we may be able to help."
Answer: It is not the law itself. As I have shown, and which you continue to skirt the real issue, it is the people elected and appointed who do not follow, uphold, and/or apply the laws fairly and for the benefit of all. As I have shown, our laws are being prostituted for money and job security, and not for truth and justice.
I will not respond to the rest of your e-mail because it is just more of the same skirting the real issues. I will however state that if this Governor and Legislature fails to use the power and rights we the people granted in Article XIII, I will in the future run a campaign to remove it from the Governor and Legislature, and put it in the hands of the people. Use it or lose it.
I will be sharing this email with the public. Part of the reason is to show the people what it is really like to seek redress of grievances, the other part is to warn them of corrupt public officials. If I alienate you-the one legislator out of a hundred who has responded to me-so be it. When our judiciary is being allowed to render a Judgment/Opinion that fits any scenario but the truth, we have bigger problems than whether I made you mad. Ours is a government of, by and for the people, (a Republic), not the other way around. Halena Lewis Halen@axint.net
Read my account at www.coloradoopencourt.blogspot.com
Join my group to support judicial accountability at www.progressnowaction.org/page/group/OPENCOURT
A dead man can tell no tales. There recent media coverage of both Steven Hatfill, whom the government had to pay 5.8 million dollars for destroying his livelihood and reputation, and, now deceased Bruce Ivins, a government scientist, who had a financial motive for committing the terrorist acts.
However this developing story may not be as straight forward as corporate media will lead people to believe. Brad Friedman, Bradblog.com, notes that a Washington Post report that has Fort Detrick sources stating that:
Ezzell said the experiments did not involve anthrax in its dried form, the type found in the letter to then-Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) that was so finely ground it could immediately become airborne. Ivins worked with small teams of scientists; their findings had global significance in the field of anthrax studies and were later used by opponents of a mandatory vaccination program instituted by the Pentagon that has been highly controversial.
What is the truth? Will justice for those threatened and those who died be served?
The dramatic hearing on presidential crimes and abuses of power held on Friday by the House Judiciary Committee was both a staged farce, and at the same time, a powerful demonstration of the power of a grassroots movement in defense of the Constitution. It was at once both testimony to the cowardice and self-inflicted impotence of Congress and of the Democratic Party that technically controls that body, and to the enormity of the damage that has been wrought to the nation's democracy by two aspiring tyrants in the White House.
As Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the committee, made clear more than once during the six-hour session, this was "not an impeachment hearing, however much many in the audience might wish it to be." He might well have added that he himself was not the fierce defender of the Constitution and of the authority of Congress that he once was before gaining control of the Judiciary Committee, however much his constituents, his wife, and Americans across the country might wish him to be.
At the same time, while the hearing was strictly limited to the most superficial airing of Bush administration crimes and misdemeanors, the fact that the session -- technically an argument in defense of 36 articles of impeachment filed in the House over the past several months by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) -- was nonetheless a major victory for the impeachment movement. It happened because earlier in the month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has sworn since taking control of the House in November 2006, that impeachment would be "off the table" during the 110th Congress, called a hasty meeting with Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Conyers, and Rep. Kucinich, and called for such a limited hearing.
It was no coincidence that shortly before Pelosi's backdown, peace activist and Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan announced that her campaign had collected well over the 10,000 signatures necessary to qualify for listing on the ballot as an independent candidate for Congress against Pelosi in the Speaker's home district in San Francisco. Sheehan has been an outspoken advocate of impeaching both Bush and Cheney. "Pelosi is trying to throw a bone to her constituents by allowing a hearing on impeachment," said Sheehan, who came to Washington, DC to attend. "It's just like her finally stating publicly that Bush's presidency is a failure -- something it has taken her two years to come to, but which we've been saying for years."
So determined were Pelosi and Conyers to limit the scope and intensity of the hearing that they acceded to a call for Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to adhere to Thomas Jefferson's Rules of the House, which prohibit any derogatory comments about the President, which was interpreted by Chairman Conyers as meaning no one, including witnesses or members of the committee, could suggest that Bush had lied or deceived anyone. Since a number of Rep. Kucinich's proposed articles of impeachment specifically charge the president with lying to Congress and the American People, this made for some comic moments, with witness Bruce Fein, a former assistant attorney general under former President Ronald Reagan, to say he would reference his listing of crimes to the "resident" of the White House.
In the end, the rule imposing a gag on calling the president a criminal fell by the wayside, with witness Vincent Bugliosi, a former Los Angeles deputy district attorney, accusing Bush of being guilty of the murder of over 4000 American soldiers and of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians because he had "lied" the country into an illegal and unnecessary war, and with committee member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-CA) suggesting that the president may have committed treason in invading Iraq, and that he appeared to be preparing to do it again with an unprovoked invasion of Iran.
Conyers also acquiesced in a Republican effort to minimize public monitoring and involvement in the hearing, allowing the minority party to fill most of the available seats in the hearing room with office staffers who showed little interest in the proceedings. Only a few dozen of the hundreds of pro-impeachment activists who had come to the Rayburn Office Building at 7 am in order to get seats in the Judiciary Committee hearing room were allowed in, with the rest having to remain in the hall or go to two remote "overflow" rooms to watch the proceedings on a TV hookup. Conyers also went along with a call by Republican members of the committee to have some of those who did make it into the hearing ejected simply for wearing buttons on their shirts calling for impeachment (the Republican members referred to these as "signs"), though such small personal tokens are routinely allowed in congressional hearing rooms.
It was clear that this was to be a tightly controlled and strictly limited hearing.
It was also clear that it was intended to go nowhere.
At one point, after hearing witnesses like Fein, Bugliosi, former representative and Nixon impeachment committee member Elizabeth Holtzman, former Salt Lake City mayor and impeachment activist Rocky Anderson, former House Clinton impeachment manager Bob Barr, former Watergate Committee counsel and current senior counsel of the Brennan Center for Justice Frederick A.O. Schwartz, and Elliott Adams, president of the board of Veterans for Peace, lay out the administration's crimes and abuses of power -- which included charges of usurping the legislative powers of Congress, violating international treaties, war crimes, lying to Congress, an illegal war, felony violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment, defying Congressional subpoenas, obstruction of justice and more, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the Constitution subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, appeared convinced that the abuses were real and serious.
But Nadler, who for two years has been a major obstacle on the Judiciary Committee to any efforts to move impeachment to a formal hearing, said, "No president has been removed from office through impeachment." He asked the witnesses, "How would you approach impeachment today so it would be a viable option?"
Former Rep. Holtzman responded, "The real remedy to a president who believes he is above the law is impeachment. There is no running away from that." She said, "An impeachment inquiry, handled fairly, could work. Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, but I believe it could work."
The basic point, made by Holtzman, by Fein and by many others, including this writer, is that worrying about the political opposition to impeachment, both in the House, and in the Senate, not to mention among the broader public, is completely wrongheaded. Even when impeachment articles were first filed against Nixon, the public and the bulk of the Congress were against the idea. It was during the hearings that the tide turned, as evidence of malfeasance, criminality and abuse of power became evident through hearing testimony. The same would happen in the case of President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney. Most Americans don't even know that the president made up evidence to justify the war against Iraq out of whole cloth. They don't know what the Geneva Conventions are with regard to torture. They don't know why Congress passed the FISA act, which Bush has been feloniously violating to spy on them (it was passed because Nixon was using the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without judicial warrants!). They don't know the Bush has been refusing to enact laws passed by the Congress. Public hearings by an impeachment panel would make all these high crimes and misdemeanors clear on national TV to all sentient Americans. Moreover, as Holtzman pointed out, the president would not be able to use the claim of "executive privilege" to withhold testimony from aides in an impeachment inquiry, the way he has done when they have been subpoenaed by other House and Senate committees. Impeachment would be about violations of the very executive actions he would be claiming privilege on. As well, an impeachment committee, unlike any other committee of the Congress, is specifically sanctioned and empowered in the Constitution, meaning that even strict "constructionist" Federalists on the bench would have a hard time backing presidential obstruction.
As Holtzman noted, "There is no executive privilege in impeachment, because refusing to testify is itself an impeachable offense."
Committee Republicans, aided by two law professors they had brought in to testify, Stephen Presser of Northwestern University School of Law and Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason University School of Law, tried to argue that impeachment was only meant for crimes in which the official, or the president, was seeking personal gain. This nonsense was knocked down by most of the speakers, who quoted numerous founders who made it clear that what high crimes referred to were actions -even taken with the noblest of intentions -- that undermined the Constitution or abused the powers of the office. As Rep. Nadler said, "Impeachment has nothing to do with intentions or with good faith. Impeachment has to do with abuse of power which weakens the balance of power."
In the end, the hearing petered out, taking no action of any kind -- exactly the result that Pelosi, Hoyer and Conyers cynically intended.
Now it is up to the public and the impeachment movement to call their bluff and take impeachment to the next level. Noting that even Rep. Conyers ended the hearing by saying, "We are not done yet, and we do not intend to go away until we achieve the accountability that Congress is entitled to and that the American people deserve," Rep. Kucinich and five other co-sponsors of his articles of impeachment (Robert Wexler, Tammy Baldwin, Keith Ellison, Maurice Hinchey, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Hank Johnson) are calling on all Americans to contact their representatives (202-224-3121) and urge them to join in co-sponsoring those articles and in calling for a formal impeachment hearing.
They are also calling on everyone to contact their local and national media, nearly all of whom have blacked out news of impeachment. Incredibly, the New York Times, for example, has not even reported on Friday's hearing, even as a news "brief." Those news organizations, like the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer, that did report on the hearings did so only in short, inside articles. Though the hearing was aired in full on C-Span (and is still available for download), many Americans don't even know it happened.
Time is short, but even at this late date, it would be a simple matter to impeach the president on some issues. As several of Friday's witnesses pointed out, President Bush has essentially dared Congress to act, admitting that he openly violated the FISA law -- a felony, and openly admitting that he has refused to enact laws passed by the Congress, claiming a power-unitary executive authority not even mentioned in the Constitution. He has openly admitted to having known about, and approved, "enhanced interrogation techniques" devised by his subordinates -- techniques like waterboarding which clearly violate the Geneva Conventions and US law. No hearings would be required to establish these high crimes and misdemeanors. They could simply be voted on by an Impeachment Committee and sent to the full House for a vote.
Even if there were no time for a Senate trial, the simple act of impeaching the president for one or more abuses of power would serve notice on future presidents that future such abuses would not be tolerated. Failure to do so, and allowing this administration to leave office unimpeached, would send the opposite message: that Congress is no longer a co-equal branch of government, but is merely a consultative body, at best, and that a president is in effect a dictator.
That Pelosi buckled and permitted a hearing on impeachable crimes by the Bush/Cheney administration is a major victory for the impeachment movement, but it must not be the end of the line. Impeachment activists need to now redouble their efforts to make Congress do its Constitutional duty, and initiate a formal impeachment proceeding.
As former Republican representative Bob Barr, now the Libertarian candidate for president, told Friday's hearing, "We had a nuclear clock during the Cold War. In the '90s we had a debt clock. Now we have a Constitution Clock."
That clock is getting close to midnight, and it is ticking.
Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and columnist.
----------------------------------------------------
Rep. Kucinich and five other co-sponsors of his articles of impeachment (Robert Wexler, Tammy Baldwin, Keith Ellison, Maurice Hinchey, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Hank Johnson) are calling on all Americans to contact their representatives (202-224-3121) and urge them to join in co-sponsoring those articles and in calling for a formal impeachment hearing.
This phone number is staffed 24 hours, seven days a week and 365 days per year. You can call after normal business hours and leave a message urging your Congressman to join in co-sponsoring those articles and in calling for a formal impeachment hearing.
------------------------------------------------
And if you have time on Saturday around Noon-1:00 pm
Our group holds an Impeachment Protest at East 6th & Speer in Denver every Saturday. We have lots of Impeach Signs so just show up and help. OR JUST DRIVE BY REPEATEDLY and HONK TO IMPEACH.
John H Kennedy, organizer
Impeach Colorado Coalition ImpeachCO.com
( other groups around Colorado do similar events and are listed on our Calendar at ImpeachCO.com )
..
The Nation magazine has a petition that should be signed by all supporters of his candidacy.
Why?
Because he must be held accountable for his actions that must match his words. If the actions do not match the words then what can we do?
Voting along party lines Wednesday morning, the committee said Rove broke the law by failing to appear at a July 10 hearing on allegations of White House influence over the Justice Department, including whether Rove encouraged prosecutions against Democrats.
The committee decision is a recommendation. It remains unclear whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will allow a final vote."
Are our House Democrats growing a spine? We can hope.
A six hour preliminary Impeachment Hearing last Friday and Now This.
IMPEACHMENT IS COMING!
John H Kennedy, Denver CO, 43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to the Denver County Convention and organizer of the
Impeach Colorado Coalition ImpeachCO.com
From the Daily Times, journalist Khalid Hasan writes:
WASHINGTON: Nayyar Zaidi, the well-known US-based Pakistani-American journalist, who has been a citizen of the United States for more than 30 years has been in US custody for the last four months on what are said to be terrorism-related charges...
The Homeland Security Department or the FBI have made no announcement about his arrest or incarceration. His family, when asked for his whereabouts, has continued to claim that “he is in Pakistan”. The Pakistan embassy, like Zaidi’s journalist colleagues, who have repeatedly phoned the family, has also been given the same answer. When asked why he is in Pakistan and what has taken him there or how long he is to be away, the callers have been told, “We cannot say” or “We do not know.” The news of Zaidi’s arrest – he is believed to be in an Ohio prison – was broken by the New Jersey-based website Des Prades at the weekend.
The current war in Iraq by Mr. Bush has shown to the world, if not to the blinded American citizens by a corporate dominated media, that the journalistic enterprise is to be threatened, intimidated, and killed. As many have noted that the war and occupation of Iraq is the deadliest war for journalists.
I still have not forgotten the fact that the U.S. military fired on a hotel containing correspondents, during the initial phase of the war, which resulted in the death of one journalist.
Nor do news organizations forget that journalists and videographers have been incarcerated at Abu Ghraib and other jails throughout Iraq without access to lawyers.
Remember that Mr. Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jezeera's Iraq news operation, and that there has been pressure by his administration to shut down the entire operation that is based in Qatar.
Freedom for journalists is crucial to a free society. Mr. Bush, as the world knows, is actively against the journalistic enterprise because he does not tolerate a free society, which makes him comrades with the governments of North Korea, Burma, and other totalitarian regime,
This should be executed at every place that Karl Rove makes an appearence at. He is one of the "architects" of why this nation is so bitterly divided. His "endless" campaign in the pursuit of Republican political hegemony has damaged this nation and its national security. This is why Karl Rove should be arrested and tried for crimes against the Constitution.
From the Cedar Rapids Gazette (h/t to HuffingtonPost.com):
Police here arrested four Iowans Friday after they attempted a citizen's arrest of former White House adviser Karl Rove, who was in Des Moines to speak at a fundraiser.
If Karl Rove appears in Colorado then he should be arrested for treason.
"Turley was particularly concerned about a recent statement by law professor Cass Sunstein, an Obama adviser, that only "egregious" crimes by Bush officials should be prosecuted by an Obama administration."
"There are very few obligations that a president has to do under the Constitution, but one of them is not to violate the laws that he is supposed to enforce," explained Turley.
Turley further pointed to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's refusal to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president, saying, "I don't understand why some Democrats can't just simply accept a very straightforward proposition, that we'll prosecute any crimes committed by this administration, an Obama administration, a McCain administration. Because they're crimes. They're all egregious."
From an article by
RawStory.com
John H Kennedy, 43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to the Denver County Convention and organizer of the
Impeach Colorado Coalition ImpeachCO.com
Join our Impeachment Protests, see the Calendar on the website
..
..
The House Judiciary Committee has released a witness list for its hearing to examine "the imperial presidency" of George W. Bush.
Testifying Friday morning will be Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has introduced several resolutions calling for President Bush's and Vice President Dick Cheney's impeachment; former Rep. Bob Barr, the Libertarian presidential candidate who led the charge to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998; Vincent Bugliosi, author of the just-released book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder; and 10 other current and former members of Congress, constitutional experts and human rights activists.
The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday on Capitol Hill and will be carries on CSPAN.
Late Thursday afternoon, the committee released the full witness list, broken down into two panels.
Panel One
The Honorable Dennis Kucinich, Representative from Ohio
The Honorable Maurice Hinchey, Representative from New York
The Honorable Walter Jones, Representative from North Carolina
The Honorable Brad Miller, Representative from North Carolina
Panel Two
The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Rep. from New York
The Honorable Bob Barr, Former Rep GA Nominee for President
The Honorable Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson,
Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger,Northwestern Univ.School of Law
Bruce Fein Asst.Dep Atty General 81-82 Chair
Vincent Bugliosi, former Los Angeles County Prosecutor
Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason Univ
Elliott Adams, President of the Board, Veterans for Peace
Frederick A O Schwarz Jr Senior Counsel, NYU School of Law
Conyers (D-MI) previously laid out six areas the hearing would explore:
(1) improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys offices, including potential misuse of authority with regard to election and voting controversies;
(2) misuse of executive branch authority and the adoption and implementation of the so-called unitary executive theory, including in the areas of presidential signing statements and regulatory authority;
(3) misuse of investigatory and detention authority with regard to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, including questions regarding the legality of the administration's surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition programs;
(4) manipulation of intelligence and misuse of war powers, including possible misrepresentations to Congress related thereto;
(5) improper retaliation against administration critics, including disclosing information concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice related thereto; and
(6) misuse of authority in denying Congress and the American people the ability to oversee and scrutinize conduct within the administration, including through the use of various asserted privileges and immunities.
Rep. Kucinich has offered four impeachment resolutions so far:
>According to article on Rawstory.com
John H Kennedy, 43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to the Denver County Convention and organizer of the
Impeach Colorado Coalition ImpeachCO.com
Join our Impeachment Protests, see the Calendar on the website
..
..
..
Herein are excerpts from Joan Fitz-Gerald's ad for U.S. Congress. I answer the statements and provide first hand knowledge of why no-one should vote for Joan Fitzgerald.
Statement: "You can count on Joan Fitz-Gerald."
Answer: As my State Senator, I contacted Joan Fitz-Gerald regarding judicial corruption and criminal conduct within the 5th Judicial District in 2002, and again in 2006. She finally responded in 2006 stating she would look into my complaints, and that her aide would be contacting me. She did nothing with my complaint, her aide never called, and the corruption and criminal conduct within our Judiciary is continuing. So no, you cannot count on Joan Fitz-Gerald.
Statement: "She'll change America" and "She'll bring change to Washington."
Answer: How will she do that when she did nothing to change our corrupt and criminal Judiciary? She failed us at home, she'll fail us nationally, too.
Statement: "She's tenacious" and "She's a fighter."
Answer: She's a coward, and she's a liar. (See my first answer.)
Statement: " She'll bring a sense of urgency to Congress."
Answer: Really? I'm still waiting on the investigation into my complaint, it's been over two years, Joan.
Statement: "Joan will work to get us out of Iraq."
Answer: No she won't. Our young men and women are fighting and dying for our Country every day. What makes our Country great, and the envy of other countries, is our Constitutions, and laws. Joan Fitz-Gerald failed to uphold our Constitutions and laws when she refused to bring accountability to the corrupt and criminal Colorado Judiciary. She slapped the face of every man and woman fighting and dying in Iraq, and has shown her true concerns about their well being. She has shown she could care less about getting us out of Iraq, and that her only allegiance is to protect the wealthy.
Statement: "Joan changed Colorado."
Answer: Joan failed Colorado. No matter what accomplishments she stacks up on paper, she failed where the people needed her most, and that was to uphold our Constitutions, Laws, and our rights and freedoms. All the other accomplishments don't matter.
If there was a truth pill every politician was made to take, Joan Fitz-Gerald's ad would state;
You can't count on me,
I am a liar,
I'm a coward,
I'll make promises I don't intend to keep,
I won't uphold the Constitution's, the Laws, nor the oath I swore to do so,
A vote for Joan Fitz-Gerald, is a vote for the same as before. I'm just a different face,
After election, I'll pretend to work on tough issues that affect the working class, ignore the working class, and for the most part, sit on my ass and continue living off the public dole for another four years.
Halena Lewis
Halen@axint.net
Don't vote for Joan Fitz-Gerald. We can't afford another four years of her forked tongue representation.
My Judicial corruption case is told at www.coloradoopencourt.blogspot.com
Join me in supporting a call for an investigation into our corrupt and criminal Judiciary at,
www.progressnowaction.org/page/group/OPENCOURT
Both the USAToday Editorial, Hickenloopers opposing view & My Comments are at this url. My Comments are below the Mayor's piece (Opposing view: We support free expression
By John Hickenlooper).
John H Kennedy, 43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to the Denver County Convention.
Impeach Colorado Coalition http://ImpeachCO.com
..
Has there been an analysis as to the composition of the military crowds when McCain and Obama are televised? This is a video on YouTube.com on Obama's visit to Afghanistan. This is a video on YouTube.com on McCain's visit.
Is there a difference in the audiences that both respective candidates have when the cameras are rolling? If so, why?
While McCain hobnobs with "senior" military commanders as AP reports and you can see the stars on the commanders collars. The video that has been shown of Obama paints a slightly different portrait of the Senator visiting with the "boots on the ground" soldiers.
It seems to me that there is message of Obama= Afro-American soldiers and McCain= White- Anglo-Saxon commanders and soldiers.
Am I misreading the video-image message?
BTW- While I was watching the Channel 4 newscast at 5 p.m. today. I noticed that there was mention made of Obama's "16 month withdrawal" from Iraq, but there was no mention that the Prime Minister of Iraq, al-Maliki, endorsed the Obama Plan.
Perhaps we could send an email to Channel 4 for there oversight?
Hoping the link works. If not, copy and paste, please.
Support Dennis Kucinich's resolution! From DailyKos.com's front page:
The House will have to dispense with Rep. Dennis Kucinich's latest move to impeach President Bush, which he gave notice of his intention to raise as a question of the privileges of the House on Thursday. Under clause 2 of Rule IX, when a Member other than the Majority or Minority Leader raises a question of the privileges of the House from the floor, the chair may designate a time for its consideration within two legislative days. The expectation is that the resolution will be referred to the Judiciary committee as were Kucinich's previous three impeachment resolutions (two for Cheney, one for Bush). Those resolutions have received no consideration in the committee, so Kucinich vowed to continue bringing such resolutions every 30 days until there was some action.
Perhaps because the rules permit Kucinich to continue to bring impeachment resolutions and receive privilege for them each time (no matter how often he brings them, as I've mentioned from time to time), the Judiciary committee is expected for the first time to try to find a way to accommodate some sort of action on the question.
I would like to point out that there are people who believe that George W. Bush deserves criminal investigation into whether or not his actions as President are criminal. There has been a book, which has been uttterly ignored by corporate media, by the former prosecuter of Charles Manson, Vincent Bugliosi "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder". Andy Ostroy, The Ostroy Report, writes:
Bugliosi, most famous for prosecuting Charles Manson for the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders, appeared Friday morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe program with host Joe Scarborough, NBC's Andrea Mitchell and the Boston Globe's Mike Barnicle. Citing reams of documentary evidence to support his contention that Bush should be tried for murder, Bugliosi bases his case not on Bush's false claims of WMD, but rather that the president lied that the WMD posed a grave and imminent threat to the security of the United States, which in turn became the justification for the war.
There is not a question of "if" but "when" for the prosecution of crimes by Mr. Bush and his cohort.
The peace movement has stood for peace and justice, for ending wars, preventing new ones, and building peace. Our top priority in Washington, D.C., has been ending the funding of the occupation. That work is over for the next year, because Congress has provided that funding.
We can still work against recruitment, we can still educate, we can still agitate, we can still oppose an attack on Iran. But one of our secondary priorities in Washington has been imposing a penalty for the illegal attack on Iraq in order to discourage future attacks on Iran or anywhere else.
We have pushed half-heartedly for impeachment,
with our main lobbying focus on cutting off the money.
Now, at the same time that the money is
a done deal for another year,
the possibility of impeachment is beginning to spark. After over two years of declaring impeachment "off the table," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has relented and suggested that some sort of preliminary hearing be held in the Judiciary Committee - and specifically on the impeachable offense of misleading a nation into war.
If the peace movement is not just a movement against one war or occupation, but a movement for peace, we should push with everything we've got for that (impeachment) hearing to happen, happen soon, and happen well.
We should ask everyone who cares about peace to phone Pelosi and Committee Chairman John Conyers, as well as their own representatives, whom they should ask to introduce their own articles of impeachment.
We've been on a losing streak, brothers and sisters, and the door is cracking open toward a major victory. Let's open that door fully and lead a peaceful march of millions through it.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34705
PLEASE CALL and demand that Impeachment Hearings be started
BEFORE the Election
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr.: (202) 225-5126
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: (202) 225-4965
And your Congressman:Contact info
Please join our weekly Impeachment Events, see our Calendar on the website ImpeachCO.com or in the Calendar here on ProgressNowAction.org
John H Kennedy, organizer
Impeach Colorado Coalition ImpeachCO.com
..
July 7, 2008
Governor Bill Ritter
136 State Capitol Building Denver, CO. 80203
Certified Mail No. 7002 2030 0000 0388 5347
Dear Governor Ritter,
On May 22, 2008, I sent you a certified letter regarding the criminal conduct within our judicial and legal system. I detailed how my rights, water, and land was stolen from me through corrupt judges and attorneys. I also detailed that I have been unlawfully subjected to the Summit County Court for more than ten years, and that the criminal conduct is allowed and protected by Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, and all the Colorado Supreme Court Justices. Instead of answering my letter with concern over the criminal state of the people’s judiciary, and helping to put a stop to it, you answered my petition for an investigation and accountability through an unsigned letter from a Citizen Advocate dated June 18, 2008. I herein answer your letter:
1. You said, “the Governor has no jurisdiction over the Judicial Branch.” Yes you do. When corruption is involved as it is in this case, you, Governor Ritter, have the authority and duty to ask that the CBI and/or FBI investigate and bring charges. You also have the authority to convene the Legislature in order to impeach the corrupt Judges, Justices, and other public officials. Every day they are allowed to remain in office, is another day that all Coloradans are in jeopardy of losing their rights and freedom.
2. You said, “the Governor’s office cannot intervene in court cases, overturn decisions made by judges, or offer legal advice.” I never asked for that. Nowhere did I ask that you intervene, overturn a decision, nor did I ask for legal advice. I asked you to do your job as Governor and call for an investigation and accountability. Again, you not only have the authority, you also have the duty.
3. You recommended that I my petition the Colorado Legal Services, and the Colorado Judicial Department instead. A. Colorado Legal Services does not handle corruption cases, nor do they have investigative authority. B. The Colorado Judicial Department is the State Court Administrator. The State Court Administrator does not have investigative authority.
4. A Citizen Advocate, also does not have authority to demand an investigation, only you do.
Governor Ritter, do not dismiss my worth of your time, nor dismiss my grievances as insignificant. The corruption is real, and our offices of public trust have been turned into a network of organized crime for the super wealthy and connected. The information I sent you on May 22, 2008 evidences that I am not a disgruntled litigant, but rather a victim of the lawless corruption within our Judiciary and legal system.
On June 20, 2008, Judge David R. Lass announced his retirement. He will be allowed to leave public office unaccounted, and allowed to resurface somewhere else. Isn’t this the same as the pedophile priests were allowed to do? Once there were complaints, they were moved and allowed to continue the abuse. By not holding Judge Lass to account for his criminal conduct, he also is a threat to the unsuspecting public everywhere. The criminal conduct will continue, because if he allowed such criminal behavior at work, he’s allowing the same in private life. He has shown his true character, and just as any other criminal, must be brought to justice. It will also be found that Judge Lass did not act alone. There are many more elected officials involved in this criminal network.
Just as Judge Lass has shown his true character, so too have all the other corrupt public officials who today are allowed to interact with the unsuspecting public. How many more victims will there be? In my case, my mortgage company is also being defrauded. How much longer will you allow the corruption to go on? Eventually, all will be brought to light. When it is exposed, what will you tell the people when they find out you knew about the corruption and criminal conduct within our Colorado Government, and did nothing to stop it? What will you tell God? Our Laws are rooted in the Ten Commandments, so this corruption is not only against man, it is also against God. Is He not worth your time either?
On its face, the amount of the corruption is eighty million dollars, crosses State lines, has cost the taxpayers millions, and is being allowed to continue. Imagine what an investigation will uncover. Governor Ritter, I will be expecting that you will use your authority to call for an investigation into the corruption and abuse of power. If there is more information you need, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address and phone number. Thank you for your time, and I will be expecting to hear from you soon.
Respectfully, Halena Lewis
Note: This letter and all future replies will be shared with the public.
Action Item One:
With the capitulation to Mr. Bush's demand for unlimited spying on Americans by Pelosi and Reid it is time for we, the grassroots, to support the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Freedom Foundation in their lawsuits against the passage of the FISA amendments act (HR 6304). Glenn Greenwald interviews Jameel Jaffer, the Director of the ACLU's National Security Project on the reasons why the ACLU is filing two actions.
You can help the ACLU now.
The constitutionality of this new law will be challenged by the EFF which needs your financial help now.
Action Item Two:
I have been following the Don Siegelman story on Bradblog.com for the last year or so. Briefly the former Alabama governor was a political prisoner in America based solely on his being a Democratic Party elected official. Now that he has been released from jail he is demanding that justice be done.
Guest blogger Steve Heller, Bradblog.com, writes:
Siegelman wants you to let Congress know that Rove must face the consequences of his actions. So do we.
Rove has been subpoenaed to testify before Congress tomorrow, July 10th, regarding the politicization of the Justice Department. The House Judiciary Committee wants to question Rove about his knowledge of the persecution prosecution of former Alabama Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman and the U.S. Attorney firing scandal.
Call House Judiciary Committee at 202-225-3951 and call House Rep. at 202-224-3121 to let them know that Don Siegelman deserves a fair hearing about what happened to him at the hands of a politicized Department of Justice under the Bush administration.
Did the people of America forget about the Anthrax Killer which targeted only Democrats in Congress?
Blogger Emptywheel, Firedoglake.com, writes:
Call me crazy. But after viewing this very creepy exchange between Patrick Leahy and Michael Mukasey regarding the anthrax killer, I got the feeling that both of them know exactly who sent those anthrax-laden letters almost seven years ago.
Leahy uses the recent settlement between Hatfill and DOJ to raise the issue. As he raises it, he notes that he is privy to classified information about the anthrax killer, and because of that he has refrained from even discussing the case.
Leahy: We won't go any further. As I say, I feel somewhat reluctant because I was one of the targets. But I gotta say, what families of the people who died went through, what families of the people who were crippled went throug, even what my family went through. A lot of people are concerned and I won't say more because we are in open session but I think you and I probably should have a private talk about this sometime.
Mukasey: That's fine...
Leahy: You're the one person, the one person, who has the final say the laws are going to apply to everybody in this nation.
But I can't help but wonder whether Leahy suspects the government doesn't think the laws against terrorism ought to apply to "guy who committed" the anthrax attacks.
I would read some of the comments, too. Especially this one, by Emptywheel:
Here’s what I suspect Leahy is pointing to–the reasons he might think DOJ would be reluctant to pursue charges should be obvious:
In December 2001, Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a noted bioweapons expert, delivered a paper contending that the perpetrator of the anthrax crimes was an American microbiologist whose training and possession of Ames-strain powder pointed to a government insider with experience in a U.S. military lab. In March 2002, she told the BBC that the anthrax deaths may have resulted from a secret project to examine the practicability of sending real anthrax through the mail — an experiment that misfired despite such precautions as taped envelope seals. That surprising hypothesis made Rosenberg a target for knee-jerk criticism, but competent sources within the biowarfare establishment thought she might well be right.
[snip]
Her patience exhausted, Dr. Rosenberg met with the Senate Judiciary Committee staff on June 18, 2002, and laid out the evidence, such as it was, hers and mine. Van Harp, head of the Amerithrax Task Force, sat in on the briefing. The senators were attentive. So, too, evidently, was Harp: exactly one week after Rosenberg’s meeting with the Judiciary Committee staff, the F.B.I. searched Hatfill’s residence.
So, from what Mukasey said at the committee hearing was that there is an ongoing investigation. What both men said seems to point to the fact that there is a huge amount of information that is being withheld from the public due to...what?
Your guess is as good as mine as to why the biological terrorist has never been caught...because I think that it has to do with a person who had access to USAMRID weaponized anthrax spores, which leaves a pretty small number of people to investigate.
RawStory.com
Politico.com
PLEASE....
Join us in Calling The House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers to demand that he allow the Judiciary Committee to immediately begin Public Impeachment Hearings.
Call Chairman Conyers at 202--225-3951
Or 800-828-0498 (ask for the House Speaker's Office)
John H Kennedy
43 yr Democratic voter,
Obama delegate to the Denver County Convention,
organizer of
Impeach Colorado Coalition ImpeachCO.com
..
based on falsehoods about the threat of WMDs from Iraq."
RawStory.com
Join us in Calling The House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers to demand that he allow the Judiciary Committee to immediately begin Public Impeachment Hearings.
Call Chairman Conyers at 202--225-3951
Or 800-828-0498 (ask for the House Speaker's Office)
John H Kennedy
43 yr Democratic voter,
Obama delegate to the Denver County Convention,
organizer of
Impeach Colorado Coalition ImpeachCO.com
..