Monday, August 22, 2005

TREASONGATE: The Challenge of 18 USC 794...

[UPDATE: United States v. Morison is a district court decision, but it was upheld by the Supreme Court, Rehnquist delivered the decision]


“Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.”

That was Joe Wilson speaking to David Corn in
The Nation on July 16th.

Joe Wilson, if he does not want to remain looking like an obvious Bush facilitator of Treason, should demand the Bush administration be prosecuted under 18 USC 794 for Treason since that is the law which sent Aldrich Ames away to prison for life.


"Corn then published a detailed exploration of the law to ensure that other journalists, as well as regular readers of The Nation, understood all of the legalities involved."

(From Page 349 of Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth".)

David Corn, you are challenged to publish a genuine "detailed explopration of the law to ensure that other journalists, as well as regular readers of The Nation", understand all of the legalities involved, particularly 18 USC 794 which you have ignored?


thread at was locked yesterday when the moderators challenged Citizen Spook to provide a "reliable source" for my reporting.

DU, I have given two reliable sources:

Source #1: Title 18 of our United States Code, 18 USC 794. See
my analysis of it here

It's an impeccable source, but for some reason your site does not have any discussion or analysis on it. Why not?

Source #2: The District Court's decision in
United States v. Morison (upheld by the US Supreme Court)

I suggest you read my sources carefully and then report back to your readership with your own analysis.


Clifford May did an excellent job of
analyzing David Corn's outing of Plame's status, but May and the National Review have failed miserably to cover the applicable laws to the Treason before us, 18 USC 794. Why?


Don't get distracted by the pundits America. The law is the only source you need. Anybody who truly wishes to see the Bush administration and its facilitators pay for their Treasons against this country should analyze
18 USC 794 carefully and then ask why none of the pundits from the Conservative media or the Liberal media have brought a detailed, impartial analysis of this law to your attention.

The USA is the victim of Treason here, not the Wilson's. We suffer for this destruction of national intelligence assets. Our security has been challenged.

This is a very simple issue. We have laws against Treason, why won't the the main stream media or the main stream blogosphere discuss the law our Government has enacted to punish Treason?

There are other scandals that deserve your attention; election fraud, The Downing Street memo and the continuing Iraq war, but demanding a national debate on the violations of 18 USC 794 in the Plame leak and the
Khan leak outweigh those issues right now because convictions are easily attainable under 18 USC 794 based on just the facts we know.

Start there America, get the indictments sorted out through pressuring the media to cover the law, and the rats will roll over on each other faster than you can imagine.

The law is clear, concise and available to the Special Prosecutor and the sitting grand juries as well as future grand juries.

I also challenge all American citizens to learn about your Constitutional powers as the
Fourth Branch of US Government.

Citizen Spook's identity is irrelevant, as is the merit of any "political" analysis of 18 USC 794...the law stands alone. Media traitors can be located, spotted and outed based upon their decision to cover or not cover 18 USC 794 and United States v, Morison.

America, demand a national debate concerning these laws. Since the media was so driven to analyze the IIPA, why is that same media involved in a total black out of 18 USC 794?

If Joe Wilson and David Corn are not in cahoots with the White House, they can discredit Citizen Spook's allegations by publishing exhaustive analysis of 18 USC 794, discussing previous convictions under that law and and analyzing the line of cases that have used the law.

Friday, August 19, 2005

TREASONGATE: IN CAHOOTS -- How The White House, Wilson, Novak, Corn and Plame Conspired for Treason

[UPDATE: Aug. 20.2005, 10:12 a.m. Since I first posted this report last night, reader Ron has informed me that David Corn published, on August 8th, a watered down synthesis of previous Citizen Spook reports on the Controlling Laws of Treasongate. Corn did not mention, or link to, Citizen Spook. Also, comments at his site were mysteriously disabled. DEVELOPING.]

Actions speak. Words lie. Action follows motive. Motivation is a microscope. You must think like a spook in order to understand the totality of these crimes. This report will challenge you to focus like a genius intelligence operative, to look a few moves ahead...and behind.

We've been caught in a web of deceit, so intricate, so devious, so arrogant and dark that there may actually be no escape. If "we the people" don't make those responsible for Treasongate pay for their sins against this country, we deserve everything they've got planned for us down the road to perdition.


For the last two years, we've all heard about "the smear campaign" hurled upon Joe Wilson by the Bush administration to punish him for writing the New York Times oped concerning the fake Niger documents. Revenge and political payback is the motivation universally attributed to the Bush syndicate.

It's bullshit. Joe Wilson was not smeared. He went from relative obscurity to national fame, book deals, talk show circuit, hero status accepting, freedom fighting, whistleblowing, saintly coronation. None of it is deserved.

Joe Wilson is in cahoots with the Bush Administration along with David Corn, Bob Novak and Valerie Plame Wilson, a cast of spooks who have only just been outed with the writing of this article. They've carefully scripted this entire affair to shield themselves from prosecution for monolithic treasons against US citizens and our military. Treasongate, Rovegate, Leakgate, whatever you want to call it, is, in reality, an intricate version of hide and seek where the "perpetraitors" have been controlling both sides of the game.

Regardless of the crimes committed by this and past administrations, as long as their spin can divide the people on political lines, justice, true justice, will never be served. If the crime can be given a political spin, the perps can literally get away with any crime, even Treason. They've carefully crafted both sides of this national debate to give both liberal and conservative pundits enough ammunition to keep a heated firefight going in the media. The smokescreen generated by this firefight has diverted our attention from examining:

1. The controlling laws applicable to these facts.

2. The motivations of the Bush administration, Joe Wilson and his wife,
and the two news villains responsible for initiating this ruse; Bob
Novak, and David Corn.

3. The damage to our national security caused by the leaking of Plame's
name and front company (Brewster Jennings & Associates) as well as
the damage caused by other leaks which show a Bush Administration Modus
Operandi (MO) of outing intelligence assets for nefarious purposes.

Their media ruse has, so far, been a complete success. Not one major publication has examined the controlling laws, Espionage statutes found in 18 USC 793 and 794. They've steered the country away from analyzing Plame's outing as espionage by repeating ad nauseam that the
motivation for the leak was "political payback." This has enabled them to divide and conquer "we the people" along party lines.

Political payback can be spun, espionage cannot. This is why Joe Wilson, David Corn and all of the liberal media have steered wide of calling this leak exactly what it is, Treason:


The meticulous outing of Plame and the media circus that ensued was designed as a smokescreen to cloud the truth and the law while they exposed CIA networks operating to stop WMD proliferation. Genuine agents and sources were left out in the cold while targets were warned and allowed to escape.

This is not easy to comprehend. So it's imperative to suspend judgment while you examine this. You must be an impartial juror. Listen objectively to the facts. Analyze the application of those facts to the law. Consider the motives of those involved and then look for MO to back it up.


The one law everybody has heard of regarding this matter is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (IIPA). In my two part series, TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law

Part 1 Part 2, I explained that, despite the media feeding frenzy involved with analyzing the IIPA, it is totally irrelevant with regards to the Plame leak.

[I strongly urge the reader to carefully study my previous reports explaining these laws before continuing here.]

The IIPA is an intricate piece of work that has a ton of wiggle room while Title 18 of our United States Code, particularly 18 USC 793 and more importantly 794, the Espionage statutes, have virtually no wiggle room for the perpetraitors responsible for leaking Plame's identity (Novak) and her covert status (Corn).

Ever since July 16th 2003, when David Corn first discussed the applicability of the IIPA to these facts, the IIPA has been the sole focus of discussion in the main stream media and the blogosphere.

The concept that all of these spook perpetraitors put their faith in was that if Joe Wilson was talking about the IIPA as the controlling law, then the IIPA would be accepted, by the media and the people, as the controlling law, since Joe Wilson, more than anybody, would want to see the evil Bush administration put away for outing his CIA wife. And when Joe Wilson issued statements to the effect that conviction under the IIPA was probably not going to happen, the rest of us could just let this blow over while a few Bush operatives were given slaps on the wrist.

All the while, Joe Wilson was running protection for the leakers because Wilson and his wife are Bush administration double agent operatives who have something to hide, something big, something towering.


Let me give a short recap for those readers who are not aware of the analysis for
18 USC 794(b)

18 USC 794(b) carries a maximum penalty of death or life in prison.

18 USC 794(b) mandates prosecution of anybody who, in time of war, intentionally communicates information relating to the public defense which might be useful to the enemy.

Question 1: Were we in a time of war when CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson was outed?

Answer: Yes. Despite recent attempts by the Bush administration to shift the policy lingo from GWOT, "global war on terror", to GSAVE,"global struggle against violent extremism", we were "in time of war" back in June/July 2003. And our soldiers are still dying on the same battlefield today. We are still "in time of war". If you have any doubt, just ask the families of our soldiers who died that battlefield. Ask them if we were/are in a time of war. Next question.

Question 2: Was information that related to the public defense communicated?

Answer: The information communicated to Bob Novak outed a CIA operative who coordinated covert agents working on WMD proliferation issues. Nothing could be more related to the "public defense". The answer is yes.

Question 3: Was the information intentionally communicated to the enemy?

Answer: Federal case law has consistently held that there is no difference, for purposes of proving "intent", between communicating the relevant information to a spy and communicating it to the press, since the whole world will be notified of the information upon publication. The answer is yes.

Question 4: "Might" the information be useful to the enemy?

Answer: A CIA operative involved with WMD proliferation and the name of a CIA front company used for such intelligence purposes were exposed. This law does not require that the information communicated... must be useful... to the enemy, 18 USC 794(b) only requires that the information... might be useful... to the enemy. The answer is yes, the information might be useful to the enemy.

Question 5: Who is the enemy?

Answer: The terrorists.

Please note that the statute does not require the perp to communicate directly to the enemy, 794(b) only requires that the perp intends for the information to be communicated to the enemy.

There's no wiggle room. Everybody in the Government who holds a security clearance had to sign a
non-disclosure agreement which warns that they can be prosecuted under 18 USC 794 if they violate that agreement. Not that 794(b) requires the information communicated to be classified, it doesn't.

The non-disclosure agreement warns about violating 794(b), so let's not pretend it's an obscure law. Everybody involved was aware of it. This is the United States Code, federal law of the land.

Once you understand 18 USC 794(b), air tight convictions for the Plame leakers become apparent. There's nothing to argue about. There's no wiggle room. The law was drafted to stop espionage, to stop people from exposing our intelligence assets. Maybe you're familiar with them; the CIA, NSA, FBI, departments of our Government we the people pay hundreds of billions for, to protect us from being attacked here at home, and to protect our soldiers abroad.

18 USC 794 has been used to put traitors away for life.
It's the law of the land.

Their ruse involved spinning the Plame leak as revenge and political payback connecting it to the decision to go to war thereby causing "we the people" to become divided. Then they threw a complicated statute into the mix, the IIPA, which allows convincing arguments, both for and against conviction under these facts, so the political smokescreen expanded to an opaque impenetrable thickness.

The national debate that went into the IIPA was intense. Focus that same amount of media energy on 794(b), and there will be a genuine revolution in this country. Imagine the talking head pundits stuck for words, silenced by facts, unable to divide an educated population. Most Americans, spanning the entire political spectrum, are capable of understanding that these controlling federal laws, 18 USC 793 and 794, have been broken, if those laws were sufficiently explained to them.

Following such a national debate, US citizens will demand to know why the Bush administration risked prosecution under such punishing laws. And they will also demand to know why Joe Wilson hasn't been calling for prosecution under these laws.

Once we the people start asking the right questions, the Government and media spin trance fails, they lose control of our minds, and we begin to think for ourselves, to use our minds instead of allowing our minds be used by the enemy.

They created "wiggle room" where there was no wiggle room by guiding your attention, from both liberal and conservative media sources, to the irrelevant Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Violation of 18 USC 794(b) can lead to the death penalty or life in prison, a much greater punishment than under the IIPA. So you would expect that those involved with outing a CIA operative and a CIA front company might think twice about breaking this law. And this leads to
the following questions about motivation which really get to the heart of this intricate ruse:


No. They aren’t' that stupid. These are intelligent people who have procured the Executive Branch of the US Government. 18 USC 794 has put people like Aldrich Ames away for life. This is a very serious law. Nobody in the Bush administration was going to break it just to bitch
slap Joe Wilson. That's the fecal toast Joe Wilson and David Corn originally served over two years ago, a meal that has been uniformly consumed by America, so please don't eat it anymore. It's a lie, and a rather bad one at that.

Focus on the penalty; death or life in prison. The motivation of a bitch slap does not fit the crime. The Bush administration must have had a greater motivation to risk prosecution under 794(b).

Furthermore, they had to know they were turning Joe Wilson into a star the liberal media would canonize. They did no harm to Joe Wilson, and they did no harm to his wife. This so called outing" scandal is actually cover for their conspiratorial treason, the betrayal of her network and the work it was doing.

Valerie Plame Wilson = Double Agent

Plame and Wilson are double agents in the "Intelligence war" going on between the treasonous Bush administration and divisions of US Intelligence and the military.

The Plame/Wilson double agent status becomes obvious when you examine Joe Wilson's actions under the electron microscope of motivation:


“Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.”

That is a direct quote given by Joseph Wilson to David Corn for the infamous (and treasonous)
report published on July 16, 2003,in The Nation; wherein Corn leaked Plame's "undercover" status as a CIA officer.

"This is the stuff of...Aldrich Ames."

It's really quite an amazing quote which history may record as being the smoking dung gun that toppled this administration and put Joe Wilson and the other co-conspirators behind bars.

USA, you've been hoodwinked big time.

Aldrich Ames is serving life in prison for his violation of 18 USC 794. He leaked the identity of several NOC CIA Officers to the Soviets. So, Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, if you are so outraged at the Bush administration, why aren't you screaming for a prosecution of the
people responsible for outing your wife under the same statute? You've compared the crimes of Aldrich Ames to those involved with the outing of your wife, so why aren't you pounding your fist for the special prosecutor to invoke the same law which put Ames away for life? You've
never even mentioned it.


Wilson certainly can't claim ignorance of the law. He's issued detailed analysis of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, on the record, during a public Q&A at one of his glorious book signings,
recorded by William Kaminsky, wherein Wilson discussed the intricacies of the IIPA and explained in great detail that convictions under that act were unlikely. He exhibited a great knowledge of that law while forwarding the diversionary spin started by his pal, David

From Kaminsky's blog :

"Meeting Joe Wilson (Part 1 of 2)

On Thursday night, the venerable and most definitely left-leaning Harvard Book Store held a lecture/question and answer session/book signing event with Ambassador Joseph Wilson...

First of all, Ambassador Wilson has every confidence in the dedication and prosecutorial skills of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

However, Wilson concedes a point many of the Administration's defenders make: it will be extremely hard to convict anyone of violating the most serious (and most often discussed) of the applicable laws, namely the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (United States Code, Title 50, Sections 421-426). Rather, Wilson thought that a prosecutor wanting a winnable case would have to settle for the weaker charge of disclosure of classified information (United States Code, Title 18, Section 798)...While technically disclosure of classified information can be a felony carrying the same maximum penalty of a fine and 10
years imprisonment as violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it apparently can also be prosecuted as a misdemeanor charge, and this is what Wilson thought

Hey Joe, you're quick on your feet whipping out that 18 USC 798 softball law along with the IIPA, so why don't you flip a few sections back to 793 and 794?

Wilson might answer, "Well Spook, thing is, this was a smear, I tell ya. I was shmeered, Spook. They shmeered me, man. They wanted to hurt me and my CIA wife real bad because I'm an award winning courageous patriot who stood up to their forgeries and told the world from the
beacon of the New York Times. It's not espionage. It's a smear campaign. I don’t think we really need to distract the population with the Espionage act Spook, do we?"

Well, Joe, I think we do need to distract the population. I mean, after all, you told David Corn that one of our "star" intelligence assets was outed thereby crippling many operations, scattering agents to the four winds and possibly the grim reaper's door, crushing national security.

"This is the stuff of Aldrich Ames".

Sorry Joe, but motive, while an excellent tool of analysis, is irrelevant to the determination of
whether the Espionage laws were broken. The law doesn't give a rats ass what the Bush administration's motive was for breaking the law.

The law does not provide a motive defense. They can tell the judge and jury at trial, "Yeah, so we outed her network, but we did it to shmeer Joe Wilson, not to cause damage to national security." But the cold hard fact remains,18 USC 794 doesn't care. There's no "motive" requirement. Sorry Joe, this is treason. You said it yourself, "This is the stuff of Aldrich Ames". What an amazing quote.

The cold, made of steel, unbendable law, 18 USC 794, is the reason Wilson has been guiding American attention spans to the IIPA. As long as we were focused on the IIPA, convictions would be very hard to come by.

Wilson was running protection.

Back to Kaminsky's report on Wilson's book signing:

"Wilson offered two reasons for his pessimism:

1. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act explicitly says that it is a valid defense versus prosecution to claim an operative's identity has previously been revealed...

It is clear that the Administration's defenders intend to use this defense...

But anyways, when all is said and done, this isn't the main reason why Ambassador Wilson is pessimistic about the prospects of a successful prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Instead, his main reason is:

1. Right at its outset, the Act qualifies that disclosing a covert operative's identity is illegal only if it is done intentionally and in the knowledge that the government is still actively maintaining a cover for operative...

Wilson said he believed that anyone accused under the Act thus could successfully mount the defense that he or she knew only that Valerie Plame was employed by the CIA and not that the CIA actively maintained a cover (or covers) for her as a operative in the Clandestine Service who was active in the last 5 years."

Look at Wilson go. He's got that spin down pat. On the one hand, he's literally crying in public over the outing of his CIA wife, "If I could give you back your anonymity....", while on the other hand, he creates the Bush admin defense all in one gasp of legal puke. He exhibits a knowledge of various US Code as well as a perfect analysis of the IIPA, while steering the entire country away from the controlling law, 18 USC 794 and 793.

Have a look at Joe Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth", and look for any mention of 18 USC 793 or 794. It's not there.

His books starts with a section called, "Anatomy Of A Smear":

"...a vindictive government has used the press in order to try to destroy an opponent." (pg. 2)

The Plame leak only made the Bush administration appear guilty as sin regarding the Niger documents and the fraudulent reasons for going to war, and I submit to you that this is exactly what the Bush administration and its operatives intended. The decision to go to war was a political issue, and the country is divided along party lines, so it's safe for them to risk the appearance of guilt by "outing" Wilson's wife and looking guilty as long as Wilson, Corn and everybody else repeats the mantra that it was done for revenge, political payback, etc. But the true motivation was to stop the agents she was working with from gathering evidence of mass murder; past present and future.

To smear Wilson is ridiculous considering the possible penalty for Treason, and to smear him knowing it makes you look guilty of fixing the intelligence is even more insane unless that's exactly what you were trying to do...look insane.

To out Plame and smear Wilson as a smokescreen for a greater sin, a greater Treason, a Treason of past and future murder of innocent that is a motivation that warranted risking their violation of 18 USC 794.

Their gambit was centered on Wilson controlling the media circus, steering everybody towards the IIPA, and away from 18 USC 794.

If Wilson, cast in the starring role as the husband filled with anger for the damage and danger put on his wife, was talking about the IIPA, well then, who could argue with him? Who had more motivation for wanting the leakers put away than Joe Wilson?

Nobody,...if you believe this crap.

And Joe Wilson not only took the baton from David Corn regarding the IIPA, but he further protected the Bush leakers even from prosecution under that irrelevant law by stating his opinion that convictions were unlikely due to the "wiggle room" written into the IIPA.

Mr. Wilson, you brought up the name Aldrich Ames, so why don't you bring up the law he was convicted under? In the two plus years this script (and that is exactly what he's reading from) has been played out, you haven't mentioned the controlling law, 18 USC 794 and 793. You haven't called for the people responsible for outing your wife and her entire CIA network to be thrown in jail with Aldrich Ames for life. No, instead you've conspired to fool the country into burying its head in your smokescreen.

Chris Matthews told Joe Wilson that Karl Rove said, "Wilson's wife is fair game."

From Wilson's book, page 1:

" ' Wilson's wife is fair game.' Those are fighting words for any man..."

And you fight back with the lame Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Wilson? Your actions don't back up your words. Your motivation must be lacking since you could have responded in kind with your own fighting words. Had you responded as follows, perhaps we could believe you, Joe Wilson. Here's what you should have said:

"The people who outed my wife are traitors, no different than Aldrich
Ames who was convicted under 18 USC 794. They deserve to be put away
for life in the same cell block for Treason."

But you didn't say that Mr. Wilson. And if I'm wrong about you and your wife, let's see you start saying it. Get in your Jaguar and ride, bang the drums for Treason, Treason that exposed your wife endangering her life and the lives of her network. Your family was cast in the spotlight by the Bush administration who exposed your loved ones to dangerous covert agents the world over. Why aren't you demanding justice and prosecutions under 18 USC 794(b) for such a dastardly deed?

Wilson's book references the IIPA on pages; xxxviii-xxxix, xl, 4, 346, 349, 350-351, 358-360, 384-385, 388, 395-396, and 445. Do you know how many times 18 USC 793 and 794 are mentioned? None, nada, zero. Why do you think that is? Because Wilson never heard of these laws? No. This CIA couple know the law inside out. And they know the carnage that outing her caused to the operations and operatives she was overseeing, people that trusted her whose lives were in her hands.

From page 446 of Wilson's book:

"We worry about our personal security, but there is little we can do."

But nobody dared publish a photo of Plame...until she posed with her husband for the January '94 issue of Vanity Fair. Wasn't it bad enough that her name got out, that her front company was exposed? Why would she follow through by mugging for the camera in Vanity Fair? Isn't that just putting her in more jeopardy? Isn't that making it even easier for enemy agents both here and in foreign lands to reconcile her likeness?

You'd think, out of respect for her fellow agents she'd lay low and stay out of the spotlight, but "Valerie was always a star in her profession". (page 446)

Now more than ever.

It's open season on the NOCS she supervised, the NOCS out there in the field gathering evidence on who?

Who do you think?

From page 447 of Wilson's book:

"We had assumed that on the day the Novak article appeared, every intelligence office in Washington, and probably all those around the world, were running Valerie's name through their databases. Foreign intelligence services would not attack us, but they might as well threaten any contacts Valerie might have made in their countries, and they would certainly be eager to unearth operations she might have been involved in.

International terrorist organizations were a different story, however. There was a history of international terrorists attacking exposed officers."

So they go on the cover of Vanity Fair like this was a bad episode of Jane Bond.

And Wilson goes on the Daily Show for jokes with Jon Stewart. From page 358:

"Jon was so humorous that I found myself laughing heartily right along with the audience..."

From page 384:

"An officer had been exposed, an act that threatened many intelligence professionals."

It's hilarious, isn't it, Mr. Wilson?

In "The CIA at War", by Ronald Kessler, the Vanity Fair photo was discussed on pages 344-345:
"Their claims to have been victimized by the Bush white house were destroyed when they agreed to be photographed sitting in their Jaguar for the January issue of Vanity Fair. Wilson claimed that the fact that his forty-year old wife wore sunglasses and a scarf disguised her. But anyone she dealt with overseas could clearly recognize her..."

" 'They risked undermining any possible prosecution by their public statements and appearances,' said John L. Martin who, as Chief of the Justice Department's counterespionage section, was in charge of supervising leak investigations. 'The scarf and the sunglasses worn in the Vanity Fair picture was a sham.' "

"In fact, the CIA never would have given permission to appear in a photograph. No doubt because of that, she never asked. Agency officials were stunned."

"...Not only had Wilson and Plame subverted their own posturing as victims of the Bush White House, they had undermined the integrity of the CIA's clandestine program to collect intelligence using covert officers. If a CIA officer took her duty to remain in a clandestine role so lightly it could make agents leery of risking their lives to provide intelligence to other CIA officers."

Wilson and Plame behaved as if they were trying to make the Bush administration's case for a defense to the IIPA. By showing up in public as they have done, they lend credence to the Bush talking points which argue that Plame's status at the CIA was not covert and that blowing her cover was no big deal. Their gambit was based on the arrogant self belief they could trick the nation into believing its laws against espionage don't exist.

Under 18 USC 794, it doesn't matter if she was covert, it only matters whether her name and position were "related to the public defense". Don't forget that State Department memo though. The paragraph her name appeared in was marked "(S)" for secret, and according to a Bush Executive order, that meant her name and job were classified info. The memo is prima facie proof of her status.

Instpundit(December 3rd, 2003) has some interesting insights about the actions of Plame/Wilson:


Former ambassador Joseph Wilson has been quite protective of his wife, Valerie Plame, in the weeks since her cover as a CIA operative was blown.

'My wife has made it very clear that -- she has authorized me to say this -- she would rather chop off her right arm than say anything to the press and she will not allow herself to be photographed,' he declared in October on 'Meet the Press'.

But that was before Vanity Fair came calling.

The January issue features a two-page photo of Wilson and the woman the magazine calls 'the most famous female spy in America,' a 'slim 40-year-old with white-blond hair and a big, bright smile.' They are sitting in their Jaguar...

Sorry -- if you're really an undercover spy, and really worried about national security, you don't do this sort of thing...

Serious people don't do self-promoting spreads in Vanity Fair where important questions of national security are involved...Not knowing the underlying facts, I have to make my judgment by the behavior of the parties. And judging from that, the scandal is bogus, and Wilson is a self-promoter who can't be trusted. That's my judgment on this matter. Yours, of course, may vary. But if you see Wilson as anything other than a cheesy opportunist, well, then yours really varies...."

Mine really does vary, I see him as a facilitator of Treason, the ringleader on an intricate plot to both expose Plame's WMD network and to also protect her and the Bush administration from serious legal scrutiny of their collective Treason.

The Vanity Fair publicity, the book deal, the Daily Show appearance, the awards he's accepted...all of it was designed by these spooks to provide cover under the IIPA to distract those honest, conservative leaning citizens and media personnel, who might have been sympathetic to Plame being exposed.

The actions of Wilson, despite his tough words, have been calculated to divide the left and the right. You have to give these spooks credit for bravado and hutzpa.

More from Instapundit:

"Tom Maguire says I told you so. He also notes that saying that Wilson is bogus isn't quite the same as saying that the scandal is bogus. I guess that's right, in theory. But the claim that Plame was endangered is what drove this scandal, and it came from Wilson, who seems to be, well, bogus... I suppose it's still theoretically possible that somebody in the White House deliberately and illegally outed Plame as a way of getting revenge on Wilson for his dumb -- and deeply unprofessional -- oped about his "mission" to Niger. But if you assume that nothing that Wilson says can be relied on because he's a self-promoter who'll stretch a fact to get attention, which seems extremely plausible, then you're not left with much evidence. And the
Wilson/Plame couple certainly isn't acting like Plame's life is in danger. They're acting like opportunists milking their 15 minutes and hoping for a lucrative book contract. So pardon me if I conclude that their actions speak louder than Wilson's words..."

Wilson and Plame engaged in a course of action that was designed to discredit the investigation.

Are you starting to get the picture?


Corn was the first person to put the IIPA in the public eye. David Corn was now on my radar. I examined Wilson's book and found out, for the first time, that David Corn has been a big player in Treasongate. From The Politics of Truth, page 4:

"David Corn, from The Nation magazine, had alerted me and later written the first article pointing out that the disclosure by way of the Novak article might have violated the 1982 IIPA. But whether illegal or not, it was still an unwelcome intrusion into my wife's private life..."

So David Corn was the first pawn used to disseminate the spin that the IIPA was the controlling law. And look at Wilson sew the subtle innuendo "whether it was illegal or not." On page 349, Wilson explains Corn's purpose:

"Corn then published a detailed exploration of the law to ensure that other journalists, as well as regular readers of The Nation, understood all of the legalities involved."

That's some damning evidence right there. Because we know that statement is a bold faced lie carefully designed to continue the illusion that the IIPA was the controlling law.


There’s more to Corn and The Nation than meets the eye. "Nobody owns The Nation" says the commercial being aired on Air America Radio. Bullshit.

The Nation also held a special function to present Joe Wilson with the first Ron Ridenhour award for Truth-Telling. It's just so damn transparent.

Clifford May's article,
"Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?" published in National Review
online, July 15th 2005, makes a strong case that, while Novak was the first person to expose "Wilson's wife", Corn is actually the journalist responsible for first publishing Plame's undercover/covert status:

"This just in: Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA.

Read— or reread — his column from July 14, 2003. All Novak reports is that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson is 'an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction'...

So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself. Let me walk you through the steps that lead to this conclusion.

The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: 'Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?'

Since Novak did not report that Plame was 'working covertly' how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing?

Corn does not tell his readers and he has responded to a query from me only by pointing out that he was asking a question, not making a 'statement of fact.' But in the article, he asserts that Novak 'outed' Plame 'as an undercover CIA officer.' Again, Novak did not do that.
Rather, it is Corn who is, apparently for the first time, 'outing' Plame’s 'undercover' status.

Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, 'I will not answer questions about my wife.' Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn’s questions about his wife — after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background? Read the rest of Corn’s piece and it’s difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides — and he provides much more information than Novak revealed...

On what basis could Corn 'assume' that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a 'top-secret' operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been 'outed' in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column...

The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson — to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own.

Corn’s article then goes on to provide specific details about Plame’s undercover work, her 'dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material.' But how does Corn know about that? From what source could he have learned it?"

Don't misinterpret the meaning of Corn's involvement. Novak is not off the hook, he's responsible under 18 USC 794(b) for intentionally communicating information, related to the public defense, to the enemy, in a time of war, and he's also guilty of violating 18 USC 794(c) for
"conspiracy" to violate 18 USC 794(b), so he's in big trouble.

Corn's July 16th report, wherein he outed Plame's status as an "undercover CIA officer", puts him on the hook for violation of 18 USC 794(b) and (c) as well, since Plame's "status", that of "undercover CIA officer", was first published by Corn, not Novak.

Corn was the media ringleader on the left. Novak held that title on the right. And together they pulled the wool over the eyes of the Nation.

Moreover, it's no defense under 18 USC 793 and 794 that the perp have knowledge that the information communicated was officially classified as being "Secret" as long as the information was "related to the public defense" and was intentionally communicated to the enemy, in a time of war.

Also, federal case law, particularly
US v. Morison, holds that First Amendment "freedom of the press" arguments are not a defense for violators of the Espionage statutes, 793 and 794. Corn and Novak are both guilty of Treason, if not directly under 794(b), indirectly, under 794(c) for conspiracy.

Clifford May raised another interesting question:

"Corn concludes that Plame’s career 'has been destroyed by the Bush administration.' And here he does, finally, quote Wilson directly. Wilson says: 'Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been
associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.'

Corn has assured us several times that Wilson refused to answer
questions about his wife, refused to confirm or deny that she worked for the CIA, refused to acknowledge whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee. But he is willing to say on the record that 'naming her this way' was an act of treachery? That’s not talking about his wife? That’s not providing confirmation? There is only one way to interpret this: Wilson did indeed talk about his wife, her work as a secret agent, and other matters to Corn (and perhaps others?) on a confidential basis.

If Wilson did tell Corn that his wife was an undercover agent, did he commit a crime? I don’t claim to know. But the charge that someone committed a crime by naming Plame as a covert agent was also made by Corn, apparently for the first time, in this same article. No doubt, the independent prosecutor and the grand jury will sort it out."

It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. Who will turn (has turned?) State's evidence first, second, third?

Valerie Plame will be the toughest conviction in this treason conspiracy. I suppose a creative prosecutor, if he establishes that Plame's likeness was information related to the public defense, could successfully prosecute her for transmitting that information to the enemy by agreeing to be photographed for the cover of Vanity Fair. If Fitzgerald were to bring witnesses from the CIA to testify that they never would have given her permission to be photographed for the cover
of a major magazine, and those witnesses could bring evidence that her likeness "might be used", or was used, by the enemy, she could be prosecuted under 18 USC 793 and 794(b) and (c).


Daithí Mac Lochlainn of
Melbourne Indymedia; first alerted me to the Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan leak situation. Daithi is organizing a petition to gather support insisting that the Government investigate this incredible treason.

Justin Raimondo of
>; has written a very interesting report on that leak: Who 'Outed' Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan?:

"Khan, dubbed a 'computer geek' on account of his technical prowess, functioned as a one-man information hub for Al Qaeda, coordinating and forwarding messages between the top leadership and Bin Laden's foot-soldiers worldwide. Once captured, Khan 'flipped' and agreed to cooperate. CIA interrogators had him sending emails to his former confederates all day Sunday and Monday of last week, and getting back encrypted replies. On Monday morning, however, the Times came out with its story, naming Khan and reporting his disclosures as the real basis of the code orange security alerts issued by Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge. The Times cited both Pakistani and U.S. government officials.

It is hard to know what to make of this. Either these unidentified officials had certain knowledge that Bin Laden's New York Times subscription had run out, or else someone deliberately sabotaged a top secret anti-terrorist operation while it was in progress.

As is so often the case with this administration, one is faced with the question: is it incompetence, or is it treason?"

It's treason. Stop saying it's incompetence. Don't be naive. They hijacked the Executive Branch. They're cold, calculated, evil geniuses.

" '[CNN's Wolf] Blitzer then revealed that he had discussed the Khan case with U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on background. He reported that she had admitted that the Bush
administration had in fact revealed Khan's name to the press. She said she did not know if Khan was a double agent working for the Pakistani government.'

What a profoundly weird remark...

What I'd like to know, however, is who is working as a double agent inside our own government? Because someone has sure sabotaged the hunt for Bin Laden and his cohorts just as effectively as if they'd been working for the Islamists."

Rice admits they leaked Khan's name. Leaking is their MO. By admitting the leak, she admitted treason under 18 USC 794 (and 793).

Too bad for Condi et als that the information they leaked was related to the public defense and might be useful to the enemy. In this case, "might have" isn't even an issue -- it was useful to the enemy. And it's important to highlight the fact that 18 USC 794 doesn't require the information to be in the form of a covert operative, or anything specific, as is required by the IIPA. It only requires "information" be


There are some very strong indications.

Roger Payne's Blog; of August 5th, 2005, discusses the Khan leak and mentions a very interesting quote by Joe Klein writing for Time Magazine:

Joe Klein reported ; in Time Magazine, June 26, 2004 that Plame 'may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components.'

A WMD sting? Really? Now, that's interesting."

This ties in with Mark Shapiro's report for Mother Jones; concerning Asher Karni's arrest and coming prosecution for trafficking in WMD components. (Read that article before continuing here.)

From Shapiro's report:

"But in March, anonymous law enforcement officials complained to the Los Angeles Times that the State Department--afraid of offending Pakistan, its partner in the war on terror--had blocked agents from the Commerce and Homeland Security departments from pursuing those leads and going to Pakistan to interview Khan and others."

Valerie Plame, Able Danger, John O'Neil, Sibel Edmonds. The Bush Administration has consistently stopped our intelligence departments from doing their job.

MOTIVE? Treason.

Shapiro reports that anonymous law enforcement officials complained to the LA Times that the State Department blocked them from investigating leads. But they weren't able to stop the intelligence this time.

More from Shapiro's report:

"Ultimately, Karni was tripped up not by the system, but by an odd bit of serendipity: a mysterious individual who, starting in the summer of 2003, guided investigators along Karni's labyrinthine trail. The government's complaint against Karni is peppered with references to the
'anonymous source in South Africa' who clued them in to the 'possible diversion of U.S. origin equipment'."

Wayne Madsen<; offered the following commentary for; in an extensive report about the Asher Karni situation:

"It is no coincidence that FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds uncovered nuclear material and narcotics trafficking involving Turkish intermediaries with ties to Israel at the same time Brewster Jennings and the CIA's Counter Proliferation Division was hot on the trail of nuclear proliferations tied to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon and the A. Q. Khan network of Pakistan.

An arrest in early 2004 points to the links between Israeli agents and Islamist groups bent on producing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. According to intelligence sources, this was a network that was a major focus of Edmonds' and Valerie Plame Wilson's

Karni's e-mail traffic to and from Khan was being intercepted by a covert agent in South Africa and being forwarded to U.S. authorities. It is not known whether the covert agent was a Brewster Jennings' asset but it would not be surprising considering Karni was an important link in the A. Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network...

According to FBI insiders, wiretaps of phone calls in the Giza-Bilmen-Karni smuggling ring yielded the name Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense for Plans and Policy and one of Donald Rumsfeld's chief advisers, and Turkish MIT intelligence members of the Turkish American Council."

It will be interesting to see who decides to cooperate with Patrick Fitzgerald as heads begin to roll and testimony is traded for immunity.

By Citizen Spook


Tuesday, August 16, 2005

TREASONGATE: Total Media BLACK OUT of 18 USC 794, Federal Espionage Statute

In my two part series, TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law,
Part 1 Part 2 I discussed the fact that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is virtually irrelevant as to the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation. I focussed on the applicability to this fact pattern of 18 USC 793 and 794, the espionage statutes of the United States Code.

Let's go back now, back to the beginning of this affair. Ever since this thing hit the news with gusto only equalled by Monica's dress, we have seen, heard and been witness to a main stream media and main stream blogosphere feeding frenzy of pundits politically analyzing the irrelevant IIPA. What a time they were having until Citizen Spook came along and outed their ruse.

And what timing that the AIPAC indictments should come out a few days after Citizen Spook published this anaylsis, (see
TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law, Part 2: THE DEATH PENALTY, 18 USC 794 and the shift from GWOT to GSAVE ). Those indictments were based on 18 USC 793.

But more interesting and more juicy for the media is the simple application of 18 USC 794(b) which provided for the death penalty or life in prison for perpetraitors of espionage "in time of war".

We discussed the diplomatic policy shift from GWOT, global war on terrorism, to GSAVE, global struggle against violent extremism, and how that shift may be evidence of the Bush admin having worries about prosectuion under the controlling espionage laws.

We discussed that 794(b) is met under this fact pattern of the Plame affair since it only requires that the information communicated by the perp be "related to the public defense" and that the perp must intend for that info to be communicated to the "enemy". We distinguised between the term "enemy" and the term "foreign nation" because "enemy" is much broader and does include "the terrorists".

We also discussed that federal case law has held that giving the relevant info to the press is no different than giving it directly to a spy for purposes of the intent requirement of that law.

So why hasn't the main stream media and most of the blogosphere picked up on this story?


I submit that you may begin to "out" everybody in the media and blogosphere based upon their decision to cover 18 USC 794 or not to cover it.

Those who don't cover it, are knowingly or unknowingly, aiding and abetting treason. Coverage of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was exhaustive, from CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the liberal blogs, the conservative blogs, etc. It was everywhere as the debate raged on about what was classified and who knew what at what time.

Crapola was fed to the masses. The IIPA is not the espionage act and does not lead to treason convictions. C'mon people, we have a little body of law which is called


Let's use it.

Many small web blogs did cover my report on 18 USC 794, and for that, we the people, owe them a debt of gratitude. The only main stream alternative web site which covered my report on 18 USC 794 and the death penalty was
Jeff Rense. Rense had an entire section based upon TREASONGATE, which linked to four of my reports. That section has now been removed at I dont know why, but I've written Jeff and asked him if there was a problem.

But here we have the biggest story in US history. Treason was perpetrated on this country by the White House. We know the memo listed Plame's ID as "secret" and that classification is prima facia proof of how important it was to national security. She was working on WMD. All of the requirements of 18 USC 794(b) have been met with much more convincing power than under the IIPA, so why has our very own United States Code been ignored.

It's frightening to finally see how deep the rabbit hole goes isn't it.

This information, this law, this US Code, is not speculation or theory. This is the law and it's rock solid.

Where is the press now?
Where is the blogosphere?
Where is the feeding frenzy?
We had it for the IIPA, but for our very own US Code, it's gone, voila.

You knew the info is being controlled, but now you know that it's infected many of your favorite blogs and so called liberal journalists. We've given them a story here at Citizen Spook. Why aren't they running with it?

It's a simple Code, much easier to explain to the people than the IIPA, but it's not as easy to spin and argue about. It's clear, the White House is guilty as sin under 18 USC 794 (and 793) and the penalty is frightening to them.

Take over the blogs.
Take over the comments.
Write letters to the editor.

Where are the big time liberal pundits who are supposed to be fighting against this administration?

Where is the Conyers Blog?
Where is Raw Story?
Where is The Brad Blog?
Where is Daily Kos?
Where is The Huffington Post?
Where is Air America Radio?

Yes, the rabbit hole is deep, but it ends right here.

If the same amount of energy that went into the analysis of the IIPA was applied to 18 USC 794, the White House would be in serious trouble and would be forced to change their plans. They wouldn't have the same time they have now, time to create intricate diversions, time to commit more treason.

America, you have the means to fight this information war and you have the means to demand the media step up and tell the people what laws have been broken. And in doing this you can make them squirm, and you can force their hand and make them act with less time to plan. By exposing the truth, you force them to move faster, to rush their plans and in doing that they are more prone to make a mistake.

Nobody does anything as thorough when they are rushing, compared to when they have time to plot. By ignoring discussion about 18 USC 794 and the death penalty or life in prison, the main stream media and blogosphere are aiding and abetting the enemy by giving it time and resources to plot further treason.

The IIPA discussion was a calculated ruse designed to distract you from the real controlling law, 18 USC 793 and 794.

What are you going to do about it America?

Make some noise, make a lot of noise. If you don't, you have nothing to complain about when they survive this and thereafter bring you tyranny beyond your vision.

What doesn't kill them (by this I mean the law) makes them stronger. They destroyed a network of USA intelligence operations, operations that must have been getting close to uncovering treason worse than the treason they committed by outing Plame and Brewster Jennings et als.

This is war people. There are no civilians in an information war. You're either for the truth and the law, or your against it.

by Citizen Spook


coming soon: Citizen Spook on "Treasongate Deciphered", this will blow your mind.

Sunday, August 14, 2005

TREASONGATE: The Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government

If Patrick Fitzgerald is somehow illegally removed as Special Counsel in the Treasongate proceedings, the grand jury(s) he has impaneled will serve at the mercy of Fitzgerald's replacement, an individual who will have been brought in to shield the Bush administration from criminal prosecution for its many treasons. If that grand jury is aware of their true Constitutional power, it's possible they might stand up, fight, and win a legal battle that is long overdue.

Furthermore, all of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.

So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.

The Constitutional power of "we the people" sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.

Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return "presentments" on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.

Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:


My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won't take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we'll see what went wrong and how to correct it.


I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."

The 5th Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :

"An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:

'A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.' "

Back to the Creighton Law Review:

"A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."

So, it's clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won't be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court's attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:

"In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language."[88]"

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

"An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment..."

No mention of "presentments" can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."

The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:

"[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

'There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.' "

That's a fascinating statement: "Retention might encourage...the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation." God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.

And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, "runaway grand jury", which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in "checks and balances".

The lie couldn't be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:

"Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:

'A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.' [7]

What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.

By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):

'At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or
permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.' Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even disimpanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion."

Now let me add my two cents to this argument:

Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of "presentments" (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made "illegal" in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments "illegal", although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let's look at Note 4 again:

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."

The key word is, "obsolete". Obsolete means "outmoded", or "not in use anymore", but it does not mean "abolished" or "illegal". And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of "we the people", and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.

Let's look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:


"Finally, federal grand juries' subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor's consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system."

Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, "[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments"? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was "obsolete". First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for "presentments", then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.

Regardless, it's irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention "presentments". Note 4 simply states that "presentments" allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become "obsolete", or outmoded, which is not to say that they were "eliminated". Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be "eliminated" from the Constitution by an administrative note.

The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of "presentments" became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:

"Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors..."

The FRCP did not make it "illegal for all practical purposes". That's patently false. I don't know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician's assistant, but I can't imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break.

But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.

But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.

Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:

"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by "a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."

The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, "The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day." Take that Note 4!

The wonderful irony of the situation concerns the ultimate neocon Justice, one known as Antonin Scalia, who effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

"'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "

I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context
necessary and Constitutionally mandated to "we the people", THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and "we the people" when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, " a constitutional fixture in its own right". Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.

Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside..." Id.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] "

This miraculous quote says it all, "...the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.

The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the "buffer between the Government and the people."

Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin'.

by Citizen Spook


TREASONGATE:MI6 Chicago Subway Bomb Scare UPDATE

Please see PART 1 and PART 2 of this series for the recap.

On August 2nd, I called the US Marshal's Office in the Dirksen Federal Courthouse and asked for the press relations department. I didn't know whether they had a media relations person, but they transferred me to an answering machine and I left a message asking for information concerning whether or not there had been an evacuation of the Dirksen building on July 18th, 2005. I also asked if there had been any bomb threats or fire drills on that day as well as July 29th.

I've been waiting for a response, but as of today the media relations person has not got in touch.

Back on August 2nd, I also spoke with four other employees at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse.

The duty paralegal said he was not in on July 18th and July 29th.

I introduced myself as blogger/journalist. The receptionist at the main number for the courthouse was very cagy:

CS: Was there an evacuation at the courthouse due to a bomb threat on July 18th or July 29th?

Female Receptionist: I'm sorry sir, you have to speak to the paralegal.

CS: This has nothing to do with the paralegal, I just want to know if the building was evacuated.

Female Receptionist: I'm sorry sir, I don't know.

CS: Did you report to work at the courthouse on those days?

Female Receptionist: I don't remember sir.

CS: You don't rember if you were at work, or you don't remember if there was an evacuation or bomb threat?

Female Receptionist: I took some days off recently, maybe I wasn't here.

CS: July 29th was only four days ago, can't you remember if you went to work four days ago?

Female Receptionist: No sir, I can't remember. I told you, I don't know. Would you like to be transferred to the duty paralegal?

CS: The whole Red line was shut down. You don't remember that happening?

She hung up.

I then called the US Marshal's office and spoke to a female receptionist there. I introduced myself, again, as a blogger/journalist:

CS: Can you tell me if there were any bomb threats or evacuations for any reason at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse on July 18th or July 29th?

US Marhsal Operator: I believe...ah, I don't know sir.

CS: Were you at work?

US Marshal Operator: No, I wasn't here. Let me transfer you.

That got my attention because I thought she was going to finish her sentence, but then she stopped herself.

She transferred me to Melody Waldren, the Supervisor of Warrants for the US Marshal's office:

CS: Can you tell me if there were any bomb threats or evacuations for any reason at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse on July 18th or July 29th?

Woldren: Not that I am aware of.

CS: Was the US Marshal's office involved in a shoot out with British MI6 agents trying to bomb the Red line just below the Dirksen Federal Courthouse on July 18th?

Waldren: No, sir.

CS: Were you aware of the bomb threat in the Red line on July 18th which caused the most CTA travel chaos in the last ten years?

Woldren: No, sir. I don't know anything about it.

She didn't know about the CTA Red line shut down although it's been established from many eyewitness sources (see parts 1 and 2) that Chicago Police were all over that part of town standing guard at Red line entrances.

Tom Flocco did a radio interview on August 7th with WLW 700 AM, a clear channel station. A caller asked Flocco about the July 18th subway bomb story and then related an incident that happened to him on Saturday July 23rd in Chicago.

The caller said that he was at the intersection of Clark and Adams, the block where the Dirksen building is located that afternoon. He said there were barricades up on that block. The caller asked some people what was going on, and they told him, "They're filming a movie."

When he returned from the lake at 2:30 p.m., a large haze of smoke surrounded the Dirksen building. He said two men were standing at the barricades wearing orange vests and they told him to move along quickly as he waited for the light to change. He was under the impression that the men wanted him out of there fast.

I also never received an email from the CTA with copies of the "Customer Alerts" they published on July 18th and July 29th as I requested.


by Citizen Spook


Citizen Spook was spooked....

[UPDATE: August 16, 2005, 1:00p.m.

Somebody used my e mail account, to open a Paypal account. I just found out about this. Obviously, it's an uncomortable feeling. But it tells me I am stepping on the wrong toes. The information war rages on.]

Citizen Spook is no longer on the run. I was "spooked" at a public library while trying to post to the blog of a heavyweight "left wing" journalist/double agent. This will be the subject matter of a pending Citizen Spook report. This report will expose the Treasongate/Plame outing unlike anything else you have read. Citizen Spook has deciphered the hidden code of Treasongate.

I am now back at home near friends and family in a major metropolitan area where I will be sure to have my mug logged into the system regularly (for obvious reasons). Citizen Spook is a pacifist who renounces all forms of violence. The revolution can be won with words and the law, which is on our side. I believe in the Constitution. I also believe that the majority of our local, state and federal law enforcement services, as well as our military, are brave patriots who will never be corrupted by the tyrannical neocon fascist regime. Unfortunately, the chain of command has been hijacked by an illegal junta, so it is our job to educate our fellow citizens to the law. This is the only role Citizen Spook seeks to play -- educator of laws and facts. There are thousands of public internet access sites within 100 miles of where I live. I intend to use every one of them to bring you the truth, facts and law in simple language.

Citizen Spook