recapitulation

Welcome to the APPENDICES !

26 of them, for Your Reading Enjoyment

(Single-page documents appear in black borders)

On Matters Judicial

  1. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Says No292
  2. Supreme Court on Freedom of Speech295
  3. Civil RICO Suit Regarding 9/11296
  4. Timeless Principles of Law (Maxims)297

On Matters Parliamentary

  1. Sen Grassley Challenges an FBI Award300
  2. Proposed Resolution on Martial Law, NH301
  3. Rep H. Gonzalez Introduces Impeachment304
  4. Framer Proposes Three-Man Executive, 1787305

Warnings in Regard to the Historical Conspiracy

  1. By George, We’ll Have Security and Prosperity306
  2. Going to Room 101? This is Handy Reading307
  3. Important Speech by Sen Jesse Helms, 1987310
  4. Communist Goals for the US as of 1963312

On Matters Related to War and Violence

  1. Torture Is Anathema. Period.314
  2. The Infamous Downing Street Memo, 2002315
  3. The Prevention and Punishment of Genocide316
  4. EO 9066: Concentration Camps in US317

On Paying Attention to Our Source of Real Power

  1. Constitution for the United States, Full Text318
  2. Exercise of 1st Amendment by Kay Griggs328
  3. First Ten Amendments: The Bill of Rights330
  4. Full Text of Amendments XI through XXVII331

Maxwell’s Offerings for Your Use, ad lib*

  1. Circumstantial Evidence of Inside Job on 9/11337
  2. Impeaching Officials and Judges, Q and A338
  3. War Powers Cases Cited in Maxwell v Bush341
  4. I Predicted the Whole 20th Century Accurately342
  5. Rights To Love Forever (“12 Days of Xmas”)344
  6. Map of Foreign Troop Locations in the US345

* as author of these six items, I hereby permit anyone to copy freely. All others are in the public domain except, perhaps, R.

APPENDIX A

First Clear Ruling against Today’s Police State

United States District Court for Eastern Michigan

Case No. 06-CV-10204

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [ET AL], Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY / CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE; and LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEITH B. ALEXANDER, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

1 This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter “TSP”) undisputedly inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter “NSA”) at least by 2002 and continuing today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent, the international telephone and Internet communications of numerous persons … in this country.

…Congress then, in 1968, enacted Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act… governing all wire and electronic interceptions in the fight against certain listed major crimes. The Statute defined an “aggrieved person,” and gave such person standing to challenge any interception allegedly made without a judicial order supported by probable cause,… In 1972 the court decided U.S. v. U.S. District Court… (the Keith case) … [That] for lawful electronic surveillance even in domestic security matters, the Fourth Amendment requires a prior warrant.

“…. In Entick v. Carrington… decided in 1765, one finds a striking parallel to the executive warrants utilized here.... Entick, a critic of the Crown, was the victim of one such general search during which his seditious publications were impounded. He brought a successful damage action for trespass against the messengers…. In a related and similar proceeding, Huckle v. Money… the same judge who presided over Entick’s appeal held for another victim of the same despotic practice, saying ‘(t)o enter aman’s house by virtue of a nameless warrant, in order to procure evidence, is worse than the Spanish Inquisition . . .’”

appendix a

The Fourth Amendment, accordingly, was adopted to assure that Executive abuses of the power to search would not continue in our new nation.

…Karo is consistent with Katz where Justice Stewart held that: “Over and again this Court has emphasized that the mandate of the (Fourth) Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,’ and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions….”

Justice Powell’s opinion in the Keith case also stated that: “The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates…. The historical judgment, which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech….

In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.

These secret authorization orders must, like the executive order in that case, fall. They violate the Separation of Powers ordained by the very Constitution of which this President is a creature.

VIII. The Authorization for Use of Military Force

After the terrorist attack on this Country of September 11, 2001, the Congress jointly enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (hereinafter “AUMF”) which states: That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The Government argues here that it was given authority by that resolution to conduct the TSP in violation of …FISA ….

[Quoting Justice Sandra Day O’Connor] However, she continued, indefinite detention for purposes of interrogation was certainly not authorized and it raised the question of what process is constitutionally due to a citizen who disputes the enemy combatant status assigned him. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 521, 524…. Accordingly, her holding was that the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution must be applied despite authority granted by the AUMF.

She [Justice O’Connor] stated that: “It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation’s commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad.

* * * *

Any process in which the Executive’s factual assertions go wholly unchallenged or are simply presumed correct without any opportunity for the alleged combatant to demonstrate otherwise falls constitutionally short….”

…Defendants have violated the Constitutional rights of their citizens including the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Separation of Powers doctrine.

The Permanent Injunction of the TSP requested by Plaintiffs is granted inasmuch as each of the factors required to be met to sustain such an injunction have undisputedly been met. The irreparable injury necessary to warrant injunctive relief is clear, as the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs are violated by the TSP. See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). The irreparable injury conversely sustained by Defendants under this injunction may be rectified by compliance with our Constitution and/or statutory law, as amended if necessary. Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution. [emphasis added]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 17, 2006s/Anna Diggs Taylor

Detroit, MichiganANNA DIGGS TAYLOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

appendix b

APPENDIX BFreedom of Speech, US Supreme Court

COHEN v. CALIFORNIA, decided June 7, 1971

… Appellant was convicted of violating that part of California Penal Code Sec. 415 which prohibits “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person…by…offensive conduct,” for wearing a jacket bearing the words “Fuck The Draft” in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that “offensive conduct” means “behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace,” and affirmed the conviction. [This conviction was then overturned by the Supreme Court]

… MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case may seem at first blush too inconsequential to find its way into our books, but the issue it presents is of no small constitutional significance.

… “The defendant did not engage in, nor threaten to engage in, nor did anyone as the result of his conduct in fact commit or threaten to commit any act of violence….

… Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact, because it is well illustrated by the episode involved here, that much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, which solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated.

Indeed, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter has said, “one of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures – and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation”Baumgartner v. United States (1944)….

[emphasis added]

Note: this case is about dissent, not obscenity. Regarding dissent this case was modified by the 2007 SCOTUS ruling in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. (Yet the Online Protection Act was ruled unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds.) Regarding obscenity, many states prohibit it in public and that includes on buses.

I suspect Cohen’s case and Bong Hits were both set-ups, to enable policy. – MM

appendix d

APPENDIX C RICO Complaint in Civil Action Filed in 10/04

Dismissed by US District Court for Southern New York

PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ., attorney for WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ, PLAINTIFF

-against-

George Herbert Walker Bush, George Walker Bush, John “Jeb” Bush, Neil Mallon Bush, Marvin Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Dov Zakheim, Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, Robert S. Mueller III, David Frasca, George Tenet, Porter Goss, Norman Y. Mineta… The Republican National Committee, Inc., Alan Greenspan… Halliburton Company, Kellogg Brown & Root Services, The Project for the New American Century, Inc., Election Systems & Software, Diebold Voting Systems, Inc.…[and several others], DEFENDANTS

… III. Facts on which claims for relief are predicated:

  1. The WTC Twin Towers, as well as WTC building #7, were destroyed by controlled demolition, as clearly proven by the laws of physics; this demolition could only have been an ‘inside job.’
  2. FEMA, which removed the evidence before it could be independently examined, maintains a black-op shadow government designed to replace the elected government of the United States.
  3. Defendants deliberately concealed the fact that they had ample warnings of terrorist attacks and failed to act on them, a war on terrorism being necessary to justify their political agenda.
  4. Defendants conspired to and did allow the attacks to happen by delaying military interception of the hijacked planes….
  5. The enterprise has engaged in a conspiracy to commit election fraud.
  6. Enterprise’s Florida recount riot: additional predicate acts under RICO.
  7. Additional allegations as to individual defendants, predicate acts of racketeering committed by them, and their roles in the RICO enterprise.

The foregoing facts support claims against the defendants for multiple acts of conspiracy, racketeering, domestic terrorism and other crimes.

Note: I suspect this case of being a set-up for the reason I gave about Watada’s case in Ch 5.8. Also note: One man, Judge Alvin Hellerstein controls all federal ‘9/11’ lawsuits. – MM

appendix d

APPENDIX DLaw Maxims, General Principles of Law

Selected from the Law Dictionary, 1888

(Wesley Gilmer’s 1986 revision of Wm. Cochran Cox’s 1976 edition) English version (Latin version provided below)

  1. Acting and consenting parties are liable to the same punishment.
  2. The niceties of the law are not the law.
  3. It is the duty of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction, i.e., to amplify the remedies of the law.
  4. A good judge decides according to equity and right, and prefers equity to strict law.
  5. A judicial writ does not fail through defect of form.
  6. A custom founded on a certain and reasonable ground supersedes the common law.
  7. Crime vitiates all that springs from it.
  8. He who has authority to do the more important ought not to be prohibited from doing that which is less important.
  9. Gross negligence is held equivalent to intentional wrong.
  10. Let the punishment be proportionate to the crime.
  11. False in one thing, false in all.
  12. He who flees judgment confesses his guilt.
  13. Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall.
  14. It is the same thing to say nothing as it is not to say enough.
  15. Impossibility is an excuse at law.
  16. Impunity always invites to worse faults.
  17. In contracts, matters of custom and general usage are implied.
  18. We should judge by the laws, not precedents.
  19. These are the precepts of the law: to live honorably, to hurt nobody, to render to everyone his due.
  20. Necessity has no law.
  21. Law will more readily tolerate a private loss than a public evil.
  22. The law provides for the future, the judge for the past.
  23. Law is the dictate of reason.
  24. Law is a rule of right.
  25. The law pays regard to equity.
  26. The law will always furnish a remedy.
  27. The law regards the course of nature.
  28. The law assists minors.

  1. The law speaks to all in the same way
  2. Long sufferance is construed as consent.
  3. An evil custom should be abolished.
  4. Wretched is the slavery where the law is changeable or uncertain.
  5. Nature aspires to perfection; so does the law.
  6. Where there is a similar reasoning, the law is the same.
  7. Public necessity is stronger than private.
  8. Nothing is so opposed to consent as force and fear.
  9. Too much subtlety in law is reprehensible.
  10. By too much altercation truth is lost.
  11. They are not considered to consent who act under a mistake.
  12. He who cannot be known from himself may be known from his associates.
  13. By no contract can one effect that a fraud shall be maintained.
  14. Odious and dishonest things are not to be presumed in law.
  15. Every ratification has a retrospective effect.
  16. He who acts through another acts by or for himself.
  17. He who does not disapprove approves.
  18. He who spares the guilty punishes the innocent.
  19. Let him be deceived who wishes to be deceived.
  20. That which is invalid in its commencement gains no strength by lapse of time.
  21. What is done contrary to law is considered as not done.
  22. That which necessity compels she excuses.
  23. The law does not require what is vain and useless.
  24. The reason of the law is the life of the law.
  25. The safety of the community is the highest law.
  26. Where there are many counselors there is safety.
  27. To write is to act.
  28. Suppression of the truth is [equivalent to] false representation.

Note: Maxims do not actually have numbers. The ones shown above were arbitrarily assigned for this book, to assist the match-up of Latin and English. There are hundreds of maxims; these are but a sample. Not all are of Roman origin: Latin was the language of the courts of England until 1666!

Student Assignment: Write an essay on ‘Necessitas non habet legem.’

The Same 56 Maxims, in Latin

1. Agentes et consentientes pari poena plectentur. 2. Apices juris non sunt jura. 3. Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem 4. Bonus judex secundem quequum et bonum judicat, et aequitatem stricto juri praefert. 5. Breve judiciale non cadit pro defectu formae. 6. Consuetudo ex certa causa rationabili usitata privat communem legem. 7. Crimen omnia ex se nata vitiat. 8. Cui licet quod majus non debet quod minus est non licere. 9. Culpa lato dolo aequiparatur. 10. Culpae poena par esto.

11. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. 12. Fatetur facinus qui judicium fugit. 13. Fiat justitia, ruat coelum. 14. Idem est nihil dicere et insufficienter dicere. 15. Impotentia exusat legem.

16. Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat. 17. In contractibus tacite insunt quae sunt moris et consuetudinis. 18. Judicandum est legibus, non exemplis. 19. Juris praecepta sunt haec, honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.

20. Necessitas non habet legem. 21. Lex citius tolerare vult privatum damnum quam publicum malum. 22. Lex de futuro, judex de praeterito. 23. Lex est dictamen rationis. 24. Lex est norma recti. 25. Lex respicit aequitatem. 26. Lex semper dabit remedium. 27. Lex spectat naturae ordinem. 28. Lex succurrit minoribus. 29. Lex uno ore omnes alloquitur. 30. Longa patientia trahitur ad consensum. 31. Malus usus est abolendus. 32. Misera est servitus ubi jus est vagum aut incertum.

33. Natura appetit perfectum, ita et lex. 34. Ubi eadem ratio, ibi eadem lex. 35. Necessitas publica major est quam privata.

36. Nil consensui tam contrarium est quam vis atque metus. 37. Nimia subtilitas in jure reprobatur. 38. Nimium altercando veritas amittitur. 39. Non videntur qui errant consentire. 40. Noscitur ex sociis, qui non cognoscitur, ex se. 41. Nulla pactione effici potest ut dolus praestetur. 42. Odiosa et in honesta non sunt in lege praesumenda. 43. Omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato priori aequiparatur. 44. Qui facit per alium facit per se. 45. Qui non improbat approbat.

46. Qui parcit nocentibus, innocentes punit. 47. Qui vult decipi decipiatur. 48. Quod ab initio valet, in tractu temporis non convalescet.

49. Quod contra legem fit, pro infecto habetur. 50. Quod necessitas cogit, excusat. 51. Quod vanum et inutile est, lex non requirit. 52. Ratio legis est anima legis.

53. Salus populi est lex suprema. 54. Salus ubi multi consiliarii. 55. Scribere est agere. 56. Suppressio veri, expressio falsi.

APPENDIX EExample of Congress’s Oversight over DoJ

Dear [FBI] Director Mueller:January 9, 2003

I am writing to express my concern and inquire about an award you recently gave to Marion “Spike” Bowman for “meritorious service.” Mr. Bowman, as deputy general counsel who is in charge of the FBI’s National Security Law Unit, has much authority….

The case of Zaracarias Moussaoui, who has been charged in

connection with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, is a prime example of the FBI’s problems with FISA warrants.