DNI's response says there are 250 pages, but the PDF file is only 123 pages. However, DNI said only 12 pages were withheld.

When does DNI plan to address in writing the remaining 115 pages?

A subsequent FOIA may be filed to ask for all notes, correspondence, emails and memoranda related to the DNI discussion on how to respond to the remaining 115 pages. Ask for the discussions on the timelines to respond, the reasons they are having trouble making a coherent response for these 115 pages.

- Who raised objections in DoJ OLC and OVP to the explanations about the remaining 115 pages?

- Why were these 115 pages not indexed, in summary form, so the court and public can decide whether the documents were or were not appropriately shielded?

- Even if we were to assume, for the sake of discussion, that the documents were classified or privileged, the court order requires a non-classified summary table: Why wasn't a redacted version of that summary table for these 115 pages provided, with all blackouts, in the initial response?

- Where are the calendars of the DOJ Staff, DNI counsel and others handling the FOIA response: What other assignments do they have that would require this much delay in fully complying this this request?

- Why is there not management attention from DOJ, DNI, OVP, and the White House to resolve these issues?

- How does the timing of these delays relate to the Miers and Bolten subpoenas; and the recent House Judiciary letters sent to OVP in re Addington and YOo?

This note discusses war crimes related evidence. The note below is material to an ongoing war crimes investigations.

Data disclosed on the DNI document provdes alleged evidence linking the President, Vice President, DOJ OLC, OVP, and White House counsel with war crimes evidence. The designation will show you that assertions about telecom-gathered evidence are likely linked with a war crimes concern.

The information below will be further developed. Other links will be provided discussing how this war crimes evidence can be tracked into the non-public files in DOJ OLC.

Links

This may help provide context to some of the classification markings in re NSA classified programs.

This will help you understand what the lined-out codes mean.

DNI Document

The partial classification includes a key term, "MR":

Top Secret SI NF MR

NF - Secret NOFORN

MR - Manual Review

Manual Review

This is a key, important finding and disclosure. It tells us that a specific, foreseeable event would warrant manual review of this document. Because NSA and National Intelligence has disclosed there was a key event that would trigger a manual review for declassification, we can ask about those key, foreseeable, discussed, and specific events. These were not vague, but something specific that was supposed to or anticipated could happen.

There are also to other areas related to Geneva and how statutes trump EOs:

Manual Review (MR) is: • Used where the information is to be declassified on the occurrence of a specific event • Used for derivatively classified documents where the “Declassify On” line with “Source document is marked “Originating Agency Determination Required” or “OADR” • Used in cases where E.O. 12958 requirements are superseded by statute, treaty, or other agreement • Required with the DoE markings Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data • Used on all NATO and Non-US classified information

The President has a problem. EO 12958 is something he and others inside DoJ OLC would know is tumped by the US Statute or Treaty requirement. MR would, when linked with a treaty, only be used when that treaty obligation were understood. DoJ OLC assertions that GEneva is vauge belie the MR markings on this evidence.

The President cannot claim, as he has done, that he can ignore an EO; or do something outside what an EO promises to do. DOJ OLC's problem is they've contradicted themselves. Today's TPMM discusses how the President would like to pretend the opposite: That EOs can be ignored. That's meaningless once the President and DNI mark a document MR, and are using that MR marking because of the statute that supercedes EO 12958.

- How does the President and DNI propose to explain away an EO; but the MR classifications on teh documents are contingent upon that EO, and fatally admit that the EO is superceded by statute and treaty obligations?

- What is outside counsel's current position on rendition in re MR designation, Geneva, and the alleged effort to dissuade public discussion of alleged war crimes attached to the telecoms, outside counsel, and firms linked with rendition and POW abuse?

- What excuse does the Congress have not to conduct an investigation of the President and Vice President in re alleged war crimes, evidence destruction, and violation of the US Constitution?

The MR classification shows the President and Vice President were using these classifications to hide evidence they knew did not put the President or his EOs above the Statute or any Treaty. Once the President and Vice President are linked with the MR-related documents, there's no excuse for Congress not to raise war crimes issues in re FISA violations, and how telecom-connected data was allegedly used to abuse, manipulate, and harass POWs and American civilians during wartime in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Once MR is used in conjunction with a treaty obligation, this attaches NSA and the DNI document to Geneva. Some in OVP have suggested that the GEneva Conventions did not apply. This defies reason. The MR classification expressly links that document to the treaty; and the classification is linked with the known Geneva treaty requirements.

The MR markings on this DNI document fatally destroy any DOJ OLC or OVP legal counsel letter to the House Judiciary Stsaff Counsel. Within their own documents, the Vice President's staff counsel would know, or should know, that 32 CFR 2800 would require retention of data; and that the MR marking on this document would implicate Geneva and other treaty requirements.

Staff counsel for the Vice President on this MR-issue alone have contradicted themselves: They've asked Congress to provide authority for the Congressional review; yet this FOIA-related release expressly discloses the MR-terminology linking a treaty requirement to that classification. Staff counsel for the President in DOJ OLC or the OVP staff counsel would have us believe that Geneva requirements were vague. That's irrelevant: The MR classification, when linked with a treaty requirement, means there is no confusion. Rather, Addington under 32 CFR 2800 would have the legal obligation to fully ensure the documents marked with MR were properly classified, retained, stored.

Implications of "MR" In re Geneva, Statutes and US Constitution

The MR classification on the disclosed document contradicts the President and VIce President's legal counsel assertions. MR means the following:

1. The classification of that document, when linked with the EO, means the DOJ OLC and OVP staff counsel know that statute and treaties do trump the President's executive orders, contrary to their documented, out of court assertions;

2. The document with MR, when linked with a treaty requirement, means DOJ OLC and OVP staff counsel know the 32 CFR 2800 data retention/storage requirements could be attached with Geneva, a treaty requirement, despite assertions in the affidavits to the contrary;

3. The MR designation tells us staff counsel knows or should know that treaty requirements and statutes trump EOs, but assertions to the contrary using novel legal theories (Yoo/Bybee Memos) are not consistent with the MR classification they knew or should have known were used on documents they were reading and allegedly destroying;

4. The MR designation tells us the staff counsel should know that a treaty obligation, as part of the US Constitution, is a binding legal requirement on Addington, DoJ OLC staff, White House counsel, and the civilian legal counsel. This implicates the President in how he blocked DOJ OPR from reviewing this feigned attorney confusion before Congress in re Geneva and war crimes evidence. Attorneys cannot be "confused" about Geneva when the MR designation invokes a treaty requirement the telecoms and US government allegedly violated;

5. The attorney standards of conduct are the vehicle to review whether DOJ OPR has or has not been blocked from reviewing staff counsel compliance or non-compliance with Geneva, as was allegedly not done in re the Yoo-Bybee memos, any effort to claim the evidence is "privileged" appears to be dubious, casting doubts upon the Vice President's Legal Counsel April 2008 letter to Judiciary Staff counsel;

6. The DOJ AG Mukasey, when he said he will not enforce Geneva but rely on DOJ OLC memos saying Geneva does not apply, has a problem when evidence shows DOJ Staff did review MR documents. The DOJ AG should know that the MR designation, when it invokes Geneva, trumps the EO and the DOJ OLC memoranda; and

7. The MR Designation makes Mukasey's assertion -- that he will defer to DOJ OLC, not Geneva -- something that is not defensible, and contrary to how the MR designation should be used: It's used when it's understood that Geneva treaty obligations and US Statutes trump the EOs, something related to 32 CFR 2800 document retention.

Alleged False Agency Head Affidavits To Court to Illegally Suppress War Crimes Evidence On Dubious Pretext of National Security

Recall the DOJ IG exceptions. Once "national security" is invoked, the President can argue DoJ IG should not investigate. However, once MR is usedin conjunction with Geneva or the EO, the President is admitting that he's subject to something other than a simple assertion of "national security". Rather, when Geneva and the EOs are attached to the classification through MR, we need to look at the other side of the coin:

- How many false affidavits have the Agency heads signed not to protect a state secret, but to avoid public discussion of the MR classification, Geneva requirements, and the abuses relying on information the telecoms and US government illegally captured?

It appears the real objective of the affidavits by agency heads was to hide the known MR-Geneva-EO nexus, and the real problem: The evidence is war crimes evidence, and the affidavits are falsely claiming the documents are related to national security, when they are not, but linked with an effort to suppress admissible war crimes evidence.

OMNI Hotel in re Wecht and Digital Data Forensics

It also appears the contractors connected with the White House email "retention" project had a forensic expertise not to presrve data, but to destroy war crimes evidence. Subsequent data will show the link between the US Attorneys office, FBI, and civilian forensic data meetings at the OMNI Hotel in Philadelphia. These names and meetings last year are linked with the FBI, DoJ, and White House counsel's office.

Questions:

- Which documents clasified with MR designations were impermissibly destroyed despite no review or declassification, and no plan to preserve alleged war crimes evidence;

- How many of the digital data forensics-related meetings in re White House email retention did not adequately consider Geneva, the US Statutes which trump the EO and DOJ OLC memoranda;

- Despite knowing the MR could be linked with a spcific EO and Geneva treaty requirement, how many of the affidavits have falsely asserted that the issue was a "state secret";

- Which MR documents related to the telecom-US government discussion are linked with MR classifications related to Geneva;

- Despite the feigned confusion of Geneva, does NSA/DNI/DoJ/OVP have any documents that expressly use the MR designation related to the use of information to abuse POWs?

- How was illegally captured, unreliable information planted by the telecoms, OVP, or others with the GOP, then provided to interrogators, despite knowing the information was unreliable; and how was this known inaccurate information used as a pretext to abuse POWs in violation of Geneva;

- Once MR was used with these documents, when did Staff Counsel first realize they no longer could credibly argue that Geneva was vague; but that the MR designation meant there was evidence linking the nSA/DNI/telecoms to specific Geneva requirements related to how that captured information was or wasn't used during POW abuse sessions?

- When did the telecoms realize the information they illegally captured was subsequently illegally used to violate Geneva, and abuse POWs during Prisoners of War interrogations?

- How much of the telecom-US government discussions are expressly avoiding the MR-Geneva convention, because the OVP, DOJ OLC and White House counsel know that illegally captured information was unlawfully used during POW interrogations; and POWs were abused using dubious information the telecoms illegally captured?

- When did DOJ OLC staff counsel realize that the knowledge of the MR-classification in re Geneva would prompt a war crimes investigation and inquiry of DOJ Staff counsel documents, memoranda, and alleged complicity with alleged war crimes evidence destruction

Recasting Reluctance to Respond To This FOIA

On this MR point alone, as it relates to the EO or Geneva, the President and Vice President could be impeached; and all telecom discussions could be recast as nothing more than a ruse to deflect war crimes prosecutors from gaining access to this alleged war crimes evidence and information. Taken in this light, the telecoms and US government appear to be reluctant in responding to this FOIA, not because the information is correctly classified as a national security secret, but is allegedly linked with war crimes and evidence the telecoms and others hoped to dissuade legal oversight of these alleged war crimes.

Alleged War Crimes Evidence Hosted Outside US Government Control

Because of the MR designation, the mention of the treaty obligation, and the alleged telecom connection with illegally captured information, all documents related to the EFF-hosted information must be viewed as possible war crimes evidence; and the US government-telecom discussions must be considered as possible efforts to thwart public oversight, discussion, and review of possible war crimes-connected evidence in re telecoms, US government, and legal counsel.

Any effort to dissuade further discussion, commentary, or analysis of these documents as possible war crimes evidence could be construed by war crimes prosecutors as subsequent efforts to thwart enforcement of the laws of war. These are very serious issues potentially attached to telecoms, civilian legal counsel, and the current Vice President's counsel letter to the House Judiciary Staff Counsel in re Addington.

Data Mining In Light of Geneva

POWs may not be abused. It appears the DNI classification is linked with known Geneva treaty obligations which the telecoms and staff counsel knew or sholdhave known. These obligations would require evidence preservation. The telecoms need to explain what role they had at the Hawaii Conference for the NSA telecoms and intermediaries; and how they used digital data forensics experts not to retain data but allegedly destroy war crimes evidence linked through the MR classification and Geneva.

The data mining must consider the real possibility that the unspoken problem the telecoms and government are dancing around in these EFF-hosted memos is nothing more than war crimes and unlawful use of that illegally captured information to abuse POWs in violation of Geneva. The EFF-hosted information must be secured and safeguarded as possible war crimes evidence.

There's an illusory problem: 5 of 128 does not address retroactive warrants; or situations when the AG does determine no warrant is required. Putting aside the FISA court, the provision/change would not remove the retroactive warrant option or AG determinations.

Changes To Briefing Classification Terminology

Note the classification on 2 of 128 to something shorter on 7 of 128.

The lined-through number on 8 of 128 at the top of the classification line, is code for declassification, or the "declassify on"-number, and is the same as the lower right right number, same page:

20321128

The same relationship is on 10 of 128, but shows a different declassification date:

20391123

13 of 128 has a redacted contact point, most likely a phone number.

This may shed light on this contact information:

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Peter Petrihos, in the Office of Legislative Affairs, at 703-482-5616.

Petrihos is also listed with (202) 201-1156 ( 2022011156, Zipcode 20032), associated with Chemical and Biological Defenses.

Email, IP Header From NSA

Through FOIAs and Congressional subpoenas the following classified information related to the IP number for the DNI, and conduct some analysis on the emails:

Davi M. D'Agostino, (202) 512-5431 or dagostinod@gao.gov

You'll want to look for any emails from Turner at NSA.

Warning in re Incidental Acquisitions

See: Section 2.3 for the exceptions the AG can fabricate to justify retaining illegally captured information. As you read this, recall the FBI director's repeated assertion, "We were following protocols":

[Added text:]

2.3 COLLECTION OF INFORMATION

Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order. Those procedures shall permit collection, retention and dissemination of the following types of information:

(a) Information that is publicly available or collected with the consent of the person concerned [was it informed consent; if they refuse can you use an NSL or FBI home visit ala Wecht Jury trial members, then twist their words to pretend they "really" consented?];

(b) Information constituting foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, including such information concerning corporations or other commercial organizations. Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized agencies of the Intelligence Community, provided that no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons [DoD ignored this];

(c) Information obtained in the course of a lawful foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, international narcotics or international terrorism investigation [This President has legalized everything, even illegal acdtivity];

(d) Information needed to protect the safety of any persons of organizations, including those who are targets, victims or hostages of international terrorist organizations [We're violating your rights for your safety; pay not attention to the lack of prosecutions and bungled combat operations that should have exploited this information];

(e) Information needed to protect foreign intelligence or counterintelligence sources or methods from unauthorized disclosure. [Intelligence personnel can be compromised as retaliation, see Valarie Plame] Collection within the United States shall be undertaken by the FBI except that other agencies of the Intelligence Community may also collect such information concerning present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present or former employees, or applicants for any such employment or contracting;

(f) Information concerning persons who are reasonably believed to be potential sources or contacts for the purpose of determining their suitability or credibility [How many Americans don't know they're potential sources subject to ongoing evaluation?];

(g) Information arising out of a lawful personnel, physical or communications security investigation [DOJ OLC legalized it, so they keep the information];

(h) Information acquired by overhead reconnaissance not directed at specific United States persons [SIGINT Drift net, "We just happened to notice this in the broad sweep during training. . ."];

(i) Incidentally obtained information that may indicate involvement in activities that may violate federal, state, local or foreign laws [Any more "mays" and it might be obvious: There is no standard, just guessing]; and

(j) Information necessary for administrative purposes [Very vague, catch all, hide the errors here].

In addition, agencies within the Intelligence Community may disseminate information, other than information derived from signals intelligence, to each appropriate agency within the Intelligence Community for purposes of allowing the recipient agency to determine whether the information is relevant to its responsibilities and can be retained by it. [More of the self-reviews done outside the FISA court. This means FISA doesn't need to be updated.]

Its for the public to decide whether this information is or isn't of any interest. This is a dubious assertion:

"The witheld information consists of internal administrative inforrmation that is of no public interest such as database file number and certain logistical information" 5 of 7, para 11, line 3

Failure To Provide Data Generates Public Interest

Database file numbers are useful to know:

A. How is their data filed; B. Which software products are they using; C. Are there gaps in the files; D. Are these data file numbers appearing in other expected emails and storage locations, or have these files been deleted in violation of court orders E. Do the data file numbers appear elsewhere F. Which emails, files, and other documents contain these file numbers G. Which computers were used to create these files; has there been a complete search of these computers linked with these disclosed data files; or have the data files not been used as a Trojan Horse to trace how incoming data worked its way through DoJ OLC, White House counsel, OVP, and other staff counsel H. Is there evidence the computers linked with these data files have engaged in illegal use of their official resources I. What timelines and patterns are there with these data files J. Have data files gone missing related to key court decisions and affidavits reporting "no information" exists K. Has a special master been appointed to review classified version of these key data files to determine whether informatoin in these data files was properly redacted or withheld L. Are these data failes believed to be one thing, but really contain the key records establishing a link between the digital data forensics personnel linked with the OMNI hotel, FBI, White House, and WH email retention contractors?

"Certain logistical information" is too vague to help determine whether the information has or has not been properly withheld. "Logistics," as used here could involve:

1. Transfer of prisoners to abuse them; 2. Methods to transfer information illegally acquired; 3. Coordination with foreign intelligence to conduct additional screening and monitoring of US citizens using incidental information 4. FBI protocols to detain innocent American citizens, question them, and release them without a chance to consult an attorney 5. Methods to "coordinate with contractors," despite no real intention to coordinate, comply with data requirements, or safeguard war crimes evidence 6. Methods to move illegally captured information with the intent to provide to private counsel information for civil counsel to claim they have had proprietary data "stolen" as a pretext to conduct a fishing trip, coordinate with legal counsel, and transfer Presidential orders to block DOJ OPR from reviewing that DoJ OLC coordination with outside counsel on those alleged war crimes issues

Public Interest in Phone/Fax Numbers

This is an invalid withhold and should be disclosed:

"Certain non-public administrative information that is of no public interest such as telephone and fax numbers is being withheld."6 of 7, para 12, line 5

The information can be used to cross-index names, contact information, organizations, timelines. Congress can ask the telecoms to report data in their files linked with these phone numbers, copies of reports, and rosters of key personnel attending key digital data forensics conferences at the OMNI hotel.

The phone numbers can be cross checked against FEC records to determine if incorrect or misleading information has been provided by DoJ legal counsel, law firms or their children to the FEC.

American citizens can review the phone numbers to determine which contractors are abusing their connection with DoD, and win favorable contracts; or how former US government officials and personnel are or are not appropriately using their telecommunications equipment.

The information may be useful to war crimes prosecutors to determine which phone numbers key personnel involved with the rendition program were using when attempting to destroy war crimes evidence, abuse prisoners, or violate the laws of war. The MR security classification must be linked with something, otherwise why bother mentioning Geneva and treaty obligations.

44 of 128: Handwriting, upper right.

Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) is associated with DOJ and indirectly with Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI):

OIP/ODNI

Consistent with lower-right, "NSD-4"

NSD Equities

Example

This shows why an email name is important: WE can corss index the email name with a file within the NSA, White House, DoJ, or Congress. Let's use EFF files as an example: Knowing the hand writing, we can cross index this with the C:Drive, and confirm a key name.

This C: Drive at EFF connects with ODNI:

C:\Documents and Settings\awarden\Desktop\

ODNI will show us Warden's interest; then we can review the access to that C:drive to determine employee timelines, and whether key information suddenly went missing.

Someone saying there is "no public interest" is something doesn't understand how a computer file on a known computer can be lawfully remotely accessed, reviewed, and cross-indexed using open source information. Digital data forensics experts know how to, with a key pad, exercise a touch-point-click access to monitor a computer. The same can be done real time with those DoJ Staff counsel allegedly complicit with war crimes planning, and illegal contracts establishing language translation services for Prisoners of War interrogations.

War crimes prosecutors will want to know why this data was not reviewed when examining potential lines of inquiry into US government Geneva violations.

Real Example

Using a remote access feature, we could review this drive for key names in the emails linked with ODNI:

nga.mil/NGASiteContent/ StaticFiles/OCR/pf_janfeb08.pdf

- Who made updates to the original PDF file;
- Were these people making changes to hide war crimes evidence;
- Has the file been linked with law firms allegedly complicit with rendition planning, language translation, or scheduling of rendition air craft
- When did the firm access documents linked with the FISA conferences at the National Laboratories
- Which trip reports should have been filed when these conferences ended, and how are these trips reports cross indexed with other NSA-affiliated contractors from other jurisdictions?
- What are the vacancy codes for those positions?
- Can we talk to the formerly assigned personnel to establish if they have been threatened with prosecution for discussing the alleged war crimes?
- Which procedures are linked with these emails and office symbols; have those procedures been fully followed?
- Which planning meetings and other records are linked with these emails; who outside the US government has copies of these presentations still not provided by the US government?
- Does the entity with this office symbol file an annual report; if so, where is it?

53 of 128 shows a fax cover sheet, suggesting the excuses to suppress other fax cover sheets is a pretext.

- Why is it "OK" to disclose a Member of Congress fax; but not the sending Fax number for other faxes?

Look for the following in the upper right:

494

Also, this, which tells us something about the vault, type of security on the fax machine, and the filing system requirements for that classified data, and tells us who most likely has the access list, with which names:

SSC

The full code is this:

SSCI #2007-4877

which can be cross indexed to others who reviewed, received, or retransmitted the file. It's a Trojan Horse. we don't care so much about the content, only in tracking which information pipelines were used to transmit a known fax to which computers, machines, offices, and terminals. Then, knowing this, we can send other data, and see if the data is or isn't adequately handled, where it's dropped.

NSA Software Baseline, Program Management Data

This comment tells us some important things:

Nonetheless, if the government deems these incidents [plural] to be in compliance with its targeting procedures, then the incidents are, by definition, the result of the procedures.

What's happened is Members of Congress are discussing with the NSA the targeting errors. They're trying to understand how this is happening. What they're not looking at are how the original software requirements were or were not adequately incorporated. Rather than look at the software, they're talking about procedures. They can't track to the procedures, or aren't sure; so there's no point in pretending the software is stable along those uncertain, non-tracked requirements.

What's causing the problem isn't the process or the procedures, but the defect in the software which doesn't automatically prevent these errors from occurring. There isn't an internal check, before the target is engaged, to ensure the target meets the criteria. They're chasing the errors after the problem, as opposed to internally checking for the problem before engaging the target.

Rather than focus on developing a robust software product that eliminates the errors, they're still struggling with explaining away the errors in terms of procedures. It defies reason that the same entity that has no data-collection/analysis plan for these incidents has adequately demonstrated, on a small scale, that they can effectively use the software, screen the target, and ensure the targeting adequately incorporates the minimization requirements into the internal test-check before target engagement. They've got code that they're trying to put bandaids on, but they don't have the resources to do a complete overhaul and get it right.

Congress needs to get a straight story from the NSA SETA contractors and get a plain english explanation for what needs to be really done to address these targeting errors. NSA and the White House need to explain why the funding for this was cut. "Iraq mission requirements put our NSA modernization program at risk." Hello, Pearl Harbor II. The reason they want a FISA update is so they can avoid making the needed software changes to fully perform at the current requirement. But the failure to meet the requirement will not get solved by changing the requirement; The same crew that has a problem with current requirements definition still won't get it right with a FISA update.

But pretend you don't like the above. Here's the sinker, we're told Dec 18, 2007, five months ago:

I also have concerns about the absense of adequate minimization procedures

The issue is'nt the procedure, but the self-evident lack of software which will comply with the law. They don't have procedures, so there's no point arguing over whether the software is good or not: It doesn't do the job, especially when the procedures needed to baseline the software requirement do not exist. It's 2008. We've had computers since the 20th Century. These NSA notes suggest they're still struggling with basic coding theory, not to mention competent targeting for national intelligence.

Even if there is a process, this crew isn't sure if the requirement is met; or the process is meeting the legal requirement. Their solution is to expand the drift net size, but never provide a solid answer or program that will do it right. They need a new program manager who isn't going to feed Congress baloney. This is what happens when Members of Congress and the President refuse to cooperate to prevail within the law. They're trying to legislate in 2008 issues which should have been incorporated into the NSA's software baseline long ago.

Wikipedia:
149.101.1.130
wdcsun30.usdoj.gov

71.178.102.65

31 October 2007: Philbin Testimony to Senate Judiciary

FOIA To Establish DOJ OLC Employee Timeline

These are not statements of fact, nor conclusions of law, nor allegations of (war) crimes against Eisenberg or Philbin.

To investigate alleged connection between war crimes, FISA violations, and DOJ OLC, we need a timeline of all DoJ OLC emails into White House counsel, outside counsel, and to the department general counsels since 2001. Focus on his background related to E-discovery training, conferences, and litigation/interaction with expert witnesses on E-discovery.

Identifying Information

Eisenberg clerked for Justice Thomas October TERM 2003 SCOTUS CLERKS, formerly clerked for Judge Lutting, 4th Cir.

Education,
- Yale Law (2001) (Also seeing Yale 2002)
- Stanford 1991

(Ref: House Report H.R. 5825, 109th Cong, 2nd Sess; SEPTEMBER 12, 2006; Serial No. 109-131; Hearing, "ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MODERNIZATION ACT")

- Which DoJ OLC staff would know the clerks, who still had access to the Juror names in re Wecht?

Sample Identifying Name

Source:

Federal Register: August 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 163), Page 48302-48307

Office of Legal Counsel--OLC

KOFFSKY, DANIEL L., SPECIAL COUNSEL
-----------------------------------------
HART, ROSEMARY A., SPECIAL COUNSEL
-----------------------------------------
COLBORN, PAUL P., SPECIAL COUNSEL
-----------------------------------------
EISENBERG, JOHN A., DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
------------------------------------------
ELWOOD, JOHN PATRICK, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
------------------------------------------
PAPEZ, ELIZABETH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
------------------------------------------
BRADBURY, STEVEN G., PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
------------------------------------------
ENGEL, STEVEN A, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

Alleged War Crime Evidence Preservation

We need a timeline of Eisenberg's activities. He's involved with the litigation. He's been jumping back and forth between:

A. The alleged disclosure of NSA logbooks;

B. FISA discussions with Senators.

Funds Transfers

He's connected with conference Room, as a panelist: McDonough 202, triggering funds transfers/credit card receipts for the hotel, air fare, and conference fees. Look for the DOJ OLC emails sent related to this trip; and coordination with other DOJ-personnel appearing.

Would like to see his credit card receipts for the fuel related to this conference at this address:

September 10, 2007

Georgetown Law Center
National Security Center
McDonough 202
McDonough Hall, Hart Auditorium
600 New Jersey Ave NW
Washington, DC 20001

Email Headers To Develop Timeline

We need a timeline of the emails Eisenberg sent, from which IP's using which DoJ/private email account, and determine where he was.

I would like to know the reasons for the law firms interest in both FISA and Geneva issues/allegations.

Please discuss the DoJ OLC coordination with sics.se in re CALEA inputs.

How are firms able to support rendition, FISA violations, but stay ISO compliant?

Justice Management Division IP Numbers

JMD acts as the DOJ agency that interfaces with the JCON management.

149.101.1.32/jmd

Hexagonal: 0225.0145.01.040/jmd

Use this term for the search of the JCON cotract data with the FOIA:

JMD-JCON PRO MG

Sample JCON-associated line item:

DJJ03F0802

Use this with the contractor's databases, example Northrop-Grumman:

JMD JCON PMO

Outside Data

Remind the ISPs that they have a responsibility to secure information, contact information, and other data of interest to war crimes prosecutors. Here is a sample MySpace page of "William" self-reporting they worked with JCON, who may be able to clarify questions about the JCON.

profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user. viewprofile&friendID=12848143

Backup:

snipurl.com/270nt

Marcia Hoffmann with EFF needs to be involved with the JCON oversight, and how the process is going to ensure data is preserved.

EFF needs to see the above JCON information in re their FOIA into DOJ -Contractor communications on FISA. It appears DOJ has not been responsive, and there are many JCON-related management documents which would assist the court and EFF. These should have been disclosed.

45 of 128 shows Reyes, with the House Judiciary Committee, unclear whether the Reyes name refers to the Member of Congress, EOP Staff, or DOJ Staff (SMO), as discussed here.

Identifying information behind the names on the Calendars would help pinpoint who the DOJ Staff are or are not meeting with to discuss the US government discussions with the telecoms on the FISA immunity efforts.

Compare Different Redactions

NSA and DOJ have no credibility.

Different questions from the House do or do not get redacted. Do the House/Senate Judiciary Committees not have enough information to ask a classified question?

Clean questions: 6 of 78, Sept 18, 2007, House Judiciary.

Redacted questions: 14 of 128, October 16, 2007, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Same DoJ Staff Counsel Working on FISA and Geneva Issues

A. FISA

32 of 50: Benczkowski letter from Leahy in re FISA.

B. Geneva Issues

As Background, Benczkowski's name involved with the DOJ OLC memoranda, reported in NYT.

Mr. Benczkowski’s letters were in response to questions from Mr. Wyden, whose committee had received classified briefings about the executive order.

Before the US invaded Iraq, Iraq "threatened" to attack DC if the US invaded Iraq. The US did invade Iraq, but there was no Iraqi terrorist attack on DC. The "threatened" attack was not a credible threat to attack the US, but designed to dissuade the United States from invading. Based on dubious claims of foreign powers, American citizens are being told they must endure indignities, intrusions, and illegal DOJ OLC activity:

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.

In classic DOJ OLC-OVP misdirection (explain away the irrelevant standard), this ignores the Geneva prohibition against all POW abuse:

In one letter written Sept. 27, 2007, Mr. Benczkowski argued that “to rise to the level of an outrage” and thus be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, conduct “must be so deplorable that the reasonable observer would recognize it as something that should be universally condemned.”

Note throughout this calendar, the Members of Congress were not mentioned as "Senator" or "Representative."

John Eisenberg simply entered "Feinstein". Appears Eisenberg did the same with "Reyes". Most likely "Reyes" refers to Representative Reyes, not Reyes in DOJ SMO/EOP. Need confirmation.

Some of the appointments which have been redacted have some small corners of text on the left side of the schedule.

4 of 64 shows redacated classification line, not lined through, but electronically boxed to create appearance of being covered with tape. The classification line cannot be completely read.

Why were some classifications lined through, while others were boxed?

Were different people redacting one set of classifications with boxes, while others used the line-through; or were the same people redacting the classification line, but using different methods?

8 of 64 is Reyes letter to McConnel, timeline in re NSA combat support.

14 of 64

- How does the Sec 401 definition for "electronic surveillance" relate to US Citizens who are located lawfully outside the United states?

- Is someone saying US citizens located overseas do not enjoy Constitutional protections against warrantless surveillance by US combat-support with the NSA or ODNI?

JAG Handbook: Litigating National Security Cases

Guide: Classification markings

Guide to marking documents.

34 of 124 Senator Whitehouse expresses displeasure with McConnel's slowrolling the legislation, but demanding expedited review. (Sept 4, 2007 letter)

One way a document is authenticated is when it refers to another letter.

The US government has no jurisdiction in state courts. The United States government cannot block enforcement of State laws.

The US government is powerless to prevent state citizens from conducting investigations against US government officials, legal counsel, and others for alleged Geneva violations.

88 of 119 shows the incompetence of the telecom General counsel, DOJ OLC and White House counsel: They have no provision to enforce section 408 in state/non-United States Government courts.

The only means to enforce this is to prevent the States from enforcing State law. That is illegal.

This shows the inherent flaw of assuming the US government can control US citizens by passing Federal Laws that bypass the States and directly apply to US citizens.

It is illegal to threaten someone with arrest or prosecution if they assert their rights, 42 USC 1983. US citizens may lawfully enforce, through 42 USC 1983, the Constitution against US government officials, Members of Congress, and Telecoms; and 42 USC 1983 is the tool for private citizens to act as their own attorney general. Where the DOJ AG refuses to enforce GEneva, private citizens, while asserting 42 USC 1983, may present this evidence of alleged war crimes for subsequent prosecution. There is universal jurisdiction.

It is illegal to threaten someone with arrest, prosecution or other civil litigation for reporting alleged evidence of war crimes. The evidence of war crimes is not a protected state secret. Efforts to dissuade discussions of war crimes evidence is a subsequent offense under Geneva.

90-day "Transition" Window

118 of 119

"It would also allow for a smooth transition after the changes take effect."

- What is the basis for the 90-day window?

- Why should we believe 90 days will be sufficient?

- What is "transitioning"; be specific why you need 90 days.

- Wasn't this supposed to be mandatory, and required now; how can you say that 90 days, not an immediate change, is acceptable?

There's no reason to believe an "immediate" change is needed when you're openly admitting 90 days is sufficient for a change or transition. Then there is no emergency, and you have time to still comply with the existing requirements.

No more delays. Let's get on with the state level litigation against the telecoms and US government for this reckless defiance of FISA. Qwest balked. The other telecoms should have demanded warrants, not the worthless DOJ OLC assurances.

1 of 60

Feb 6, 2008: 11:28 AM

Brian A. Benczkowski (OLA) letter to
John Boote,
Kathryn Haun (OAG),
Bassie L Meadows

cc: Lindsay Sweetin

[ Two (2) "not responsive" black-filled boxes, one (1) above, one (1) below email ]

47 of 60

Why wasn't this email redacted:

Jennifer_Price@judiciary-dem.senate.gov

Failure of DOJ to redact these Congressional emails sends a mixed signal about the "privacy concerns".

- Price's name is on a letter dated November 2007. Why isn't Price listed on the Senate Judiciary Committee Staff salary file, Apr-Sept 2007?

- Was she hired after September 2007; if so, why is her email included on a high profile FISA-related issue, why not a senior staffer?

49 of 60: Leahy and DOJ miss the point. This isn't a narrow US Federal Constitutional issue, but a broader state-level Constitution. The two are not the same.

Even if Congress shut down all federal lawsuits, the Congress has no power to block action in state courts against US government officials; nor can the Congress compel US citizens, after illegal activity has occurred, not to assert their rights in Federal Court. This, in effect, eliminates Constitutional protections members of Congress through 5 USC 3331 are sworn to uphold, not explain away.

49 of 60

Why didn't you come?

John Eisenberg
Thursday December 13, 2007 3:35 PM
To Brett Gerry

There were two meetings on Dec 13 2007: The names are blacked out. 68 of 128

Are the blacked out names Eisenberg and Gerry?

Meeting With Representative Holt

49 of 50

From/To: Redacted.

Other names listed under CC:

58 of 101

Elizabeth J. Shapiro DC Bar 418925

81 of 101 Mueller's Statement to House Intelligence, Sept 6, 2007

82 of 101 has S/NF, but no redactions to text. Is there still classified information within the para?

NSA and FBI coordinate. NSA provides information to FBI, which does follow-up. NSA informations complements information FBI already has. Jan 10, 2007 FISA Court order did not change FBI-NSA relationship.

President "Expanded grant of authority": it was an illegal grant of authority.

- How does an illegal grant of authority fit in with "FBI protocols"?

"AG directed FBI to cooperate with NSA"

- Why was "only" the US Attorney, not the AG, involved with FBI interviews of Wecht Jurors using classfied Judicial information?

The AG has no power to "approve" FBI access to, use of, and coordination with US Attorney on classified Judicial Branch information. The President must have been involved.

1-6 of 13

Codes not consistently used, some are blank.

JEN07G43

JEN07G44

Compare government's responses with the data provided.

12 of 60

Per our conversation.
Mary Hobbs
Bessie L. Meadows

Friday, February 29, 2008 11:21

There is a reasonable basis to ask for the detailed file information attached to the JCON.

107 of 160: Email

AG Staff coordination on DoJ, AG calls with Congress.

Members of Congress

Sen Nelson
Sen Pryor
Cong Scott
Sen Salazar
Sen Carper

DOJ Staff

Bessie L. Measdows
Brian A Benchkowski
John Eisenberg
John Demers
Brett Gerry

Need second-by-send files/records showing exactly what they were doing. Not interested in the content, just want to see all the steps they were taking related to these now-disclosed conversations. Need enough data to replicate all their electronic steps:

- Which files did they access on the now-disclosed JCON database when coordinating this meeting?

- Which JCON files were they accessing, by time.

- Where are the JCON records of their contacts?

- What are the IP numbers for these accesses to the JCON database?

- What communication, computer, or electronic devices were they using to make records on JCON; why do these devices not match, one-for-one the disclosed devices on the FOIA?

- Why is there no one-for-one consistency between the JCON data showing their computer connected; and the data on their computer showing the JCON access?

- How do they explain how they have they accessed the JCON data, but the JCON data does not show any connection from their DOJ Computer?

- Why is there a discrepancy between the JCON data linked with their DOJ computer, and the access of the JCON data related to the communication-coordination-steps?

49 of 50

Holt Meeting email

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI)

testing ,
sure hope to heck you get to bill somebody for all of this work - and if you are now being paid for this -if its a non profit please can we send them some money to keep you rolling on this good work ?

Here are the citations in re White House email retention project.

This email was sent in 2004.