« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Not Just State Secrets: Obama Continuing Bush's Stonewalling On Gitmo Cases, Lawyer Claims
Yesterday we told you about the Obama Justice Department's invocation of a sweeping state secrets privilege in a warrantless wiretapping case. But that may not be the only area in which the new administration's war on terror tactics recall the worst excesses of the Bush years.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo had the right to appeal their detentions in federal courts. But since then, only a few cases have been completed. And in an interview with TPMmuckraker, David Cynamon -- a lawyer for four Kuwaiti Gitmo detainees who are bringing habeas corpus claims against the government -- said that the Justice Department has been consistently dragging its heels in the case, denying detainees their basic due process rights and furthering what he called the "abandonment of the rule of law."
"The Department of Justice has been doing everything in its power to delay and obstruct these cases," said Cynamon, whose clients were picked up in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in the period after the 2001 U.S invasion of Afghanistan. "They're not doing anything to move the case along, and doing everything to avoid it."
Asked whether he had observed a shift of any kind in the government's approach since the Obama administration came into office, Cynamon flatly replied: "None whatsoever."
He continued:
That has been, to me, the biggest disappointment and mystery. It did not surprise me in the slightest that the Bush administration would do everything in its power to subvert the Supreme Court's ruling. I expected that. What I did not expect is that there would be absolutely zero change in the stonewall strategy when the [new] administration came in.
Cynamon said he didn't expect to see a change "on January 21st." But, "there's been enough time now that you can't simply say 'it's still operating on auto pilot from the previous administration'. So I have been disappointed and frustrated not to see a change."
And he added that, based on conversations with other lawyers defending Gitmo clients, the government's stonewalling strategy was being applied not just to his case, but more broadly.
Cynamon detailed three specific areas in which the government is stonewalling. First, he said, it has taken an unduly long time to produce declassified evidence. Indeed, in February, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered one government lawyer removed from the case for failing to comply with repeated orders to make the evidence available. In a court document, the judge wrote that the lawyer's "compliance was not optional," and added that the court "has serious concern about counsel's ability to read and comprehend its orders."
Second, Cynamon said the government is resisting requests for discovery, slowing things down by forcing defense lawyers to go to court at each stage. "Across the board they basically say no," he said. "It's whatever bullshit excuse - 'it's too burdensome, its not relevant, its beyond the narrow...."
But the government's "most egregious" stonewalling tactic, said Cynamon, parallels the misconduct famously displayed by the prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case: It has consistently failed to produce exculpatory evidence in its possession, as it is legally required to do. "They have completely, in my view, ignored that obligation," said Cynamon. "We have come across a number of items of exculpatory evidence that the government should have given us and didn't."
For instance, said Cynamon, one his clients had military commission charges issued against him, and as a result was appointed a military defense counsel, who has access to a secure government database. The defense counsel, Cynamon explained, "fairly quickly and fairly easily found some documents on that secure database that were very helpful and exculpatory and helpful to our clients...that should have been produced to us in our case."
Cynamon said that Obama should be given credit for his pledge to close Guantanamo within a year. But he said that doesn't address the core issue.
"The fundamental problem is that there has been a complete abandonment of the rule of law and a denial of the most basic due process, which is: 'If you get thrown in jail, you ought to have the right to have an independent judge look at the basis on which you're in jail to decide whether you should be there,'" he said. "And closing Guantanamo doesn't address that, if they just end up getting transferred to prisons in other places."
Cynamon continued: "What I have been hoping for, and am getting increasingly frustrated about, is to see that closing Guantanamo be matched with a change in policy at the Justice Department to actually try to get these cases heard to test the evidence and then to determine, if there's no evidence, to release these people. That part I haven't seen at all."
Josh
Zachary
I can only say: Obama, WTF?
April 10, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
As this/these are ongoing serious concerns, I suggest that it is worthwhile to continue to post the following in the continued efforts to provide the assistance for the resolves and as required within US Constitutional mandated endeavors and as expressed within this blog comment reply.
Also, as a reminder I suggest it is worthwhile to also reflect on our Declaration of;
'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'
------------------------------------------------
Additionally, please note I will certainly be available as best as possible to further discuss these matters with President Obama and/or his designees and I presume I will be allowed to request to be accomodated and accompanied to be with several individuals from these prominent organizations as mentioned in the following paragraphs as they are and have formidable expertise within these specific areas of concern and therefore would presumably also be of great and valuable assistance to the expedient well known resolves and solutions within these concerns.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Dear Readers,
Please, is someone available to get through to US President Obama, US AG Holder and others in the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches of our 'We the People' US Government to also remind him of his and their written promise to our US Constitution, False Claims Act, FISA Courts, prevention of Illegal Signing statements, Illegal Wiretaps, prevention of Torture, Illegal rendition, Illegal Detention, Legal//Illegal Secrecy, and to the complete abolishment of the enactment of the death penalty ecetra and to his and their promise to Whistleblowers and his and their written promise to support the 'FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT ACT (that he has already allowed to be voted out of the current so-called Stimilus Bill and with a seemingly illegal Signing Statement).
(Also, please note and remember California, Los Angeles, AG Garcetti who properly did his job and was retaliated upon and lost his case in our US Supreme Court).
Again, please note that it is not my intent to offend anyone and I hope TPM will allow me to apply any corrections, modifications, clarifications and/or retractions as necessary.
Thank you and all for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Tpmreader
Also and importantly, aside from the prospective that it is seemingly and absolutely required and mandated within our US Constitution and that these concerns must have and are explicitly entitled to full and complete Legislative and Judicial Review.
In my view and as would also be concurred by a reasonable person these concerns have been thoroughly reviewed and upheld from prominent Whistleblower Organizations, especially including the Government Accountability Project, the National Whistleblower Center, presumably the Project on Government Oversight and hundreds of (written) supporting Organizations (and with written letters to President Obama and all leaders of our US Executive, Legislative Branches and as applicable Judicial Branches of our US Government) and thoroughly discussed and reviewed with our US legislatures and Judicial Officials and successfully and unanimously upheld, and with the overwhelming unanimous and yearly for the recent decade alone, of the continuing veto proof approval of the 'FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT ACT' FROM of our US legislatures and the sworn written promise of then Presidential Candidate Obama whom has since as President Obama has stripped the 'FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT ACT' from the recent Stimulus Bill and has since seemingly applied an Illegal Signing Statement.
I hope I have provided an initial answer and concern to your question and to the concerns as mentioned within this TPM Article and the TPM blog comment replies.
--------------------------------------------------
Although possibly expressed too ambiguously and brief, to my comprehension and I presume, where proper and forthrightly applicable, reasonable persons have concurred (and/or with valid and/or substantial and/or expression of concern) and seemingly within public knowledge is that I briefly mention that the FISA Courts have been in existence for some time (and where properly and forthrightly with appropriate safeguards!!) have seemingly successfully provided to a relevant extent seemingly all and/or many and/or most all of the necessary assurances and concerns to successfully accomodate these and/or many of these concerns.
April 10, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, as a matter of fact, there is a fair amount of autopilot going on. This is what happens when you don't have swift action on the DAAGs and other political appointees.
April 10, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meh... iam going to give Obama more time before i get upset, not that i think people shouldn't be pressuring him to do something about it faster. It takes out all the shit Bush put in.
April 10, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Anyone who's ever worked in the govt bureaucracy knows how slow it goes.
Great lawyering on Cynamon's part, though.
April 10, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much time would you give him if you were one of the detainees.
April 10, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If i was a detainee i wouldn't have a option would i? If i was a innocent one though it least id be happy with the thought that i might be able to get out, instead of when bush ran it and there wasn't even a small chance.
April 11, 2009 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did not campaign as a liberal democrat. He campaigned as a centrist to right leaning democrat. He did not campaign as someone who would toss out all of Bush's malefactors the first day in office. He campaigned as a consensus builder, who would seek bipartisan solutions to all problems.
We got what we voted for, and presumably wanted. Obama has been an infinitely better man to have in office than Bush, on his best day, if he ever had one. But, Obama has been true to his campaign rhetoric. One of Obama's characteristics that we need to count on is his ability to learn, his willingness to learn, and his ability to change course when he learns that he should. I'm hoping that that particular characteristic will soon kick in, to march alongside his quest for bipartisan solutions.
April 10, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it is a "centrist democratic postion" that government prosecutors should engage in stonewalling and obstruction?!
I have to wonder how forgiving all the Obama apologists would be if it were THEY were the ones who were locked up with no habeus corpus and finding their cases delayed and obstructed --if they were faced with "a complete abandonment of the rule of law and a denial of the most basic due process" (to quote the article).
The article makes the very important point that closing Guantanamo (certainly good news) does not equal and end to the abuses -- far from it, apparently.
April 10, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the "apologists" clearly make the point that the speed of which these cases are being investigated does not mean a continuation of Bush policies or Obama is not Bush!
Obama Apologists? I wish I could come up with a clever name for those who strain themselves to turn Obama into Bush's protege every chance they get.
April 10, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That clever name would be "members of the Obama Administration." They're the ones--including Obama himself--making sure he turns into the Bush protege. He's broken promises about executive power before--FISA--and he's allowing Summers and Geithner to be loot the treasury and transfer trillions of tax payer dollars to Wall Street. Even Bush/Paulson didn't try theft on that scale.
April 10, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had wise Conservative friends who, with broad smiles, told me last Fall that Obama was "a fraud". I thought they meant that he was a left-leaning Progressive Democrat who would set up radical social programs, so I was eager to vote for him.
Now, it would seem, my friends were merely advising me, as gently as they could, that Obama was one of them, and I was setting myself up for great disappointment if he were to be elected.
They were right, and "disappointment" is inadequate to express what I have come to feel over this Presidency.
April 11, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies and appreciation for your comments and concerns as I have attached and transcribed them and most importantly within the Habeus Corpus concerns.
I hope I have not offended anyone and especially as I regard my posts as highly relevant with hope for a proper and forthright implementation (and with a complete supportive concurring view of the Habeus Corpus mention as I too inadvertantly mentioned as ecetra and included most importantly in many of my prior blog comment replies) and I further did not want to create and/or participate in a dispute and/or argument that may abstract from my previous blog comment reply posts.
Hopefully, thank you in advance for your indulgence.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
'I have to wonder how forgiving all ............. would be if it were THEY were the ones who were locked up with no habeus corpus and finding their cases delayed and obstructed --if they were faced with "a complete abandonment of the rule of law and a denial of the most basic due process" (to quote the article).
The article makes the very important point that closing Guantanamo (certainly good news) does not equal and end to the abuses -- far from it, apparently.'
April 10, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's just hope he doesn't learn the wrong lessons from Bush.
April 11, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama campaigned for Change We Can Believe In and that doesn't include continuing the most abusive practices of the Bush regime.
April 11, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Change we can believe in" can mean whatever the listener wants it to mean. Obama's positions were well explained in lots of written materials available long before the election. To me, at least, it was pretty clear from those materials that Obama was a centrist democrat, not the liberal crusader, which many of us, including me, were looking for.
But, we had to choose between the candidates we had, and not the idealized candidate we thought we wanted. That, for me, made it easy. Obama was head and shoulders better than any other candidate.
Our job as citizens is to urge him to act in the directions we want him to go, not to sit by and lead cheers for him. That is why I find it offensive when people get all snippy about any of us offering criticism of Obama. Obama can accept criticism, learn from it, and perhaps change as a result.
April 11, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not when our criticisms are being filtered through the position papers of Geithner, Summers, and an law enforecement policy of a Bush-packed Justice Department.
April 11, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So we just disregard earlier reporting that claimed the case records for Gitmo detainees were in complete disarray?
http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2009/01/gitmo-detainee-paperwork-scattered-all-over-executive-branch
April 10, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
so you disregard the following?
April 10, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
His comments during the campaign were that Bush II used the state secrets doctrine too often.
But the danger of the toxins within power tend to corrupt anyone and everyone and Obama is not immune from that corruption and pull to hide everything.
I have been thinking like Musgrove who posted above, and want to see if Obama can shake or neutralize those toxins that are sure to try to take him down into the darkness.
Meanwhile, I hope he succeeds in overcoming the toxins so he can improving the nation for all of us, and for the rest of the world.
April 10, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur with the tone of your post, yet I find it hard to reconcile with the view expressed with Musgrove that "people shouldn't be pressuring him to do something about it faster".
Generally when one is exposed to toxins, cutting off that exposure as quickly as possible is a no-brainer.
One last point and then I'll go away -- it is not just the fequency of use of the states secrets doctrine that constituted abuse under Bush, it is that this argument was used to circumvent entire legal proceedings and shut down any semblance of checks and balances. And that is EXACTLY what the Obama DOJ is doing now.
April 10, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah you missed a key word there, "not that i think people shouldn't be pressuring him to do something about it faster." Notice the double negative, hence i think people should be pressuring him to do something about it faster.
April 11, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pressuring the administration to act faster != throwing my arms up in the air and saying hes the same as bush.
April 11, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama may not be in favor or torture or warrantless wiretapping, but he's pretty clearly in favor of letting the criminals who engaged in these activities off the hook.
After all, we need to be inclusive of the Fascist-Americans, and ensure that the ideas of this important constituency are heard and respected.
April 10, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Massive failure and disappointment. When it comes to the real test, respecting the Constitution, Obama miserably fails and does not even have the guts to explain himself. The cancer continues.
April 10, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama may not be in favor or torture or warrantless wiretapping, but he's pretty clearly in favor of letting the criminals who engaged in these activities off the hook."
As those white collar criminals responsible for our financial failures are "too big to let fail", so are our own war criminals, "too big to prosecute."
If Obama was an ordinary citizen, he would be arrested and charged for withholding evidence.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
April 10, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meet the new boss.
April 10, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jane Mayer of the NEW YORKER feels that part of the problem is that Obama's administration is understaffed. We need to get the Republicans to stop stalling Obama nominees or force them to filibuster so the world can see their obstructionism in action.
April 11, 2009 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Link to the Jane Mayer interview I refer to above.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/136123/%27these_people_fear_prosecution%27%3A_why_bush%27s_cia_team_should_worry_about_its_dark_embrace_of_torture/
April 11, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the other side of the story? That is, is there a Justice Department side of the story? Look, I'm against the abuses of Guantanamo but there is a journalistic responsibility to try and get both sides of the story and report on it; even if the other side is a declination to comment. We don't know because it doesn't appear in this story. Folks, reporting a news story is not a public cross examination; it's first and foremost fact gathering. Hold your comments. You don't have enough info. Bad reporting here; nothing more than rabble rousing. More like a reader's opinion post rather than a news story.
April 11, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
WELLLLLLLLLLLLL, 'seems like we bought a "democratic pig-in-a-poke" to replace the old "republican pig-in-a-poke".
YEP . . . . Americans were once again sold a whole
bucket of slop . . . .
KEEP ON DANCING AMERICA . . . THE PIPER CAN WAIT!
April 11, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I've come to believe that too many on the left are as impatient, cynical and perfectionist as those on the right are mean. Learn patience folks, and control your cynicism a bit. You'll live a lot longer. Think about it - is it not a possibility that making the corrections to the Bush administration's assault on the Constitution is a bit more complicated and time consuming than we know. But how could we know? The Justice Department side of this story is missing! The reporter apparently didn’t go after it. And for those who believe that Barack Obama is just a modified George Bush (and there's no nice way to say this), you have your heads up your ass. How a tool is used is entirely dependent on in whose hands it rests. Doing things the right way and the effective way so that the outcome is fair and resilient can take some time. Eighty some odd days is not a lot of time.
April 11, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"How a tool is used is entirely dependent on whose hands it rests."
These tools are unconstitutional and should not be in the hands of any President, certainly not one who promised us Change from the Neocon, torturing, secretive past eight years.
April 11, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either I didn't explain well enough or you're missing my point. What Bush and company did was undeniably unconstitutional. Their intent was to subvert the Constitution and the result was terrible. That is clearly not Obama's intent. The tool is the Constitution.
April 11, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even though I would prefer not to debate or argue, from my previous blog comment reply I presume it is expected for me to mention that I fully agree with Prysmith as from my knowledge and the public view and as President Obama and US AG Eric Holder have in apparently in all court filings and appearances stated that the POLICIES have been fully vetted and are (at least) IDENTICAL to (at least) the former President Bush Administration.
April 11, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just got an email from David Ploffe/the DNC, asking for more $$. I contacted them back, specifically citing the Obama campaign promises regarding the use of state secrets claims to shut down lawsuits, and told them that until they start keeping their promises, they won't see another cent from me.
I would suggest that others drop the DNC a line, letting them know that we expect the Obama administration to keep their promises.
April 11, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even though I would prefer not to debate or argue, from my previous blog comment reply I presume it is expected for me to mention that I fully agree with Prysmith as from my knowledge and the public view and as President Obama and US AG Eric Holder have in apparently in all court filings and appearances stated that the POLICIES have been fully vetted and are (at least) IDENTICAL to (at least) the former President Bush Administration.
April 11, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, liberals: Is this Obama's fault or is he being undermined by Bush holdovers? Either way, this story does not make the self-appointed "agent of hope" look too good. Seems to me I may need to recollect this anecdote in 2012, along with the "agent of hope's" recent adoption of the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos as his very own. Yes, indeed. It's seems like Clinton all over again, but with less sex.
April 11, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Judas Obama
I had what I thought were realistic expectations for this young and inexperienced politician, but I was way too optimistic.
April 11, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its been less then 3 months, Obama has been working his ass off, in fact i think he needs to take a small break, for his own health. It took Bush years to fuck up the government as much as he did, its going to take longer then a couple of months to undo the dmg.
April 11, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone considered the potential horror which would result if Obama didn't push this question to the Supreme Court?
It took six or seven years to get here. Bush developed facts which rational citizens consider beyond our constitution.
If Obama abandoned the cases at this point, what happens?
The constitutional decision is left unanswered.
Maybe our constitution allows such things. Right now we don't know. By pushing the case forward, Obama will force the judicial system to establish constitutional law.
The Bush Admin was able to continue their programs because of the absence of Supreme Court decisions.
My guess is that the Obama Admin is looking for a final decision on this issue so that future administrations cannot claim that the law is unsettled. They risk what? That the Supreme Court agrees with the Bush/Obama reasoning.
A clear decision is important. In the worst case, Congress could draft laws which cover the issue, making detainee rights more explicit. In the best case, the Supreme Court will extend rights to detainees so that future detainees will not remain in a legal black hole for years.
In any case, we will know what is allowed. If it is okay to disappear people or deprive them of human/legal rights, we will know it. Our leaders will no longer be able to claim that people cannot disappear or be deprived or human rights.
Knowing this is much more important than achieving an administrative truce based upon what we hope the courts would reject.
April 11, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not an Attorney and also I am unable to more readily comprehend your comment, especially from my and the previous abundance of seemingly formidable blog comment replies.
Also, again and as you may recall our Declaration;
'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'
Also, seemingly would allow from the prospective that it is seemingly and absolutely required and mandated within our US Constitution that these concerns must have and are explicitly entitled to full and complete Legislative and Judicial Review.
April 12, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually upon further review and without my/any intent to be offend, I also and unfortunately find your comments as a whole without substaintual understandable comprehensive expressed merit and with an abundance of seemingly ridiculous guess and/or with summations and hypothesis and if not an outright void and/or disrespectful expression towards comprehension of Democracy and within our US Constitution.
April 12, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are a lot of good reasons why DOJ attorneys are correct in being very cautious about radically altering the litigation positions that the Administration has maintained for so long. Part of it is the personnel issue of the upper levels of political appointee jobs being unfilled as yet or still staffed by Bush holdovers. (No one is on board yet who can authorize the authorize the switch)
Part of it though is just prudent lawyering on the part of DOJ. I have worked as an agency counsel within the federal government for about 30 years, and I speak from long experience in defending habeas, mandamus and Administrative Procedures Act cases in federal district court.
From a tactical or strategic point of view, the main problem with dramatic reversals of litigation posture is that in effect one abandons the contention that the Gov't's original hard line position was "substantially justified." That opens the Government to liability to the other side for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
No prudent attorney would advocate this sort of wholesale concession of the Government's position without being very certain that the Treasury does not end up shelling out thousands of bucks in EAJA fees to attorneys in 50 or a 100 different cases. It would be like a federal bailout of the plaintiff bar. I strongly suspect that they would prefer to settle each of the cases on the basis of "each party to bear its own costs and fees."
I think it is very premature to assume that the new crew is just the same as the old crew. Just as it takes time to reverse the direction on a moving train, it is equally difficult to change a litigating posture.
tks rich
April 12, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops! Forgot to even mention beyond EAJA fees, there is a risk of tort actions by released detainees for false imprisonment "under color of law" See: 42 USC section 1983. r
April 12, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I presume it certainly appears correct to agree their are many concerns.
Also, in a specific area of concern that I much too briefly try too express is the double taxation when a litigant is successfull (such as a Whistleblower which is almost never and/or product liability litigant and/or other matter(s)) and the award is to the 'We the people litigant' and/or (successful litigant(s)), the litigant is charged the Taxes on the full amount and is usually left with little or nothing or in debt to the Tax Boards after payment to the Attorney(s).
Even though in this specific area and as mentioned towards Whistleblowers that these obvious wrongs!!!! have been brought to the full attention of our US Executive, Legislative and Judicial Leaders with their seemingly overwhelming support and with no heard negative opposition, 'We the People' are and continue to be subject to these wrongs!!!! that are also to my view expressly forbidden by proper and forthright interpretation and aplication of law!!
Please note that in my previous first blog comment reply to this Article, I specifically mentioned to be accompanied by several member individuals of the Government Accountability Project, the National Whistleblower Center and if applicable the Project on Government Oversight and any relevant and as applicable Taxpayer Associations members as mentioned in the hundreds of supporting Organizations that was also in writing and signed with full advocacy and approval from then Presidential Candidate Obama.
I hope I have been of assistance to your kind and gracious concerns.
Thank you and all for your time and consideration.
April 12, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last sentence, paragraph two, should read ......Tax boards after payment to the Attroney(s) WHOM ARE ALSO TAXED !!
April 12, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
God forbid we risk giving thousands of dollars to lawyers who advocated for people who suffered under the abuse of executive power. Much more important to transfer trillions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street. Got to keep those previous and future benefactors happy.
April 12, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I intended to originally to post these/my blog comment replies as a reply blog comment reply to your blog comment reply, although inadvertantly, which is also all right from my perspective, I posted them as a independent seperate blog comment reply.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
--------------------------------------------------
My plea from my blog comment, (2nd blog comment reply on this Article) reply continues and within my recent efforts within this decade and many past decades and over half a century.
I have responded as requested to the Presidential Obama Transition Team, 'Republican Committee Calls on Whistleblowers', numeruous correspondences to Senators Grassely (no reply), Kennedy (my chain of command 2002 or 2003, 6 months and I was told and/or implied I would not be heard and Senator would not hear) Senator Feinstein (2003 to 2009 said has forwarded my files to the Chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee 2003 = no reply and statis updates as I have requested many times) Congressional Leader Harmon whom said after severe admonishment and wsrnings towards me from several of her offices as I left as instructed by her Staff the 11/2003 Testimony (my name and case files where used and directly reffered in the 11/2003 US Senate Testimony) before the US Senate Committee of Good Government and Ethics (now inclusive of Homeland Security) Senator Chairperson Lieberman and Collins presiding in reference to FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT ACT s1358 OR 85 in 2003 which is identical to the Platts//Van Hollins WPA and all other recent past legislative attempts to a full floor veto proof majority from these GAP,NWC,POGO and hundreds of written supporting organizations and with the full and complete stated and written!! promise of President Obama yet as I mentioned prior he stripped from the so-called Stimulus Bill and has since applied a well recognized illegal signing statement) is of the National Whistleblower Center and Government Accountability Project on her manager desk of the US Senate Good Government and Ethics Testimony 11/2003 from the NWC and possibly GAP as my name and case files where reffered, mentioned and placed in the record and as I previously mentioned many times in the recent decade) of the FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT ACT.
I thought I should respond with some additional support as these are also seemingly adament concerns of many including GAP,NWC,POGO and the hundred of supporting Organizations and supposedly our overwhelming veto proof majority of our US Executive Leader??!!!!!!!!!! and all Senatorial//Congressional Leaders??!!!!!!! an all and the proper and forthright intrepretation from our Judiciary Leaders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hopefully I have been of some assistance with this/my impromptu, frustrated and exasperated reply and which I have not re-read prior to post. Hopefully TPM will accomodated me with any concerns or questions and/or allow me to have this blog comment reply removed and/or modified, clarified and/or corrected and/or if necessary.
Also and hopefully TPM and others will keep this/these issues as appropriate in their concern.
If I may be of further assistance, please let me know.
Thank you and all for your time and consideration.
Please note;
The Congressional Representative did send me a prompt letter and stating that my case files where forwarded to Senator Feinstein.
Also I received a prompt additional (missing a numeric number) addressed letter several months later from Senator Feinstein in 2003 or 2004, (if I remember correctly) and a subsequent letter in 2003 or 2004, (if I remember correctly) that my case files where received in her office and forwarded to the US Senate Judiciary Chairman.
Posted by tpmreader in reply to a comment from tpmreader
April 12, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
My plea from my blog comment, (2nd blog comment reply on this Article) reply continues and within my recent efforts within this decade and many past decades and over half a century.
I have responded as requested to the Presidential Obama Transition Team, 'Republican Committee Calls on Whistleblowers', numeruous correspondences to Senators Grassely (no reply), Kennedy (my chain of command 2002 or 2003, 6 months and I was told and/or implied I would not be heard and Senator would not hear) Senator Feinstein (2003 to 2009 said has forwarded my files to the Chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee 2003 = no reply and statis updates as I have requested many times) Congressional Leader Harmon whom said after severe admonishment and wsrnings towards me from several of her offices as I left as instructed by her Staff the 11/2003 Testimony (my name and case files where used and directly reffered in the 11/2003 US Senate Testimony) before the US Senate Committee of Good Government and Ethics (now inclusive of Homeland Security) Senator Chairperson Lieberman and Collins presiding in reference to FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT ACT s1358 OR 85 in 2003 which is identical to the Platts//Van Hollins WPA and all other recent past legislative attempts to a full floor veto proof majority from these GAP,NWC,POGO and hundreds of written supporting organizations and with the full and complete stated and written!! promise of President Obama yet as I mentioned prior he stripped from the so-called Stimulus Bill and has since applied a well recognized illegal signing statement) is of the National Whistleblower Center and Government Accountability Project on her manager desk of the US Senate Good Government and Ethics Testimony 11/2003 from the NWC and possibly GAP as my name and case files where reffered, mentioned and placed in the record and as I previously mentioned many times in the recent decade) of the FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT ACT.
I thought I should respond with some additional support as these are also seemingly adament concerns of many including GAP,NWC,POGO and the hundred of supporting Organizations and supposedly our overwhelming veto proof majority of our US Executive Leader??!!!!!!!!!! and all Senatorial//Congressional Leaders??!!!!!!! an all and the proper and forthright intrepretation from our Judiciary Leaders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hopefully I have been of some assistance with this/my impromptu, frustrated and exasperated reply and which I have not re-read prior to post. Hopefully TPM will accomodated me with any concerns or questions and/or allow me to have this blog comment reply removed and/or modified, clarified and/or corrected and/or if necessary.
Also and hopefully TPM and others will keep this/these issues as appropriate in their concern.
If I may be of further assistance, please let me know.
Thank you and all for your time and consideration.
April 12, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please note;
The Congressional Representative did send me a prompt letter and stating that my case files where forwarded to Senator Feinstein.
Also I received a prompt additional (missing a numeric number) addressed letter several months later from Senator Feinstein in 2003 or 2004, (if I remember correctly) and a subsequent letter in 2003 or 2004, (if I remember correctly) that my case files where received in her office and forwarded to the US Senate Judiciary Chairman.
April 12, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink