Republicans.

http://www.slate.com/id/2138750/

The article is called “Invisible Men” — and this is an apt title for more than one reason. That face up above is fronting for a whole lot of behind the scenes eager beaver lawyers working their tails off to deconstruct our Republic, law by law.

The Slate article also links to the Graham/Kyl A.C. brief (no affidavits were included in it). Someone spent a LOT of time and a LOT of money putting that brief together (over at James Baker’s Baker Botts law firm). The Neal Katyal response brief (he’s the Hamdan lawyer who cuts through the government’s lawyering mendacity like a hot knife through butter) is also linked — his response brief is quite an education in both the law, and the twisting of it that the government and Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham (and their Invisible Men) have engaged in. [At one point the government is trying to throw out the rules concerning treatment of prisoners required of “civilized peoples” under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions by basically saying “It depends upon what the meaning of ‘one’ is.”]

At any rate, the main debate in the Senate on the DTA took place I believe just before and/or after Thanksgiving, 2005. That’s when the Senate passed its version, with a lot of clear statements from Democrats saying that it would leave Hamdan under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court [language which they were apparently unable to get into the bill itself - the bill was more or less neutrally worded, except for ‘Under this Act’ - which backed up the Democrats, in one place]. When the Conference Report was finished and submitted for a vote in the Senate on 12/21/05 NO DEBATE TOOK PLACE on the Senate floor. It was a voice vote, with no roll call recorded. That debate ship had sailed weeks before Kyl and Graham got around to inserting their bogus DTA debate into the Congressional Record on 12/21 [it sounds like the bogus transcript may even have overlooked the usual participation by the President Pro Tem of the Senate - who senators speak to and are recognized by before gaining the floor to debate their colleagues - but I haven’t read the actual C.R. wording].

Another complicating factor is that the ‘labeling system’ of the Congressional Record is apparently OPTIONAL, as to what was spoken live and what wasn’t. [Reform needed…!] A bullet at the end, or underlining, or both sometimes perhaps, generally are used to indicate that something was NOT spoken on the floor. Or not, as the case may be… On 12/21/05 neither a statement by Carl Levin (submitted first regarding the DTA Conference Report) nor the bogus Graham/Kyl transcript – both placed into the C.R. that day – had the bullets or underlining, for unknown reasons. Either inadvertently (senators writing “live” on their copies for submission – which apparently is fairly common) or with malice aforethought both of those submissions went into the C.R. as though they had been spoken on the Senate floor, which the C-Span tape proves did not happen.

Way too much is going on in the shadows behind the scenes of our government right now — I wish the Democrats at least would come clean about what really transpired in this instance. And Neal Katyal and company need to be front and center as expert witnesses should the Congress even consider tampering with either the UCMJ or the War Crimes Act or the treaties we have ratified, with regard to the limbo now being endured by the Guantanamo Bay prisoners…

Last Friday I sent the following message to Christy (Dont know if she got it.):
I have never (except in the case of GW Bush) seen such crass and craven acts such as the fraud Senators Kyl and Grahams Hamdan v Rumsfeld Scam first against the Congress and the Supreme Court by filing a bogus amicus brief. The Supreme Court apparently chose to ignore the fraud. I dont think we can.

Not only did they attempt to deceive the Supreme Court and the Senate, after their hoax was pointed out to the Supreme Court a month later they tried their scam on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Appeals Court, apparently aware of the scam rejected their amicus brief.

As I see it Graham and Kyl have committed at least five felonies, fraud against the Senate, fraud against the Supreme Court and if the amicus brief had an affidavit attached, perjury, attempted fraud against the Appeals Court, and conspiracy.

This is heady stuff. That Graham and Kyl are so arrogant, that they think nothing of perpetuating fraud august such an august body as the Supreme Court is revolting and disgusting to people who care about what is going on in the Congress.

Dennis

I included a copy of Mr. Dean’s commentary at FindLaw.

I later realized there was at least on other alleged felony, obstruction of justice.

I later sent a copy of the above and Mr. Dean’s commentary to CREW and followed it up with a phone call to Naomi because I thought it so important. I asked that if there was merit to my concerns that CREW make a formal complaint with the FBI.

Naomi said she would present my complaint to their lawyers for review.

Anne, I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to let Graham & Kyl’s blunder stand. They have their ways of dealing with this. Note that the DC Appeals court refused their amicus brief after accepting 4 others. Word gets around. The chance of any court accepting anything from them in the future is scant. That is of course if opposing attorneys are on the ball.

Most state “Rules of Professional Conduct” are based on Federal “Rules” with some adaptation. Washington State’s Rule 3.3 “Candor toward the tribunal. (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;***
(4) Offer evidence that the lawyer know to be false.”

Anyone can make a complaint, in any bar association, against any attorney anywhere in the United States no matter where you live.

A few years ago I was researching a book about lawyers being bad. To give you a scope about how many bad lawyers there are? Over 15,000 complaints are filed in California every year. (Bad lawyers are innocent until proven guilty.)

I also found that bar disciplinary boards have a vested interest to find in the favor of lawyers, in most of the cases I reviewed, except in the most egresses cases.

Dennis