Fired US Attys: Why Not Detailed to Complement US Attys?

The US Attys were supposedly fired because of issues.

- Were the Asst US Attys also fired for the same reasons; or merely reassigned; why weren't the US Attys reassigned within DoJ to ensure the training and oversight issues were addressed?

- How do these manning/oversight trends compare with the other US Attys offices around the country: We seeing the same oversight issues; delays in prosecutions across the board; same training issues; how has the DOJ Staff in DC been tracking and discussing these internally with the DOJ AG since 2001?

- Why is the US Atty attempting to "coordinate" something he said didn't require a central staff of 17 dedicated attorneys?

- Are the 17 US Attys being reassigned to wear two hats: Their new hat in the new area; and retain their old hat in the corruption area?

- Will the 17 US Attys have two bosses: Their new boss in the currently assigned area; and the old boss they "coordinate" with on corruption issues?

Training

LAT Also reports DC-based DOJ personnel will conduct training in Los Angeles:

O'Brien said he was arranging for lawyers from the Justice Department in Washington to come to Los Angles and conduct training sessions on how to handle such specialized prosecutions.

- Is it the intent of the DC-based lawyers to conduct full training for all 17 lawyers; or will the lawyers provide training half-days?

- Will the Asst US Atty's in Los Angeles be expected to conduct official business for part of the day, then later attend dedicated training?

- Is it the intent of DOJ lawyers from DC to conduct formalized training; or one-on-one OJT type training for each of the 17 Asst US Atty's?

- Is there something inadequate about the Executive Office of US Atty's video training program?

- What is the modernization plan with the Executive Office of US Atty's to update these video/electronic training?

- Is the current electronic training available to the US Atty's staff not adequate; why will sending "trainers" from DC to LA address these training defects that all Asst US Attys nation wide would presumably suffer?

Physical Locations

Recall, the US Attys in Los Angeles are supposed "reassigned" to "other" offices.

- Will the 17 newly re-assigned attys have multiple bosses: One boss dedicated to the ethics/corruptoin issues; and the other boss the team-lead for the other existing team within the US Atty's office?

- How will the transition of these 17 US Attys to their new sections be related with the inputs from specific squads within the investigative branches in FBI, ATF, or DEA?

- Will the newly-transferred 17 US Attys be assigned to specific squads only within the US Atty's office in Los Angeles; or is intended that they'll develop specialized prosecution skills to assist specific investigatgive squads?

We would encourage TPMM and others to review the manning hours FBI, DEA, and ATF are dedicating to various terrorism-related cases; and review to what extent public corruption information is getting rebuffed long before the US Attys make their declination decision.

It appears the issue isn't that the public corruption cases are falling, but that the investigative arms of DOJ are swamped with data. We are concerned that this US Atty reorganization within Los Angeles says less about the quality of the US Attys prosecutions, and more about the apparent plan to assign US Attys to work more closely with investigative units.

- Is it the itnention of the US Atty's office in Los Angeles to use prosecutors as pseudo-Asst Special Agents in Charge, and conduct case management which should belong at the ASAC/SAC level?

- To what extent are cases taking long to prosecute because Asst US Attys are taking on workloads and managing detailed investigations, things which the ASACs should be fully doing?

- Are the prosecutions in not just Los Angeles, but nation wide falling because the investigative arms are spending more time on terrorism-related allegations, leaving the ASACs and SACs within FBI, ATF, and DEA with less time to adequately prepare case files before US Attys review?

- How much of the ASAC and SAC workload has been forwarded to the Asst US Attys; how much of the Asst US Attys functions were previously completed at the investigative/supervisory level within FBI, DEA, or ATF?

- How much evidence are investigative agents within FBI, ATF, and DEA rebuffing not because the informants do not have quality information, but because of standing DoJ policy to put more empasis on terror-related investigations?

- Does DOJ have an explanation why the public corruption cases and terrorism cases are both lagging: Since 9-11, we've not had a major string of prosecutions for terrorism?

Congressional: Other Non-Stated Factors

DoJ IG, DOJ OPR, and the Judiciary Staffs in both Houses are urged to follow these developments closely.

Opinions

We judge the timing of the disbandment has nothing to do with training, workloads, or any factors within the Asst US Atty's control in Los Angeles. Something else, outside Los Angeles is driving the decision to disband the unit.

We judge the unit's disbandment is similar to the US Atty firings both in significance, coordination, and larger objective, TBD. The timing and explanations smack more of a non-official objective less related to the DoJ organization objectives, than with litigation interests beyond the narrow lane of DoJ.

US Atty: Senate Confirmed, Can Be Subpoenaed Before Congress

Putting aside the issue of the US Atty firings and terrorism related workloads, we are concerned that even if the 17 "disbanded" attorneys are reassigned, there's insufficient visibility to ensure they do get the training the US Atty says they will be provided. We doubt the US Atty's statement. It seems contradictory to disband a unit, but then, after disbandment, request additional training on the very discipline which was disbanded. This defies reason.

US Atty Decision-Tree Demands DoJ Comment To Congress

If the US Atty were concerned about the quality of the products from the Asst US Attys, we would expect to see the reverse decisions; First conduct some training, then provide a review period; then third, make a decision to either adjust training (again), or disband the unit. This did not occur, and at best seems backwards, raising further questions warranting review and commentary.

- Why wasn't the training requested first, then monitor for a trial period; then make a decision about whether to adjust training, or disband the unit?

- Why the rush, without training, to disband now?

- Why is the US Atty disbanding a unit, but then "concerned" about its training?

- When will the US Atty certify that this training has been completed?

The fact that the training is "promised later" seems dubious. If it never occurs, what then? Rather, the key issue, absent this training, but combined with the sudden announcement, seems to be the reverse: There is no apparent intention of the US Atty to provide training, oversight, or assistance; and there is nothing missing within the US Atty skill set. Rather, most likely, the accelerated timeline -- disbanding the unit without conducting any training or provide a chance for improvement -- suggests the stated reasons for the disbandment are unreal.

Artificial Timeline

It is our view the disbandment is on an artificial timeline, rushed, and has not adequately given the Los Angeles staff sufficient time to adjust or remedy the asserted defects. As with the US Atty firings, we judge the "stated reasons" for the personnel changes and adjustments to be allegedly false, misleading, and related to a DOJ Staff decision in DC related to something else, TBD.

The DOJ AG's workflows and communications with the secretariat, as was done with the US Atty-firing emails should shet some light on the timing of this units' disbandment. We judge the US Atty's public statements and comments to the staff in Los Angeles to be allegedly misleading, dubious, and unreliable. These should be considered by DOJ OPR during the anticipated administrative review.

Alleged US Atty Threats Substantially Undermine Assurances

We remain perplexed why a "solution" would be couched in secrecy, and backed by threats. This smacks of a coercive environment which DoJ IG, DOJ OPR, and the Judiciary Committees need to promptly understand, especially in light of the ongoing e-mail issues in re US Atty firings.

The fact that the staff was surprised suggests they were not warned of any training concerns, nor part of any "get well plan" prior to disbandment. Again, this seems no different than the US Atty firings problems: Expedited timelines, dubious assertions.

US Atty Firing Implications

Does any of the information related to Lamm's firing have bearing on the specific issues at the hart of the Congressional Contempt citations against Bolten and Miers; and this units' disbandment?

It is our view, based on these developments: "Yes."

The disbandment of this ethics office isn't the issue, it's a symptom of something larger. Here is a speculative view of these issues, touching on war crimes evidence and intimidation of US Attys.

The common element is the DOJ OLC and the Oval Office. The issue is alleged war crimes and frivolous legal memoranda by current and former US government legal counsel. Nuremberg is precedent for prosecuting as war criminals legal counsel for frivolous legal excuses to ignore or not enforce the laws of war; or remain complicit with efforts to destroy war crimes evidence.

Al,

You asked about getting the State AG's involved and interested on these legal issues.

State AG Discussion Links on TPMM

A. Here is a proposed action plan.

B. That plan would appear to mesh with this legal authority in CA, for State AG Brown.

C. This is an outline of what the letter to State AG Brown might look like: [ snipurl.com/229uz ]

Is this what you had in mind?

testing,
You have some excellent suggestions regarding my spare time - My spare time however is scarce-as I am in business for myself. I own & operate a one van ground transportation charter service here in Austin.
What I can do is offer my ad hoc questions on which investigative journalist should be delving into what questions. I also can put forth ideas that might further these questions being answered -such as maybe setting up some kind of monetary fund , non profit , maybe a 507 c that would raise money to support yours & others efforts .Or on second thought why not just use outfits already in business like Melanie Sloane over there at CREW.
It would appear to me that if you -testing -were to take what you apparently have already developed to CREW and say that you needed funds to further your excellent work - and could also bring donors to the effort - then CREW would hire you -and allow us to send CREW dollars to further to explore exactly how to get the State Attorney Brown actively involved in determining what is really behind the firings of all these USA's in LAX and elsewhere.Specific muckraking fundraisers for specific goals. If nothing else the political campaign's have proved we can raise big bucks on the internet .
This proposal should also be presented as a means to get targetd questions asked , investigated & ANSWERED- When we get the real poop on such wrong doing it will help us bring weight to demanding official actions-such as Senate oversight ..
PS ( A sidebar perhaps- but when Madam Speaker was in India last night did anyone ask her about the millions of iRAQI refugees in Syria and elsewhere and how was our illegal occupation of that country any differnt then the illegal occupation of Tibet ? ).

We are here shouting and waving our arms, the Wolves are coming and everyone is turning the other way in search of a bigger wolf! @&%($(