Disturbing Lessons of Wecht Jury Tampering Prompting Judicial Branch Attention

The Judicial Branch must take seriously this President’s illegal assault on the independence of the Judicial branch. This President is bound by law to enforce FISA and the Geneva Conventions. This President, US Attorney, and FBI agents have largely turned a blind eye to these illegal violations, incorrectly believing the President can make the law, ignore the law, and put himself above the law.

The laws of war should have cast this foolish assumption to the waste heap of history. The Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg precedents require an independent judiciary. This President and Congress have largely failed in their duties to ensure the Constitution, FISA, and Geneva Conventions are enforced, as required by oath. Until the President, US Attorney, and FBI agents are held to account for this illegal jury tampering, war crimes prosecutors are forced to presume the Untied States will not ensure juries are independent to enforce the laws of war, Nuremberg precedents, or the standards prohibiting war crimes. The assault on the US Judiciary, left unchecked means the American people are unconstitutionally denied a Republican form of government.

The Wecht case has ended, but the lessons are perpetual. The government has declined to prosecute, but this does not mean the court’s role in lawfully retaliating against the President, DOJ Staff, US Attorney, and FBI agents is over.

The FBI agents illegally tampered with the Wecht Jury. The Judicial Branch alone may define what “jury tampering” means; and promulgate new rules to punish the Executive Branch. The American public saw first hand how a President, US Attorney, Department of Justice, and FBI agents will abuse their authority, harm a jury, engage in illegal harassment, and defy a judicial branch order sealing juror names. The court made it clear to the government the jury members names were sealed; and the intent of the Court was to prevent jury members from being harassed. The US Attorney working in concert with the President, FBI, and Judicial Branch substantially ignored this court order; and did breach an important standard of conduct expected of legal counsel: the duty to respect the court.

Wecht Precedents

1. The Wecht Case creates a nexus for the judicial officers to expansively write new rules. The Wecht Jury tampering is precedent for the Judicial Officers (Judges) to make new rules punishing judicial-branch-associated personnel working for the President. The Judiciary, on accusation alone, may detain and punish US government officials for violating court orders. The Judiciary may reasonably start with a presumption of bad faith about the Executive Branch. It is up to the government to prove the US Attorneys and FBI agents possibly involved with any jury tampering are innocent or should enjoy a presumption of good faith. These Judicial rules springing from the Wecht Jury Tampering are not bound by any precedent. Court rules are no longer predictable; nor is there any binding requirement that the US Attorneys be given fair notice of rule changes. The “fair notice”-rules are not ones the President and Congress can compel the Judiciary to follow, only consider. It is the job of the President and his legal counsel to make his case before the court that these rules should not be immediately put into effect. The Judiciary may arbitrarily change rules with minimal notification to the US Attorneys. US Attorneys may be required to meet new competency standards of conduct independent of the States. The States may regulate the court officers; but these regulations do not bind the Federal Government to meet these lower standards. The Federal Courts may impose higher standards, as local rules direct, regardless what the Congress or President may say.

2. Some incorrectly believe the Judiciary only decides cases. This is wrong. The Judicial branch expansively asserts judicial power by promulgating local rulers, outside the Control of Congress. Because impeachment is off the able, the judges have no fear that their new rules will face any Congressional oversight, investigation, or proceeding before the Senate. This is a license for the Judiciary to follow the President’s lead and largely leave the Congressional committees in the dust as they ponder the weather. As a group, all the Federal Judges can collectively decide that they will no longer recognize only the American Bar Association standards, but require – as a local rule – additional attestations and legal education and certifications from the local US Attorney.

No Risk of Impeachment: Judicial Officers May Promulgate New Rules Without Fear of Legal Consequences

3. The Speaker (illegally) removed impeachment from the table. This means the Judicial Branch can do what they want without fear of any legal consequences. Now that impeachment is off the table, the Judicial branch has no fear in making new rules, ignoring precedent, and requiring the government to use its extensive legal tools in the DOJ OLC to argue their case. The Judges may, through their judicial power, may arrest US Attorneys by issuing contempt citations, and rely on information from defense counsel to issue arrest warrants against US Attorneys, FBI agents, and the President and Vice President for their illegal jury tampering and unlawful prosecutions through their abuse of Article II powers. The judicial branch is not required to meet DOJ case management statistics. This essentially turns the US Attorneys case management statistics upside down. The US Attorneys have one person to blame for their failed performance statistics: The President. Even if the Courts were to violate any law, precedent, or expectation of either the Congress or the President, the Judiciary has no fear of impeachment and may ignore these externally-imposed legal requirements. The President cannot credibly argue that he can ignore Congress; but bind the Courts to follow rules which the Judiciary finds to be less than interesting with respect to their Constitutional obligations outside the Executive or Legislative Branches.

Jury Tampering As A Special Judicial Legal Standard

4. The Court may broadly define “Jury Tampering” under the inherent judicial power of the courts to make rules regulating how judicial officers, court officers, and investigators conduct their affairs outside the court. The Judicial Branch alone may define what “Jury Tampering” means, regardless whether “Jury Tampering” is or isn’t a criminal violation under the US Code; It is irrelevant that the United States code may or may not define “Jury Tampering”. The Courts may self-delegate authority and judicial power to expansively define “Jury Tampering” to mean any violation of any court order sealing jury names; or in contacting any jury member before-during-or-after trial unless the Court expressly permits the US Attorney, FBI, or others to contact those jury members. The Congress and Vice President working in the Executive Branch have no power to dictate to the court how the Judicial Branch will define “jury tampering”.

5. When the court seals names, and US Attorneys, FBI agents, or others engage in illegal conduct in contacting those seated jurors – before, during, or after trial – the court is not required to wait for the Department of Justice to think about admonishing FBI agents or the US Attorney. The Court, through its inherent powers as a separate branch of government, may hold any US government employee in contempt of court, jail that employee for a reasonable time, and send the public the simple message: There will be no judicially-tolerated efforts to tamper with you after you have been released; and there is no prospect anyone will attempt to harass you after you are released because the legal consequences for tampering with you are serious.

6. The Court, in light of the Wecht Trial, may promulgate rules that will ban FBI agents from appearing before any witness during of after trial to prevent retaliation against citizens for their cooperation with the judicial branch. The court may rules may prohibit US attorneys from appearing to argue cases before that court; and substantially undermine the President’s ability to continue with illegal efforts to conduct information warfare against American civilians. The President could remedy this situation by seeking court-approved warrants. The President and US Attorneys, absent a warrant, are in no position to dictate to the court that the court must permit anyone into the well of the court to argue any case.

7. The Court may work with defense counsel to identify FBI agents and other US government officials who may have engaged in this misconduct to assist defense counsel in impeaching these witnesses.

Presidentially-directed Tampering Removes Speculative Defense Standards

8. There is nothing this President has not already done that would be a speculative consequences to this Judicial Rule making. Without impeachment of judicial officers, the President is only allowed to make illegal home raids, tamper with papers, and illegally tap judicial officers’ phones. This is not speculative, but certain. There are not new consequences that might result to dissuade judicial officers from expansively writing new rules that expansively assert judicial power against the Executive Branch officers.

The Wecht Sealant Rule

9. Any defendant that suspects – on a scintilla of evidence – that the US Attorney may violate any court order, may move with the court to demand a periodic written affidavit from the US Attorney attesting that they have no plan to violate any court order, rule; and that they have fully met their legal obligations to ensure all FBI agents under their control, or assigned indirectly to their jurisdiction, are not used for witness or jury tampering, as the court alone may define “jury tampering.”

Wecht Demonstration Rule

10. The US Attorney, FBI, and White House worked to tamper with jury members. The court may require a demonstration from the US Attorney, FBI, DOJ, and Attorney General that they are in compliance with their legal obligations under the US Constitution; have not engaged in any prohibited activity of interest to defense counsel; and have substantially complied with their war crimes reporting obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Absent this certification, the court is not required to permit any Executive Branch legal counsel to appear before the court. This requirement is satisfied when there is a showing of training plans, compliance procedures, and internal audits within the US Attorney, DOJ OLC, and FBI. Until these performance audit reports are independently verified by the court, the court may make adverse inferences and prohibit the executive from prosecuting cases.

Wecht Banishment Rule

11. This is a Judicial Rule created to ban all US Attorneys from arguing any case, until the US Attorney certifies under penalty of perjury that they have full briefed all US Attorney and FBI agents about the definition of a “sealed jury list.” The Wecht Banishment rule means all judicial officers may – without adequate notice – bar all US Attorneys from arguing any case, filing papers. The basis to bar all US Attorneys is from the FISA Court precedent. Judicial officers and FBI agents who misled the Court were barred. The FISA court specifically found that FBI agents had misled the court.

12. The Judicial Officers, not the ABA, define who may or may not appear before the Judicial Branch. The ABA does not control the Judiciary. The Judicial Power was not delegated to any US Attorney, or to any one specifically with the American Bar Association.

Wecht Slow Rolling Rule

13. US Attorneys have the burden to reargue why all precedents should apply; and the court may take their judicial time in considering whether to respond to the cases. Because impeachment is off the table, there is nothing the US Attorneys can do to force the judicial branch officers (judges) to hear any case, meet any DOJ performance metric, or take seriously any appeal from any US Attorney.

14. There is no legal requirement on the Judiciary in the Constitution that the Judicial Officers must recognize any of the Presidential nominations of Congressional appointments. The Court may view these as advisory; but the Congress and President may not dictate to the Court who they must allow into the court room. The Congressional-nominees/Presidential appointees are, for the purposes of the Judicial Branch, merely advisory appointments; but they do not bind the Judiciary to permit those US Attorneys to continue with the litigation.

Wecht Appearance Rule

15. The Constitution only delegates and identifies the Attorney General. The President and executive branch were never delegated any express power to use any US Attorney to argue any case. Until this constitutional question is resolved, the judicial branch may write new rules barring all US Attorneys from appearances.

16. All defendants, seeing that the cases are not timely getting prosecuted, may move to have their cases dismissed. The US government failing to comply with these news rules, and incapable of providing a coherent legal argument, is stuck with dismissed, not prosecuted cases.

Wecht Training Rule

17. The Judicial Officers may demand, within seven days from US Attorneys a training plan showing the court that the US Attorney remains in full compliance with their attorney standards of conduct; and provides the court and defense counsel a plan to ensure all FBI agents know to question whether they are being given inappropriate direction from anyone to tamper with jury members.

18. The Court may presume the FBI agents are lying when the FBI agents discuss with others the questions to ask of jury members, but claim that the FBI was acting on its own authority. Defense counsel may seek copies of the FBI working notes showing they were not engaged in lawful discussions with jury members, but attempting to harass jury members and substantially taint the independent of any future jury pool.

18. Any defendant in any other litigation may expansively apply all the lessons of the Wecht Case, and their counsel could discuss the following litigation strategy with their clients:

19. Question the integrity of the US Attorneys, and raise the prospect that politically-motivated prosecutions should be presumed in all cases, until the US Attorneys office, White House, and Attorney General provide written affidavits to the court that they are not aware of any conversation, plan, or scheme to corrupt justice, or otherwise engage in politically motivated prosecutions.

20. Once the court receives that affidavit, the court may review the Wecht Case, and demand further assurances; and invite defense counsel to file motions compelling the government provide assurances that the emails and other coordination with the President’s political party have in no way affected the decision to prosecute or not prosecute. These affidavits will remain under seal until there is a scintilla of evidence the US Attorneys have perjured themselves, and there is evidence through a war crimes trial that the President and others engaged in war crimes and political prosecutions to consolidate power.

21. The Judicial Branch is not required to hear evidence only about a specific case. The Court may review evidence from the Wecht Jury tampering and apply this to any future litigation. This evidence may be in the form of Congressional sworn testimony about misconduct of US government officials. The Wecht Case shows US Attorney, DOJ OLC staff, and court officers have substantially corrupted justice, engaged in political prosecutions, or organize themselves to hide evidence of war crimes which defense counsel should have had access as part of their defense planning.

22. Defense counsel may file motions to request the court review the following evidence from other courts, unrelated to this case:

A. Evidence of US Attorney political prosecutions, as a means to destroy the “good faith” presumption in re affidavits, FOIAs, or other Brady discovery;

B. Evidence from any case showing the FBI agents do engage in pre-jury-interview planning sessions to coordinate with the FBI, DOJ, US Attorneys, White House, and political parties’ questions not related to prosecution, but political objectives

C. Evidence US Attorneys, White House counsel, DOJ OLC staff, or other government attorneys have misled members of Congress, perjured themselves about presidential programs, or invoked legal theories contrary to the Constitution. This evidence may include emails, written papers, published news reports, or other writings the government official has published, written, or coordinated in final or draft.

D. Privilege is asserted, but it not a right the Judicial Branch is required to confer to the US Attorney, President, or any judicial officer. The court is not bound to any claim of executive privilege, where, as now, there is a reasonable presumption of criminal activity; the judicial branch may broadly encourage all defense counsel to invoke the crime-fraud exception to gain access to Presidential papers and other US Attorney documents substantially showing their client was prosecuted for partisan reasons.

Wecht Re-Arguing Rule

23. The Wecht Case shows us that the government will ignore rules. Consequently, the Judiciary may presume the executive is ignoring, or has plans to ignore all court rules, and require the executive to provide time certifications, affidavits, and compliance attestations.

24. The Executive has the burden to argue that court precedent should apply; but the judicial officers are not bound to precedent, and may ignore anything which may tip the balance unfairly to the government’s favor. Any past rule the court has passed does not have to be enforced, unless the President and his attorney general convince the court that the court should recognize that precedent as binding.

25. It took the President seven years to finally agree the Constitution applies. It might take seven years from the President to re-argue to the judicial branch why the judicial branch should believe any court rule is one the Judicial Branch should continue to respect. The burden is on the President and his legal advisor, but is not binding on the separate branch of government.

Wecht Burden of Proof Tests

26. If the US Attorneys, Executive, Attorney General, or other US executive branch officers in the Office of Vice President do not agree with the above judicial rules, they are out of luck and have no power to appeal these new rules.

27. The executive branch personnel have the burden of proof to show the court that these rules are unreasonable. The defense counsel may move to have a case dismissed when the government fails to meet its burden that it is competent, supportable, or legitimate in enforcing the laws of war, ensuring independence of the courts, or in substantially complying with war crimes obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Wecht Jury Tampering Test

28. Local courts may define jury tampering as impermissible any contact with jury members before, during of after trial. The court may consider, but is not required to use the Attorney standards of conduct, or FBI Manuals of Administrative Procedures when sanctioning Executive Branch personnel with banishment for their violation of court orders.

29. The Congress and President are expressly denied any power to review, comment, or adjust any court rules. The comments the Congress or President may make on these judicial rules are not binding; nor may the Congress or President rely on any legislative or executive rule, proclamation, order, or other communication method to dilute the effect of these judicial orders.

30. Judicial officers (judges) from multiple jurisdictions are allowed, without restraint to privately meet with their peers in the judicial branch to discuss, formulate plans, and develop common strategies to punish the Executive Branch personnel, US Attorneys, and other FBI agents who attempt to tamper with jury members before, during or after trial. The Congress and President are expressly denied any power to challenge these judicial rules, conference decisions; and they may not require anyone to produce any notes of these secret, deliberative meetings.

31. The Judicial officers (Judges) should move with full confidence that they have the full support of the American people in aggressively promulgating new rules, judicial orders, and court standards that substantially overhaul how the Executive Branch staff, US Attorneys, and AFBI agents are routinely subject to special court scrutiny, doubt, and burden of proof. The Courts have full support in denying the Executive any presumption f good faith when denying the President executive privilege; and may broadly use any standard of evidence when imposing judicial sanctions on anyone for violating, not complying with, or inducing others to violate any of the above judicial rules.

Wecht Defendant-Executive Balancing Rule

32. Because impeachment is no longer an option for the Congress, all Judicial officers should swiftly move to ignore all rules which are not convenient to the Judiciary; and would substantially put the executive on the same unequal footing as politically-targeted defendants. The Courts may promulgate without notice any standard, rule, or guide that will immediately subject the Executive, US Attorney, and FBI agents to the same disadvantage a defendant is subjected. The Judicial officers may broadly construe this rule to mean they have the sweeping judicial power to retaliate against the US Attorneys, FBI agents, or other Executive branch staff counsel using any lesson from any case in any future litigation, case, or other government-connected litigation. The Judiciary alone may decide when it will no longer expansively assert judicial power to punish the US Attorneys, FBI agents, and President for their tampering of the Wecht Jury members after they were released.

All lawyers are denied the right to make comments on this information on TPM.

This is TPM. It is meant for debate and you sir are not permitted to stop debate at all. If you wish to push such crazed ideas as you have and want to stifle debate, you should go to another website.

Simply put, your proclamations such as these have no place in TPM and if you feel compelled to continue to post them, you should remove yourself from TPM.