Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey reacts to plan to try 9/11 suspects in civilian court

(I tried to embed this but it didn’t work.  Please go watch the video first.  Thanks.)

I hope you caught one very important thing former AG Mukasey said: Bin Laden escaped from the Sudan to Afghanistan specifically based on information from the trial of the Mad Sheik.  Bin Laden also used information from the trial to plan the later and much more successful 9.11.2001 attack on the WTC.

Do any of you think that the trial of KSM and the other co-conspirators of 9/11 will not be a much more advantageous information gathering opportunity for Al Qaida?  Oh, heck yeah.

I’ve also be wondering if there isn’t also an Al Magrahi kind of deal going on here.

1.  “The Real Reason Only Five Detainees Are Coming to New York?

Is it just a coincidence that the five detainees who have indicated they intend to plead guilty are going to New York, but the ones that are fighting the charges are getting military commissions?”

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21859

2.  “Mukasey: ‘very high’ risk of attack over NYC 9/11 trial

“The [Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan] is a very secure place….Is it secure? Of course, it’s secure. They’re not going to escape,” Mukasey told a conference of the Federalist Society. “The question is not whether they’re going to escape. The question is whether, not only that particular facility, but the city [at] large, will then become the focus for mischief in the form of murder by adherents of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed–whether this raises the odds that it will. I would suggest to you that it raises them very high.”
…
The Man Is A Sociopath

Mukasey wasn’t afraid that torture would cause a terrorist attack when he was brown nosing for the Bush dictatorship!

Mukasey was the judge that covered up the FBI’s involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing. The bomb that went off was made by the FBI!”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21858

3.  What awful news:

“The Pentagon’s Long-Term Plan to Get Back on Campus

The military wants to integrate itself into campus life and therefore gain routine access to rank-and file students to recruit regular soldiers

If the wrestling entertainment conglomerate, WWE, tried to set up a “wrestling” curriculum on a college campus, replete with course credit, training in how to become a professional wrestler, special graduation ceremonies, with Hall of Fame wrestlers Bobo Brazil and “Stone Cold” Steve Austin as featured faculty teaching the history and strategy of the sport, it would be hilarious. But when the military says it wants to purchase a piece of the university and use it to recruit and train its officers, with full certification as a legitimate university curriculum, we are expected (even by the New York Times) to speak with reverence about how honored we are to host them.
…
Beyond direct access to the officers-in-training and the enlistees in waiting, ROTC programs on the campus allow the military to burnish its image while presenting its distinct point of view about national and global issues to the campus. The most outrageous aspect of this is that the university gives students credit toward their degrees for learning military discipline and absorbing military propaganda, but the military’s self promotion extends well beyond their formal classrooms. Officers are given “tours of duty” on the campus — with all the rights and privileges (however meager) attendant with faculty status — where they serve as instructors of for-credit classes, participate in campus intellectual and social life, and present viewpoints dictated by the Department of Defense in various forums that confer upon them the imprimatur of scholarly respect.

As far as I know, ROTC is the only program on university campuses that gives credit for courses that are not designed by qualified scholars and not taught by qualified scholars, and whose instructors are selected by an outside organization who also pays them and controls their lives. The instructors are under orders to teach specific content that has never been validated through any scholarly process and which would fail any such test. And the students subjected to this indoctrination are told by the University that this content is co-equal to other courses and given credit for taking them. And, unlike other courses of study, they are honored for completing this alien curriculum with high profile ceremonies on the campus which are attended and validated by the top officials of the University.”

http://www.alternet.org/rights/143947

4.  “Predictably, Republican critics vowed to fight the decision, since they much prefer to hold people forever without trial while torturing them, sort of the way some English kings did in North America before there was that pesky American constitution. In fact, on a whole range of issues, the contemporary Republican Party is a party of medieval romanticism. Its disquisitions on when the human person begins are theological in character and rooted in assumptions even a lot of medievals would have questioned. Its faith that bankers would never steal from us and so do not need to be regulated is a form of mysticism that medievals would have applied to saints. And its fascination with arbitrary arrest and imprisonment and with torture more recalls the star chambers of yore than the deliberations at Philadelphia over 200 years ago.”

http://www.juancole.com/

5.  “Would Our Government Really Start a War to Try to Stimulate the Economy?”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/11/would-government-really-start-war-to.html

6.  “Hayek: “Emergencies Have Always Been the Pretext on Which the Safeguards of Individual Liberty Have Eroded”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/11/hayek-emergencies-have-always-been.html

7.  “U.S.: Army Sends Infant to Protective Services, Mom to Afghanistan”

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16083

8.  “The Disintegration of Yugoslavia

It should be realized that following the collapse of the eastern bloc and the unification of the two Germanies, Berlin saw itself as the strongest player in Europe and actively sought European leadership over which it traditionally competed with France. US military bases that Germany continued to host in the framework of its international obligations after the withdrawal of the Soviet forces presented the main obstacle in the way of the country’s aspirations. There were indications that Germany hoped to have the problem resolved by shifting the bases to the Balkans, where their existence could be based not on Soviet-era international agreements but on a NATO mandate, and where Germany could be guaranteed a place among the key players. What it needed to make the plan materialize was a serious pretext for the Balkan expansion, and the process including the break-up of Yugoslavia and the emergence of several protracted ethnic conflicts spread over its former territory conveniently provided one. The implementation of the scenario began in Slovenia and Croatia, where, due to historic reasons, the German influence was deeply rooted. Already in the 1980ies the German intelligence service had strong positions in Slovenia and especially in Croatia as various émigré nationalist and extremist groups it sponsored gradually made inroads into the administrations. German advisers and NGO envoys flocked to Croatia in numbers in 1989-1990. It was due to their activity that eventually the republic became the scene of the first armed clashes in the former Yugoslavia, which scared even the no less active US representatives. “

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16077

9.  “Obama vs Hatoyama: The making of an unequal, unconstitutional, illegal, colonial and deceitful US-Japan agreement.”

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16084

10.  “The Right’s textbook “surrender to terrorists”

This is literally true:  the Right’s reaction to yesterday’s announcement — we’re too afraid to allow trials and due process in our country — is the textbook definition of “surrendering to terrorists.”  It’s the same fear they’ve been spewing for years.  As always, the Right’s tough-guy leaders wallow in a combination of pitiful fear and cynical manipulation of the fear of their followers.  Indeed, it’s hard to find any group of people on the globe who exude this sort of weakness and fear more than the American Right.”

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

11.  “The new WH counsel and “Scooter Libby justice”
A restoration of the rule of law — meaning an end to immunity for high-level political officials who commit crimes — was a central prong of the Obama campaign.  Those who called for a pardon of Lewis Libby — even on the oh-so-clever “progressive” political grounds concocted by Bauer — were as antithetical to that pledge could be.  Yet here is that pro-pardon Washington lawyer now being named as White House counsel.   Then again, one of the few positions more expressive of “Scooter Libby justice” than calling for a pardon of Libby himself is the view that all high-level Bush officials should be immunized from prosecution — even those who committed grievous war crimes and other serious felonies — because it’s more important that we “look to the future” than it is to apply the rule of law equally. If immunity for high-level war criminals — and for lawbreakinng telecoms — isn’t “Scooter Libby justice,” what is? Viewed that way, Bauer would seem to fit in well in his new position.”

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

TEXAS IMMIGRATION JUDGE SELLING HUMAN BODY PARTS?

CHENESE JUDGE: MIMI YAM

San Jacinto Immigration Court: It is believed that this Chinese Judge along with the Government attorney both members of the extremist feminist movement has been steeling and selling the identity of immigrant for at least 19 years. I also believe that she is including in the ring that was in New Jersey selling human organs.

They roam the street at night kidnapping the homeless of the streets and taking them to local hospitals after drugging then where they are operated on and their organ taken to be sold to New York elite. She works down here in Houston Texas as a representative of that brutal criminal clan.

I have a case in front that judge and for a moment I was unhappy with the fact that I got her for a judge but was not to unhappy when investigation lead me to realize who she really is. I was glad I came upon the information I did so I can expose her and her clan before they destroy us all. They use the large closing hamper that the laundry person use to collect the bed linens and took it out on the street.

They comes out in the night after scouting out where the homeless person was sleeping the night before they then waits in the corner or across the street until he falls asleep. After which time they slowly move in closer to him. They then uses drug to cause him to go in a deep sleep then he his heisted up and place into the clothing hamper.

They did not take the high road fear of causing suspicion they wheel the hamper down into the subway and travel underground to hither their vehicle waiting, or directly to the hospital not too far away.

I turned off my lights and slowly cruised up to see exactly what they were doing. I was so taken up and so beside myself. I noticed that there were at least two of them. One went down into the subway while the other stooped down where the homeless man was to make it appear as if the man was still there, but I got close enough to realize that it was not the homeless laying on the ground but a well dress gentleman wearing $700.00 suit and expensive shoes.

The closer I got to him the lowers he got as if he was going to lay down he was just stooping. To convince me that he was the man. If I got any closer he would have to lie down on the ground, and he did not want to soil his suit. All this time my lights were off, and I was trying to see if I could identify the person, but it was about four in the morning and he was wearing black and the place was dark.

I was no more than about twelve feet from him, and advancing when I looked in my rear view mirror. It was just like somebody whispered to me and said “look up.” I looked in the mirror, and there almost on my bumper was a cop car with his lights also off bearing down on me in the darkness and all in silence.

I was so frighten I thought he was going to do something to me. I immediately turned on my light and drove away. At that point I decided that if he tried to pull me over there is going to be hell on the streets of New York City But he seem so have gotten the message and did not come after me.

By this time my heart was pounding a mile a minute. I was looking everywhere to see if he was looking for me. What was he doing on the corner of 57street, and Second Avenue? The Police was providing cover and lookout for these persons while they kidnapped the homeless man off the street in his sleep, and took him to the slaughter house.

Scared to death for my life and safety I decided that I would came back to Texas that very night. After I entered the Holland Tunnel and came out on the other side in New Jersey I wanted to get something at the store so I saw this corner store about an half a block from where I was and went over there. As soon as I pulled into the parking lot I cut off the car and went to see if it was open. It was closed.

So I came back to the car. As soon as I open the door I started the engine and was polling towards the street. I was still in the Parking lot not on the roadway as yet. I turned on the light and there was a New Jersey Police car behind me. He pulled be over and said that I was driving with my lights off. I told him that I was on a private parking lot, not on the street, but he did not want to hear it.

He told me to get out of the car and kneel down on the sidewalk and put my hands behind the back of my head. He asks me for my driver’s license. I gave it to him. He went and ran the license then he came back about ten minutes later and asks me what my name was.

I said to him that you have my license in your hand and went to run my name and still asking me for my name? He said the computer did not give him any information just said for him to call in the reason why he was requesting the information. He said that he was not going to do any such thing and I had better tell him my name before he put a bullet in my head while pointing his service revolver at my head.

By this time a second officer had arrived and was standing right there with him when he said these things. I told him my name he wrote a ticket claiming that I was driving with my lights light off. He searched my car, ripped it apart for about an hour then I was allowed to leave, and leave I did.

I came to Houston and was able to form the link between Immigration Judge Mimi Yam, and these two officer of the gang of operative in that York, I have concluded that she is an operative and a part of what they were doing selling human body parts. I only hope by now you realize what had happened. Not only did the officer have me followed from New York To New Jersey, but they had followed me from Texas to New York. This is how I was able to form the link between the Judge and the New York City Gang. They had instruction not to pull me over.

That is why when he ran the license my information was not available. They wanted him to call in so they could tip him off with valuable information; maybe they were going to tell him that I saw their face and must die, but I did not. If I did not look in the rearview mirror when I did I would have surely seen his face.

Hidden Facts

My case before was the perfect storm. Judging all the document on their faces you could not find hardly anything hardcore criminal except that she try to twist the fact, but as simple as twisting the facts are that Is exactly what I was able to use because the question came up why is this woman so hell bent on getting me deported even though I am qualify for the relief I sought.

Why is she making up stories and trying to twist the truth? That looks like she is personally attacking me out of the course of doing her job. The facts as they were before the court were not giving me accurate information, but she had another version of event that she was protecting from me. That was where the real truth was.

I know what I son’s mother name is and I know what my son’s name is. Oh, do I really? Do you really? On my immigration papers I had written down a certain person was my son and certain other person was his mother, but apparently, Judge Mimi Yam knew more than I did. See, It was about to come a-lose, or undone, as they say, and she could not allow that so she want me out of the country as fast as possible.

My son’s mother is not so bright. I do not say this to degrade her or for any negative reason, just to make a point. Many years ago she had given me her social security number to put on my Tax returns to claim my son. When all of this started I saw clue that she was working for the judge I went and pulled the old tax return, took the social security number and ran a background check on her.

There was a difference though. I did not run it using her name since I already know her name. Highly suspicious of what was unfolding I ran the check using the number and her birth date and Walla.

The information I got seemed unbelievable, because some of it have her listed as a White female. However, I was able to determine that it was her because it also listed the address where she was living at the time and how long and when she lives there. I was able to confirm this because I visited those address myself all those years and spent time with my son at all of them. I cross reference all the rest of information just to make sure it was not a mistake, and at best she was using somebody else’s identity, or maybe that is here real identity.

Regardless that the occurrences was done by her and I have strong reason to believe they were done in the Court room of Judge Mimi yam possible with my son present..
Comment:
The people need affordable health insurance, without threats of hefty finds if they cannot afford it, or for other personal or religious reason do not want to get insured.

All allegations contained herein are true to the best of my information and belief. Some information might require additional verification; for information only.
All rights reserved.

At his hearing, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was asked to state his opinion on whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture. Veteran Illinois Senator Dick Durbin asked Mukasey:

“Is waterboarding torture? Waterboarding simulates drowning, and involves constraining a person, restricting their breathing and pouring water on all or part of their face.”

After declining a specific response, Mukasey finally said, “It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else.”

Dick Cheney famously responded to a question about waterboarding, calling it a “dunk in the water” for terrorism suspects, saying that to him it was a no-brainer that it was an acceptable interrogation technique.

Fellow Republican John McCain, who was tortured as a POW in Vietnam, sees the issue differently. He told ABC, “Anyone who says they don’t know if waterboarding is torture or not has no experience in the conduct of warfare and national security.

“This is a fundamental about America. It isn’t about an interrogation technique. It isn’t about whether someone is really harmed or not. It’s about what kind of a nation we are. We are a nation that takes the moral high ground.

“If we engage in a practice that was invented in the Spanish inquisition, which was used by Pol Pot in Cambodia in that great genocide, is now being used on Buddhist monks in Burma, and we’re going to be the same as that? How do we keep the moral high ground in the world? I would never use that, and find some other practices.”

[Source: TIME]

                                                                                                    WALTER S MOORE

                Defendant(s)-Petitioner(s)

                                      V.

                 Plaintiff(s)-Respondent

                                                                                         MICHAEL B MUKASEY; FOR THE
                                                                UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
             
            This Appeal is taken from a Federal Administrative Agency Decision; immigration Court, Southern District.
            ______________________________PETITIONER’S APPELLATE BRIEF _________________________

Walter Moore (PRO SE)                                                                                                   Michael B Mukasey, US Atttorney General
PO Box 3251                                                                                                                         PO Box 878, Ben Franklin Sta.

Houston, Texas 77253-3251 Ben Franklin Station                                              Washington D.C 20044-0878 

Washington, D.C 20044-0878

Certificate of interested parties

The undersigned PRO SE petitioner of record certifies that the following listed persons, and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the judges of this court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.

5th Cir. R.28.2.1
Rudolf Juliani-Rudolf Juliani was the Mayor of New York City when his police officers abused Petitioner. [Sexually] He seemed to condone, when he tried to cover up what happened. He is connected to this case by that event. His interest would be to sabotage Petitioner’s efforts to continue to prosecute that case. Hon. Michael Stallman-Hon. Michael Stallman dismissed the case on a technicality, petitioner can reopen it.

Mr. Michael D Hess-Mr. Hess represented New York City Mr. Hess is connected to these events through the afore mentioned. His interest would to not see that case gets tried on its merit, and to make Petitioner vulnerable.

Mr. Michael Bloomberg Mr. Bloomberg is connected to this case in that he inherited it from the former mayor as a claim against the City of New York. His interest might be to deny knowledge of what happened.

Mr. Mukasey is the respondent in this case. For that reason; he is connected to it. His interest might me to retaliate against petitioner. Carolyn Emerson-Ms. Emerson is the mother of my son. For that reason she is connected to this case. Her interest would be financial or other support.

Walter Emerson-Walter Emerson is my son, for that reason he is connected to this case. His interest would to not be separated from his father. The GAP Clothing stores-The chain store send some of its representative to my son’s school after hurricane Katharina to wrongfully interfere with his schooling. They are connected to this case for that reason. Their interest would be retaliatory, because I stopped them. They tried to have my son sign a lifetime illegal contract in exchange for $100, and a bus ride. Corporate disclosure Statement
Fed R. 26.1
Chrysler/DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Terry Town NY New York Hospital Corporation, New York NY Methodist Hospitals-Believe to have, willfully and maliciously caused the death of two of my sons. Brace-well and Juliani. This Law firm is partly own by a Party listed herein as interested. [Rudolf Juliani]Erica J McGuirk, Attorney of Record Michael B. Mukasey-US Attorney General; Respondent Statement regarding oral argument
5th Cir. R. 28 4.2
                                                                                               Oral argument is waved

                                                                                                               Index:

Title, Page: #
Certificate 1 (a), (b)
Index 2,
Table of Authority 3
Statement of Jurisdiction, Certificate of Compliance, and Appendix 4
Summary statements 5
Federal Question 6
Relief Sought 6
Background 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Statement of Facts 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Abuse of discretion 16
Argument 17, 18
Opinion 19
Default by Government 20
Conclusion 20
Addendum 21
Certificates 22

Table of authority

(1) U.S.C Title 8 Chapter 12 Sub-chapter I Sec 1101(a)(13)(A)
(2) U.S.C Title 8 Ch 12 Sub-chapter I Sec 1101 27 (b)
(3) U.S.C Title 8, Ch 12, Sub Ch III Part. II, Sec. 1435
(4) U.S.C 8 Chapter 12 Sub-chapter I Sec. 1101 48 (b) (2)
(5) U.S.C Title 8 Ch 12 Sub-Ch I Sec. 1101 27 (b)
(6) Wang Yang Sung V. McGrath, 339, 49-51, 70 S. ct.
445, 453-54, 94 L. Ed. 616 (1950)
(7) U.S.C Title 8, 1435 (d) 1
(8) U.S.C Title 8 1435, (c) (3)
(9) U.S.C Title 8 Sub-Chapter I, sec. 1101 15 U (I)
(10)U.S.C Title 8 Chapter 12 Sub-chapter I, Sec. 1101 15 U(I)
(iii); and, U.S.C (12)
(12) Title 8 Chapter 12 sub-chapter I, Sec. 110 15

                                                                                             Statement of Jurisdiction

Petitioner is residence in the City of Houston, State of Texas; for Personal Jurisdiction. This Appeal was transferred to the Fifth Circuit by Order of the First Circuit. Respondent filed Motion claiming that “venue was not proper in that circuit.”The Appeal is taken from a federal administrative agency’s final order; in the Southern district. It contains Federal Questions, and Constitutionality; for Subject matter Jurisdiction.

                                                                                              Certificate of Compliance
Fed. R. APP. P., 30 (C)
This Brief complies with Fed. Rule 30 Sec (C) (I). It does not exceed 14,000 words, nor 30 pages excluding the index page, and the table of Authority.

                                                                                                  Appendix. The

Appeal is being taken on the “Original Record” exclusive of an appendix.

                                                                                                      Summary Statements

Respondent has established no legal grounds upon which the court can grant its demand; because, its case is Moot. The case-law, relied on, has been repealed. Then, respondent’s case terminates “as a matter of Law.” Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)(3)(B). Neither the Honorable Mimi Yam (the IJ), nor respondent are members of the legislature. Therefore, a law that is repealed cannot be enacted or reintroduced except by the proper procedures. The Immigration Judge did not allow more time for Petitioner to submit a certified copy of an Illinois Court order after he presented it in court. She indicated that it was because it was not a birth certificate with Petitioner’s name on it. This is contrary to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.

Question before the court
(1)Did the Immigration Judge err when she presided over a Moot case? or, deprived petitioner of protected rights when she did not examine all the evidence; or in that; petitioner was; (a)denied relief on the basis that he could not prove that he has a United State Citizen son? and Judge did not accepts the on-going court case as evidence?(b)denied his Rights to due process of Law when the IJ applied an “incorrect legal standard” of proof by requiring only a birth record as proof of parentage. This requirement violates the US Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit Clause?”

Relief sought
Petitioner is, respectfully, requesting an order reversing the immigration Judge’s decision, in its entirety; thereby, granting its requested relief; plus such other and further relief that the court deem to be Just.

Background
Petitioner was in Jamaica, in 1990, minding his own business, when one day he was approached by a stranger. The stranger told him that he knew his brother, who is in America, and he wanted him to come with him. He had no reason to doubt, or suspect him, so he went along. At that time I had not seen my brother for a long time. Before we came; we went to the US embassy to get a visa. He gave me what he said was a “Court Order” to give to the embassy. It is the first time in my life I heard the term “Court Order.” I had no idea what it was. I did not question it. I just assume that it was an Order from a Court which, I thought, must be good.
Ever since I came to the United States, and found out that I was conned, and kidnapped, I have been trying to get a record of that “Court Order” to see what it was about, and who framed me, but to no avail. The harder I tried is the more resistance I encounter. I was stonewalled from all directions. When it became obvious that Petitioner was persistent, would not stop looking, the phone ranged one day. When he picked it up; there was a message on the caller ID unit which reads; “Remember Medger Evers”. It then became clear to Petitioner that this was far more complicated than he thought. The people who were trying to stop him from getting this information seem to also want him dead. Preliminary investigation pointed to Federal Employees, and accomplices who are associated with the Chrysler Corporation. I have never stopped searching; even at the risk of being deported or, becoming the next Medger Evers.

Respondent commenced removal proceedings against Petitioner, wrongfully, accusing him of being “Present in the United States, without being admitted, or paroled;” even though he was “admitted” to the United States in the meaning of U.S.C Title 8, Chapter 12 Sub-chapter I, section 1101, (13) (A), after inspection.
After commencement of removal proceedings; under INA 212(a)(6) (A)(I)[Repealed], Petitioner applied to the Immigration Court for “Cancelation of Removal;” under, INA 240A (b); but, the Immigration Judge finds that he could not prove that he has a US Citizen son. Transcript P. 23 As a result, Petitioner’s application was “pretermited”.

The judge specifically stated that, “in order for you to have the relief today you have to show that you have a relationship to a United State Citizen,” Transcript p. 23 Well; I do, whom I visited almost every week for the past thirteen years. Petitioner then appealed the decision to the Immigration Review board. The review board did not agree with the immigration judge’s reasons for denying Petitioner’s application. [Please see the last part of the review board decision]. However, instead of reversing the judge’s decision, the review board exceed its authority/jurisdiction by redefining, and re-stating the Ruling of the Immigration Judge. Writing that it is not what it should have been. Review Board Decision: p. 2. The board also ignored new evidence which was submitted a certified copy from a Illinois Court. The review board is not required to retry the case; but, instead to review the decision which was already entered. The decision was based on what the IJ, ‘should have’ done. [Review: p.2]; instead of what was already done. Please see the last Part of p. 2 Review board decision. The case was already tried. Petitioner hired the Law Firm of Kuba Mundy & Associates to file the request for review of the IJ’s decision. Crucial portion of the record was omitted and withheld from petitioner’s attorney. The record was incomplete which might have adversely affected the outcome of the review. Petitioner was not able to examine the transcript, and record before it was sent to the attorney who did the application before the review board, or he would have noticed that they were inaccuracies. Since Petitioner’s Appealed, in the Appeals Court, is PRO SE; he was sent a copy of the transcript, and Record. Then, he was able to notice the discrepancies, and realize that the Law is repealed.

Statements of Facts

Respondent case is Moot. It terminates on “Operation of Law.” The Section respondent relied on; Sec. 212(a) (6) (A)(I), is repealed. Petitioner’s son, who is a United States Citizen, was born at St. Luke’s Hospital in, Texas Medical Center. He presented proof of Parentage, in several forms, and pieces of document to the Court, but the Court did not examine them. I presented to the court evidence, I got from the Texas Civil Court, stating that there is an Order out of an Illinois court, and ask the IJ for time to get a certified copy into the court, but she did not allow for more time. She did not want to see it because it was not a Birth Certificate with my name on it.

I also presented some evidence of my son’s schooling; and, his school records while he was with Petitioner. However, respondent told the review board that I presented no such evidence. Respondent’s answer P.10 Petitioner ordered a certified copy of the Order, adjudicating parentage in 1996, and submitted it to the Review Board. This was not available for the trial. I did presented this to the Court and requested more time to submit a certified copy. I only found this out when I tried to get the papers for immigration court from the Civil Court. Petitioner ordered a certified copy, but it did not arrive on time for the immigration trial, and the court did not allow for more time.

The Judge indicated that she only wanted to see a birth record with my name on it. This is an “incorrect application” of a “legal standard”. Transcript p. 20, and a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. The case was not tried in an open court, which made Petitioner very uncomfortable, and suspicious.

Petitioner was in the court room, by himself, with the Judge and the government’s attorney. The court room was not accessible to anyone else. I do not believe that this is what it means to being in “Open Court” as was indicated by respondent to the First Circuit. The case was not scheduled to be held on that date, but was rescheduled for unexplained… reasons. Petitioner appealed the immigration judge’s decision; because, his Constitutionally-protected Rights to “Due Process of Law” has been violated. (The court did not examine the entire record that was present before it.) Therefore, it was not able to conduct a “full and fair Hearing” which is needed to satisfy the “due process” Requirements; Wang Yang Sung V. McGrath, 339, 4951.70S.CT.445, 453-54, 94L.Ed.616 (1950).

The Judge also applied an “incorrect Legal standard.” Had the Court examined the record in its entirety, then it might have realized that there was adequate evidence to prove parentage of my son, and the decision might have been different, she said so herself.[Tr. P. 23, 24, and 25]. The Immigration Judge, “Pretermited” petitioner application. The reason, she said, was that he could not prove to have a US Citizen son, Tr. p. 23. She also noted that Petitioner could appeal the decision, and present proof of his son’s existence at a later date, to the Appeals Court; Transcript P. 23
While trying to obtain proof of paternity in Texas; Petitioner was informed, by the Court, that it was without Jurisdiction.

The reason given was that another state had continuous jurisdiction. I contacted the State, of Jurisdiction and ordered a certified copy of the decision, but it did not arrive on time for the Immigration trial. It was later submitted for Review. Petitioner tried to explain to the Court that the local case was rescheduled for a later date; and, request more time for the Order out of Illinois to arrive. The court; however, did not allow for more time; and, did not examine the entire record I had. My son’s mother had applied for housing assistance; and, one of the requirements was that she had proof of Parentage. She had already established paternity in 1996. I was unaware of this. I presented this fact to the Court.

Abuse of discretion
The Immigration Judge after already indicating that the proof of paternity was the only thing missing from Petitioner’s application; arbitrarily deny petitioner’s request, in the alternative, by stating that he did not prove extreme hardship. This decision is highly subjective, and therefore capricious. There was no time to get into the subject of “extreme hardship” or any pertinent questions, or to submit any proof to that end. The entire hearing was spent on finding proof of My United State Citizen Son

Contrary to the records
”The findings are directly contrary to clear, and convincing facts in the record,” which was presented to the court. Even though petitioner did not present a birth certificate with his name on it; there was enough evidence to clearly, and reasonably establish the existence of his son. The review board agreed there is.

Argument
Respondent is asking the US Court of Appeals to: Redefine, what it means to be a Father, in the state of Texas by changing the standards of proof established; Sanction family abductions, if it sooths an agenda; Convert the Immigration Review Board to a Trial court; Ultimately, turn lower court judges into legislatures. These are the events to which Petitioner was subjected. Respondent is asking the Court, indirectly, to confirm that all of the aforementioned be done or enforced, and petitioner is here to ask; well, should they be?

The Government cannot know of the circumstances that my son, and his mother, will encounter if I am ask to leave the United States. It might be normally associated with such an event, or not. Claiming that it will be the prior is speculative at best. This seems to be an overused generic argument that has been misused, time and time again, to “paint like a broad brush.” It is not based on any evidence; factual, logical, scientific, or any research.

Petitioner is presenting to the court that he has proven paternity of his son. He has three sons; two of whom were murder in Methodist Hospital, New City, NY in 1994, and 1995. This is genocide in the making. It is, allegedly, initiated by executives at the Chrysler Corporation, now DaimlerChrysler. Petitioner is targeted by the aforementioned, to facilitate ethnic profiling which incorporates the demonization of his name.
Opinion Petitioner was told by the IJ that the Government’s Attorney could look at the evidence if she wanted to, but the court did not want to see it. This line appears to be deleted from the transcript. Petitioner does have a son (who reside with him at the time of these proceedings) in the meaning of U.S.C Title 8 Chapter 12 Sub-chapter I Sec. 1101 48 (b) (2) Respondent, except for a (N.T.A) Notice to Appear, presented no evidence, to support its claim that Petitioner was in the Country illegally.

Default by the Government
Respondent has defaulted, by not showing up for a scheduled trial. Petitioner was present for the trial, and there was neither the Judge nor the Government there. He was alone in the Court room. After waiting there for, what seam, like hours, he was then told that he could go and he would be contacted. Respondent told the First Circuit that my case was rescheduled in order to allow me to hire an attorney.

Conclusion
Petitioner is not guilty of the charges brought by the department of homeland Security. He was inspected, and admitted into the United States by an immigration officer in accordance with U.S.C Title 8 sub Chapter I, Sec 1101 (a) 13 (A) Petitioner was brought in the United State, and subjected to condition Prohibited by USC Title 8 chapter 12, Sub-Chapter I, Sec.1101, 15, U, (iii); and, U.S.C Title 8 Chapter 12 Sub-chapter I, Sec. 1101 15 U (IV); Sec. 1101 13.

WHEREFORE; Petitioner, respectfully, request an Order reversing the immigration judges decision in its entirety; and, granting petitioner’s requested relief; plus such other, and further relief as the court might adjudge to be just.

Walter S Moore                                                                                                                             Michael B. Mukasey, US Attorney General
PO Box 3251                                                                                                                                                    PO Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
Houston Texas 7253                                                                                                                                          Washington D.C 20044-0878

Please see petitioner’s exhibits attached

=================NOTARY========================================
Sworn to before me this _________ day of ________________2008 Exp.______________
Signature: _________________________________________
Sig: ______________________________________________

                                                                              IN THE UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS

                                                                                               FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                                                                    600 S. MAESTRI PLACE, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

Moore V. Mukasey

Motion for Stay: Fed. R. App. P. 18

                                                                    TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE 5TH CIRCUIT;

Petitioner, respectfully, move this court for an order pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 18 and/or, Fed. R. App. P. 18(a), (2); staying the immigration judges decision in its entirety pending the outcome of this Appeal; also, in accordance with Fed. R. APP. P. 18(a), (2), (A), (i); the Appeal was taken in the First Circuit, but was transferred to this court by order of the Justices; as a result of respondent’s motion for proper venue.

Sign: _________________________
                                                                                                                                                                       Erica J McGuirk, Attorney of Record
Walter Moore                                                                                                                                     Michael Mukasey, US Attorney General
PO Box 3251                                                                                                                                                    PO Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
Houston Texas 77253-3251                                                                                                                            Washington D.C 20044-0878

                                                                                                 Affidavit of Service

I _______________________________ do certify that on the _______ day of __________ 2008 I personally served upon respondent the following paper(s) (1) ___________(2)_______________________ (3) _______________________By depositing it into the custody of the United States Postal Service with instruction for it to be delivered to the address indicated; certified with return receipt requested.

===================NOTARY====================
Before me personally appear this ____ day of
________________2008 Name: ________________________

Signature: _____________________________
Notary: ____________________Exp._______

                                                                      IN THE UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                     FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                                                             600 S. MAESTRI PLACE, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

                                                                                        NOTICE OF APPEAL
MOORE V. MUKASEY, et al
_ Fed. R. APP. P. (4) __

Request for finding of facts and conclusion of Law

Walter S Moore                                                                                                                                                    Michael B Mukasey, et al
PO Box 3251                                                                                                                                                          PO Box 878, Ben Franklin Sta.
Houston Texas 77253-3251                                                                                                                          Washington D.C 20044-0878

                                                      TO THE 5TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS;

Petitioner come this day and, respectfully, submits this notice of appeal:
Please take notice It is the intention of Petitioner to appeal the decision of this Court made on December 24th 2007 when the court denied Petitioner’s Motion to re-hear a previous decision denying Petition request for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision. Petitioner will appeal both decisions, consolidated, in their entirety; and from each and every part. Request for Stay In order to accommodate this appeal; petitioner would like to,
respectfully, re-quest a stay of mandate. Finding of Facts and Conclusion of law Petitioner, also, would like to request the finding of facts and conclusion of Law relating to the denial of his motion for review, and re-hearing.

Opinion
It is the opinion of Petitioner that the Court of Appeal mis-apprehend the facts when it decided that it did not have jurisdiction to review petitioner’s case. The attorney general, by initiating removal proceedings against Petitioner, has;

a). Deprived him of Rights secured by the United States constitution and Laws; with wonton a wreck-less disregard.
b). Deprived him of Right to “Due Process of Law.”
c). Deprived him of Rights to his Heritage.
d). Abused the discretion; abused Petitioner’s person.
e). Wrongly apply the Laws and statutes.

Initiation of removal proceeding against Petitioner was unlawful, and retaliatory by nature. Petitioner was targeted,
because he sought to bring forth the truth, and refused to live a lie; imprisoned in the darkened shadow of another so as to maintain the status quo. [They kidnapped/tried to frame me.]

Assault and battery
Respondent did all this in order to cover up what they did to Petitioner when they kidnapped, tortured, and sodomized him. They then committed medical malpractice upon his person. Respondent surgically implanted electronic signal transmitting device in his anatomy. Responsible Party Petitioner will request a subpoena from the court intending to identify the federal agent(s) responsible.

Standing-immunity
The attorney general has no legal authority, standing, or Jurisdiction to remove Petitioner from the United States, such an attempt is border-line-treason. Petitioner is not subject to immigration regulations as he, before commencement of removal proceedings, informed respondent that he was a United States Citizen who had been kidnapped as a child, and kept out of the country. Petitioner believes that because he is not female and white; the natural assumption was that he was lying. It is based upon that false assumption that respondent initiated removal
proceedings against him in clear violation of provisions contained in 8 U.S.C.

Weighing the risk
Even if the court is correct, in stating that it does not have jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s case; the risk associated
with his potential deportation far out ways any benefit that might be expected, or associated as reward for such action. Because of this reason, petitioner would like to Appeal these decisions to the united States Supreme court, and assert that the attorney general does not have legal authority to label anyone as alien for purpose of deporting them from the united States even when he has no evidence that such a person is in fact an Alien, and after being informed to the contrary. Such an act could create a bad situation, and cause irreparable harm to Petitioner. According to United States Code, Title 8, a person making such a claim cannot be deported, but the case must be referred to, and adjudicated by the United States District Court. Petitioner, weighed the risk against the consequences and concluded that; when he notified the attorney general that he is a United Citizen who had been taken, from this country, as
a child, and raised in a foreign country;

The attorney general should not have initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner, but chose to err on the side of
caution. The attorney General had a legal obligation to refer the case to the United States District Court for adjudication; as a “matter of Law.”
Background
In, or around 1996 Petitioner informed the office of the A.G that he was kidnapped from the United States as a child, and return as an adult. The attorney General responded by labeling him an alien, and initiating removal proceedings against him.

WHEREFORE; although Petitioner intend to Appeal the decisions; he is, respectfully, requesting the relief herein, in order to adequately perfect the appeal.

===================NOTARY====================
Before me personally appear this ____ day of
________________2009 Name: _______________________

Signature: _________________________________________
Notary: ____________________Exp.___________________

                                                                                                   Affidavit of Service

I _____________________________do certify that on the ________ day of __________ 2009 I personally served upon respondent copy of the Notice of Appeal by depositing it into the custody of the United States Postal Service with instruction for it to be delivered to the address indicated; certified with return receipt requested.
===================NOTARY===================
Before me personally appear this ____ day of
_________________2008 Name: ___________ ___________

Signature: ____________________________ ___________
Notary: ____________________Exp._______

                                                                           IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
                                                                                                      One 1st St. NE
                                                                                          WASHINGTON, D.C 20543

_______________________________
Petition for writ of Certiorari
Title 28, Part VI, Ch. 158 Sec 2350
Moore v. Mukasey, US Attorney General
_______________________________

Moore v. US Attorney General

Walter S. Moore, PRO SE Michael B. Mukasey, Respondent.
PO Box 3251 PO Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
Houston Texas 77253-3251 Washington D.C 22044-0878

                                                                            IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
                                                                                             MOORE V. MUKASEY,
                                                                                          US ATTORNEY GENERAL

                                                                                                              Index
Pages Sections
1. Cover page
2. Index
3. Table of authority
4. Questions before the court
5. Introduction
6. Standard of review, Constitutional Protection, opinion.
7. A request writ of error.
8. Statement of facts, constitutional protection.
10. Statement of Law.
12. Argument-Burden of proof, back ground.
15. Conclusion
16. Addendum
17. Affidavit of service

                                                                                                           Table of authority

1) 8, U.S.C Sec. 1252(b)(4)(D)
2) 5th Amendment of the US Constitution
3) 8 USC 1252 (a)(2)(D)
4) 8 USC 1252 (b)(7)(B)
5) Marbury V Madison, 5 U.S (Cranch 1)137(1803
6) 28 USC Ch. 158 Sec. 2350
7) 28 U.S.C Part IV Ch. 99 Sec. 1631
Title 8 Ch. 12 Sub. Ch. II Part V Sec. 1252 of U.S.C

Federal question
Did the fifth circuit court of Appeals err when it dismissed petitioner’s case for lack of jurisdiction after it was transferred there by the first circuit court of appeals for review. Is the decision to dismiss against the 1st circuit?

Federal question
Does the attorney general have standing, or the authority to remove petitioner from the United States without due process, because he claim to be a United State Citizen, and upon whom should be the burden of proof lies in the case of a child who was kidnapped, raised abroad, and has no citizenship papers.

Federal question
If the immigration judge ruled that an applicant is not qualify for relief, because he does not have a qualifying relative; can the IJ in the same ruling states also that he is not qualify for relief because he did not prove extreme hardship on a qualifying person? Since a child who does not exist cannot suffer hardship.

Federal Question
Was petitioner deprived of 5th Amendment protection, and immunities in the aforementioned proceeding?
This Court has always held that judicial reviews are necessary to keep the legislature in line with the will of the people; such reviews are instrumental in this regard.

                                                                           IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
                                                                                           MOORE V. MUKASEY,
                                                                                        US ATTORNEY GENERAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; APPELLANT COME, AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT IS CASE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY FOUNDED IN 8, U.S.C Sec. 1252(b)(4)(D).

Petitioner was deprived of rights to due process of law secured by the 5th amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This is an immigration case; petitioner was denied a motion to review in the 5th circuit, court of appeals. He now seeks, from this court, a writ of certiorari according to 28 U.S.C Ch. 158 Sec. 2350, the 5th circuit erred when it dismissed Petitioner’s case because it did not have jurisdiction to review it. Please see; 28 U.S.C Part IV Ch. 99 Sec 1631. The decision is contrary. Petitioner was wrongfully labeled an alien, by the attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, and deprived of immunities, and constitutional rights. Then, he was ordered removed from the United States by Immigration judge Hon. Mimi Yam. The attorney general then claims that the 5th circuit does not have jurisdiction to review the order, the 5th circuit court agreed.

                                                                               IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
                                                                                                   MOORE V. MUKASEY,
                                                                                                US ATTORNEY GENERAL

Standard of Review
The standard of review is De Nova, Deprivation of Constitutional Rights, Abuse of Discretion, and decision manifestly contrary to Law. All questions of law, and constitution are reviewable De NOVA, 8 USC 1252 (a)(2)(D). A question with an algorithm of a statutory requirement is not discretionary, but question of law. Protection against removal
Petitioner informed the Attorney general that he has reason to believe that he was born in the United States; kidnapped as a child, and raised abroad. Such a claim is protected under 8 USC 1252 (b)(7)(B); but in response to the letter; the attorney general initiated removal proceedings against him.

Opinion
It is the opinion of petitioner that a citizen would not like to be subjected to immigration laws, and deportation proceedings. Because of that reason; it is clear that the will of the legislature is in conflict with the will of the people which was never intended. Therefore, the law forbidding the review of petitioner’s case is unconstitutional and preempted to that end.

                                                                             IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
                                                                                              MOORE V. MUKASEY,
                                                                                          US ATTORNEY GENERAL

Writ of error
In the alternative, petitioner would like to apply to this court for a writ of error, if necessary. The court of appeals did not comply with 28 U.S.C Part IV Ch. 99 Sec 1631. Whenever there is a question of venue, or jurisdiction the court of appeals is required to forward the case to the proper court where it should be docketed as if it was filed in that court. In this instance, the 5th circuit has deviated greatly from the laws enacted by congress, and decisions of other circuit courts. By doing so it has created a new standard of review not authorized by the legislature, and contrary to rule of applicable law.

This case was filed originally in the first circuit court of appeals, but was transferred to the 5th circuit by order. Respondent argued that the case was filed in the wrong court, and assert that the proper court is the 5th circuit court of appeals. Respondent knew, or should have known that the court is without jurisdiction. The 1st circuit court, in an attempt to cure want of Jurisdiction/venue, granted respondent motion to have the case transferred to the 5th circuit. Respondent then filed motion to have the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It feels as if petitioner was ambushed and harmed.

Immunity from deportation
Petitioner believes that; the attorney general is without standing to remove him from the United States. Such an act is prohibited by the Constitution and laws, and might be borderline treasonous. Being a citizen, born in the United States, petitioner should not be subjected to the immigration proceeding that he was forced to endure. Because of the denial of his due process rights by the IJ; he was given no chance to prove this.

Petitioner was legally in the United States when he was served, by the attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, with Notice to Appear (NTA). The notice was served under a section of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.(INA) which appears to have been was repealed, or transferred.

Statement of facts
Petitioner has been in the United States since about 1991. He had filed for adjustment of status, and was granted work authorization in 1995. The work authorization is also evidence of legal status as stated on the mailer that came with the card.

On, or about July 23 2005 petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear.(NTA)by the attorney general pursuant to 212(a)(6)(A)(i). Petitioner entered the United States at an airport, and was inspected, and admitted by an immigration officer. Therefore, the notice-to-appear made false un-substantiated allegations. My passport was stolen at the Miami airport by a man who demanded $200 from me before he would return it. I did not have $200.00.
The case was scheduled for a preliminary hearing where the judge advised petitioner to drop his application for asylum; he then applied for cancellation of removal, his only other option.

The Judge then rescheduled the case to be tried on July 12th 2006. However, when petitioner arrived there was no one in the court. Neither the judge nor the government’s Attorney was present. Petitioner waited for about an hour before an employee told him that he could leave then he would be contacted by mail.

Several months later; petitioner received the mail from the immigration court resetting the case for trial on November 27th 2006. It so happened that his son had gone missing about the same time. It turned out that, conveniently, this fact became the main point the court used to deny petitioner’s application; stating that he did not have a qualifying relative, and therefore was not qualified for cancellation of removal. The BIA disagreed, but did not reverse the judge.

After the court stated that petitioner could not prove that he has a qualifying relative the court also required petitioner to prove that if he did have a qualifying child; would that child suffer extreme hardship. Petitioner argued that he could not prove extreme hardship on a child who does not exist. There is no statutory requirement for petitioner to prove extreme hardship on a person whom the court decided was none existent.

The immigration judge then stated that he could not prove that he has a son; she also rule that Petitioner did not prove that if he has a son the child would suffer extreme hardship if he is asked to leave the united states.
She also stated that to prove that petitioner have a son he must have a birth certificate with my name on it. She said this after petitioner informed her that paternity was already adjudicated in the state of Illinois. She denied petitioner’s request for extension to obtain a certified copy of the order to prove that he do have a US Citizen Son.

The IJ then ruled that because Petitioner did not prove that he had a qualifying relative(s), and did not prove that even if he had a qualifying relative(s) they would suffer extreme hardship; she wrote that he was not qualified for relief from removal.

An appeal followed to the board of immigration appeals in Falls Church Virginia (BIA). The board disagreed with the judge on the valid point of weather I proved that I have a qualifying child; but stated that it would not disturb the decision, because petitioner did not prove extreme hardship. [The court had already ruled that petitioner did not have a child so there was no need to prove extreme hardship a person].

Statement of Law
The 1st circuit court of appeals, in an attempt to cure want of jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C Part IV Ch. 99 Sec. 1631, transferred petitioner’s case to the wrong appeals court [the 5th circuit] on the motion of respondent; which dismissed petitioner’s case for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent filed motion with the 1st circuit arguing that the case was filed in the wrong court.

When the immigration judge demanded a birth certificate, only, with petitioner’s name on it to prove paternity; the judge wrongly applied the laws, and deviated from the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, article four. Petitioner informs the court that paternity was already adjudicated by an Illinois court, and request time to obtain a certified copy, but the judge did not allow for more time. This decision was prejudicial to petitioner.
Petitioner has rights, and immunities that protect him from against the ongoing deportation proceedings. The attorney general initiated removal proceedings against petitioner in response to him claiming to be a US Citizen. Such claim is govern by Title 8 Ch. 12 Sub. Ch. II Part V Sec. 1252 of U.S.C

The board of immigration appeals did not agree with the immigration judge that petitioner did not have a qualifying child. However, the board did not disturb the decision. When the review board discovered an error in the IJ decision it should have reversed the IJ ruling as required by the statues.

In the Decision of Marbury V. Madison, 5 U.S (Cranch 1)137(1803) The supreme court made it clear that judicial review is necessary in order to distinguish the will of the people from the will of the legislature. Petitioner, therefore, contends that it holds true today as it did back in 1803. Therefore, the attorney general’s assertion which states that his decision cannot be reviewed by any court, in effect, seems to pre-empt the Supreme Court decision on the subject matter, and is in controversy, therefore it needs to be clarified. Therefore, petition present to the court that the 5th circuit erred when it decided that it did not have jurisdiction to review petitioner’s case.

Argument-burden of proof
There are thousands of American children who go missing every year. Petitioner would like to present to the court that these children are held alive in servitude, and as sex slaves, or to generate income for their captures in various ways. They are taken by people who accuse their parents of owing them money, as punishment. Sometimes they even use the IRS, and DCFS as proxy. It is hard, next to impossible, for such a child if escape, and return to the states to have document to prove their Identity.

After being taken as a child, and held for years, sometimes decades; how could they now have evidence to prove their identity, except for childhood memories? Even those memories; the perpetrators attempt to erase. Petitioner believes that the burden of proof should be on the government. The first time petitioner informed the Department of Homeland Security about being missing as a child, and return to the United States as an adult they reply to petitioner, and ask him for evidence of citizenship. They ask petitioner for naturalization papers.

Back ground
Petitioner was about 4 years old when he woke up, and found this gentleman who claim to be his father introducing him to a lady. We walked up to the house, and rang the door bell. When she came out she was crying, and was for the next 14 or so days.

Her complaint was that her husband was killed, by pirates, on the open sea. He went to fish, even after she warned him that she dreamt that he was going to be killed. She was in distress because she warned and begged him not to go, but he insisted, and went anyway. Petitioner do not have any explanation why he does not remember anything before that moment but, strongly believe that he was taken from that boat, and his real parents were also murdered. The male members of his family were killed two women were allowed to live. They were supposed to go back to the United States for the ransom money and return for him.

Well, what does all of that have to do with Mr. Michael B. Mukasey trying to deport petitioner from the United States? Petitioner is attempting to show Motive, and to prove that it is not true that “no child was left behind;” to bring to bear, the truth, which has been stifled, solely, for political expediency. Petitioner is trying to present to the court, the best way he knows how, the facts of his case and proof that he has got every right to be in this country just like the attorney general.

After arguing in the first circuit, court of appeals, to have the case transferred to the 5th circuit; the AG turned around, and have the 5th circuit dismissed it by claiming that the court does not have jurisdiction to conduct a review. The people who murdered petitioner’s family on the high seas of the Caribbean, and held him hostage for 21 years were no common criminals, although they acted like one. Petitioner has reason to believe that they were federal agents, and politicians trafficking drugs via the water ways. They left petitioner in Jamaica with a family, because things went wrong, and people got killed.

While Petitioner was there, living with this lady, the place was like a refugee camp. Every now and then, is like a siren went off, there were no serene of course those were just people screaming and yelling and running. They would run straight through our living room most of the time their assailant would stop out side and the victim would take up refuge in the house. This was a natural occurrence that went on like clockwork every time election season came around. These people would hide in our house sometimes for days or weeks at a time. Sometimes the activists who are chasing the opponent did not stop there, but waited outside for them. They would hide in the nearby bushes and wait to see if the victim would come out. One of my jobs at about 5 or 6 year old was to look out, and let them know when it was clear and safe to go. [Petitioner had applied for asylum].

Petitioner would like to point out that these were not horse-play. If they are caught in any of those chases; they are murdered as they sometimes are caught. The only thing stood between them, and certain death was our house. Running through our house was not a good idea. 99.9% of the chases end outside as soon as they entered our property. If no one is home at the time they would run into the woods at the back of the house, and be safe. There were many acres of wild pasture where we kept our animals located behind the house. They would run in there, and stayed. The chase would end at the fence.

Petitioner was the only person who knew where to find these men in the woods. He had to take care of the animals every day and the fugitives also. He had to bring them food and water every day. This was not my life; something happened; what happen. Seeing people murdered on a daily basis, and beaten to a pulp was getting to me. For the first time the question of why I was here, and where are my folks began to evolve. I began to become fearful, not of the present citation, but I was able to think out the possibility of becoming grown, and chosen a apolitical party; then have to be running for my life, or might even wound up getting killed. It was very clear to me that the only reason why I was not one of the men running for his life was because I was just a child, and they knew that I pose no political threat. At this point I wanted to know the whereabouts of my parents. I wanted to go home. I began to ask question about why was I there and about my folks. I believed that they kept my memory suppressed with medication for a long time.

I was always sympathetic to the men who were running for their lives that I would always have their supplies ready. It had become a way of life for me. Sometimes we were not home I would leave the doors open so that they could run right in. I was very fearful of the possibility of becoming grown in this type of environment. I decided that I would not. When I could not get a straight answer about my parents; I ran away from home, and never return. The day I ran away from home was the day the real search started for my biological parents. By this time; I might have been about eight years old.

Conclusion
This might sound unbelievable, but that is exactly how the perpetrator wants it to sound. If it sounded unbelievable enough then they will have nothing to worry about. It boils down to believe V. knowledge. I was there; I know; it is all truth.

WHEREFORE, petitioner pray that this court reverse the decision of the 5th circuit, and hold in abeyance if it pleases the court, this case until such time when petitioner’s claim can be properly reviewed. Petitioner, respectfully, pray for this relief; plus any such other and further relief that the court may adjudged to be just, and proper.

Walter S Moore, PRO SE                                                                                                                                              Michael B. Mukasey,
PO Box 3251                                                                                                                                                                    US Attorney General
Houston, Texas 77253-3251                                                                                                          PO Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
                                                                                                                                                                            Washington D.C 20044-0878

===================NOTARY====================
Before me personally appear this ____ day of
________________2009 Name: _______________________

Signature: _______________________________________
Notary: ____________________Exp._______

Affidavit of Service

I _____________________________do certify that on the ________ day of __________ 2009 I personally served upon respondent copy of the petition by depositing it into the custody of the United States Postal Service with instruction for it to be delivered to the address indicated; certified with return receipt requested.

Walter S Moore                                                                                                                              Michael B Mukasey, US Attorney General
PO Box 3251                                                                                                                                                          PO Box 878, Ben Franklin Sta.
Houston Texas 7253-3251                                                                                                                              Washington D.C 20044-0878

===================NOTARY====================
Before me personally appear this _____ day of
_________________2008 Name: _______________________

Signature: _________________________________________
Notary: ____________________Exp._______

                                                                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
                                                                                   Moore V Mukasey, US Attorney General

Motion for stay

Petitioner would like to request a stay of proceedings, pending the resolution of this petition for certiorari.

===================NOTARY====================
Before me personally appear this ____ day of
_________________2008 Name: ______________________

Signature: ________________________________________
Notary: ____________________Exp._______

Walter S. Moore, PRO SE.                                                                                                                                    Michael B. Mukasey, US. AG
PO Box 3251                                                                                                                                                          PO Box 878, Ben Franklin Sta.
Houston Texas 77253-3251                                                                                                                           Washington D.C 20044-0878

Manipulating the law in favor of torture, well, that’s just disturbing!  We’re “patriotic” American’s and should uphold our constitution and international laws with pride! 

Those people creating document’s alleging those techniques are okay is deceptive.  It’s obvious torture, and if those people can’t see that then they must be anti-American.  They shouldn’t be allowed to practice law again.  Alleging that these techniques are needed to get information that would protect American’s, well that hasn’t happened.  Where we better off during those eight years?  There’s been an increase of those fanatical religious groups ever since, and there coming out in droves in our own country.  All they want is to ignore their own problems and push their religion on the rest of us, so I’d say NO we are not better off with the Bush Administrations policies or torture techniques.  The extremist’s have become more brazen towards us or anyone who is not on their side, including the social conservative extremists in our own country who wish to push their religious views on the rest of us, as well as push it into our laws.  No, I’d say torture didn’t make us any safer.

Bush Lawyers’ Disbarment Sought

A coalition of liberal groups filed petitions Monday seeking disbarment of Bush administration attorneys linked to memos on harsh interrogation techniques of detainees.

Complaints were filed against 12 individuals, including former attorneys general John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey and former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, said a member of the groups. The complaints filed with bar associations in the District of Columbia and four states _ New York, California, Texas and Pennsylvania _ say their licenses should be revoked for “moral turpitude.”

“These lawyers misused their license to practice law to provide legal cover for the war crime of torture,” said Kevin Zeese, executive director of VotersForPeace.US and a board member with VelvetRevolution.US, the two groups leading the effort.

Memos by the Bush Justice Department contended that waterboarding _ a form of simulated drowning _ as well as sleep deprivation and other extreme techniques were legal under U.S. and international law.

The funeral for Army Spc. Alyssa Peterson, Glagstaff, Arizona. (Photo: Jill Torrance / Getty Images)

Ann Wright

www.truthout.org, May 1, 2009

As a Bush administration political appointee Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice, Jay Bybee, a Mormon, wrote one of four torture memos released last month. Bybee’s August 1, 2002, 20-page memorandum laid out in excruciating detail the interrogation techniques he was authorizing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to use on al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah.

    Bybee authorized ten “enhanced interrogation techniques” to encourage Abu Zubaydah to disclose “crucial information regarding terrorist networks in the United States or in Saudi Arabia and information regarding plans to conduct attacks within the United States or against US interests overseas.” The torture techniques authorized were (1) attention grasp, (2) walling, (3) facial hold, (4) facial slap, (5) cramped confinement, (6) wall standing, (7) stress position, (8) sleep deprivation, (9) insects placed in a confinement box and (10) waterboarding.

    The current Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder has stated that waterboarding is torture, while the previous Attorney General Judge Mukasey refused to comment on whether waterboarding is torture.

    From recently released CIA documents, we know the CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times.

    But, we know that from March through June, 2002, according to FBI interrogator Ali Soufan in an op-ed to The New York Times on April 23, 2009, FBI interrogators had already gotten “actionable intelligence” from Zubaydah using traditional, nontorturing interrogation techniques, including that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11 and that Jose Padilla was planning to be a “dirty bomber.”

    Ninety of the 92 interrogation videotapes the CIA admits it destroyed were interrogations of Abu Zubaydah. Zubaydah’s British attorney Brent Mickum, in the most detailed account the public has had of Zubaydah’s life, states that after all the waterboarding and other torture methods used, the CIA finally recognized Zubaydah was not the senior al-Qaeda leader they had portrayed him to be. According to Mickum, the military commissions at Guantanamo are now “airbrushing” his name from the charge sheets of other Guantanamo prisoners. Mickum reveals Zubaydah was severely wounded in Afghanistan in 1992 while fighting communist insurgents after the withdrawal of Soviet forces. He has two pieces of shrapnel in his head, which have affected his memory to the extent that “he cannot remember his mother’s name or face.” Mickum states that Zubaydah was shot and severely wounded when he was picked up in Pakistan. His life was saved by a John Hopkins surgeon flown to the region. After being saved from death, he was almost tortured to death by CIA operatives. Mickum says that Zubaydah is a stateless Palestinian with no country to argue on his behalf and a United States government now embarrassed at being caught in its own illegal conduct.

    We know that combinations of the other nine techniques authorized by Jay Bybee can be classified as torture, as the Convening Authority of the Military Commissions at Guantanamo Susan Crawford declared when she dismissed the charges against Guantanamo prisoner Mohammed al-Qahtani, in January, 2009, in the last days of the Bush administration.

    Crawford said that for 160 days al-Qahtani’s only contact was with the interrogators and that 48 of 54 consecutive days he was subjected to 18- to 20-hour interrogations. He was strip searched and had to stand naked in front of a female agent. Al-Qahtani was forced to wear a woman’s bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation and was told that his mother and sister were whores. With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room “and forced to perform a series of dog tricks.” He was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus. The interrogations were so severe that twice al-Qahtani had to be hospitalized at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which, in extreme cases, can lead to heart failure and death. At one point, al-Qahtani’s heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the interrogation records showed.

    The torture techniques Jay Bybee authorized in 2002 migrated to Iraq in 2003. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller traveled to Iraq from Guantanamo to demonstrate to soldiers in Iraq the techniques the military and CIA were using in Guantanamo.

    In September 2003, another Mormon, a woman soldier, US Army Spc. Alyssa Peterson, said she refused to use the interrogation techniques that Bybee had authorized on Iraqi prisoners. An Arabic linguist with the US Army’s 101st Airborne Division at Tal Afar base, Iraq, 27-year-old Peterson, refused to take part in interrogations in the “cage” where Iraqis were stripped naked in front of female soldiers, mocked and their manhood degraded and burned with cigarettes, among other things. Three days later, on September 15, 2003, Peterson was found dead of a gunshot wound at Tal Afar base. The Army has classified her death as suicide.

    Jay Bybee, in thanks for his being the loyal soldier to the Bush administration’s policies of torture, was nominated and confirmed by the US Senate as a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he sits to this day in his lifetime appointment. Jay Bybee, an author of torture, reportedly has a placard in his home for his children that reads, “We don’t hurt each other.”

    Alyssa Peterson, for saying no to torture, is dead, perhaps by her own hand.

    To help Army Spc. Alyssa Peterson rest in peace, I say we should demand accountability from our officials and IMPEACH the torture judge, Jay Bybee.

»

Published on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 by Harper’s

Published on Monday, April 20, 2009 by RebelReports

Monday 23 March 2009

    The CIA has about 3,000 documents related to the 92 destroyed videotapes that showed “war on terror” detainees being subjected to harsh interrogations, the Justice Department has disclosed, suggesting an extensive back-and-forth between CIA field operatives and officials of the Bush administration.

    The Justice Department said the documents include “cables, memoranda, notes and e-mails” related to the destroyed CIA videotapes. Those tapes included 12 that showed two “high-value” prisoners undergoing the drowning sensation caused by waterboarding and other brutal techniques that have been widely denounced as torture.

    The number of documents – but not their contents – was mentioned on Friday in a Justice Department letter from Lev Dassin, acting US attorney for the Southern District of New York, to US District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

    Dassin told Judge Hellerstein that unredacted versions of the materials would be available for only him to review “in-camera” on March 26. The CIA also refused to provide the ACLU with a list of individuals who watched the videotapes prior to their destruction because that information “is either classified or otherwise protected by statute.”

    The number of relevant documents – “roughly 3,000,” according to the letter – adds weight to the belief that CIA interrogators were in frequent communication with headquarters at Langley, Virginia, and with senior Bush administration officials who were monitoring the harsh techniques used and approving them one by one or even in combination.

    The volume of communications also lends support to the suspicion that many officials were involved in the debate about what to do with the incriminating videotapes, not just one or two CIA officers acting on their own. CIA officials have said the videotapes were destroyed to prevent disclosure of how the agency’s interrogators subjected “war on terror” detainees to waterboarding and other brutal methods.

    Torture Allegations

    Last weekend, author Mark Danner disclosed a report prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), concluding that the abuse of 14 “high-value” detainees “constituted torture.”

    ”In addition, many other elements of the ill treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” according to the ICRC report. Since the ICRC’s responsibilities involve ensuring compliance with the Geneva Conventions and supervising the treatment of prisoners of war, the organization’s findings carry legal weight.

    The ICRC report also found that there was a consistency in many details from the detainees who were interviewed separately, and that the first “high-value” detainee to be captured, Abu Zubaydah, appeared to have been used as something of a test case by his interrogators. Zubaydah was one of the prisoners whose interrogations were videotaped by the CIA.

    Another detainee subjected to waterboarding and other abuse was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Two weeks ago, the Justice Department released a heavily censored page of what appears to be a CIA internal report about the torture of “war on terror” detainees, which read: “Interrogators administered [redacted] waterboard to Al-Nashiri.”

    The same page indicated that a dozen of the 92 destroyed videotapes of the CIA’s interrogations were of detainees undergoing brutal treatment. “There are 92 videotapes, 12 of which include EIT [enhanced interrogation techniques] applications,” the page said.

    The ACLU criticized the Justice Department for continuing to withhold documents related to the destruction of the torture tapes.

    ”The government is still needlessly withholding information about these tapes from the public, despite the fact that the CIA’s use of torture is well known,” said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. “Full disclosure of the CIA’s illegal interrogation methods is long overdue and the agency must be held accountable for flouting the rule of law.”

    Besides the ACLU’s FOIA lawsuit, the destruction of the CIA tapes has been the subject of a year-long criminal investigation by John Durham, the acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who was appointed special prosecutor last year by Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

    On Wednesday, the ACLU called on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Bush administration officials who signed off on and approved the torture of prisoners.

    ”The fact that such crimes have been committed can no longer be doubted or debated, nor can the need for an independent prosecutor be ignored by a new Justice Department committed to restoring the rule of law,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero.

    ”Given the increasing evidence of deliberate and widespread use of torture and abuse, and that such conduct was the predictable result of policy changes made at the highest levels of government, an independent prosecutor is clearly in the public interest,” Romero said.

    The Justice Department’s restrictive handling of the 3,000 documents comes one day after Attorney General Holder issued sweeping new FOIA guidelines for all executive branch agencies to “apply a presumption of openness when administering the FOIA.”

    ”The American people have the right to information about their government’s activities, and these new guidelines will ensure they are able to obtain that information under principles of openness and transparency,” Holder said on Thursday.

    Holder said FOIA requests would be denied and records withheld “only if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of the statutory exemptions, or disclosure is prohibited by law.” But, even then, all federal agencies were directed to at least “release records in part whenever they cannot be released in full.”

»

If a local law enforcement agency incarcerated 81 innocent people for every 19 criminals it caught, we would say it was violating civil rights and was wildly inept. When that same jurisdiction continued to hold those innocent 81, sometimes for a year, the media would run an expose and the public would be crying out for resignations.

This scenario is currently being played out through America’s immigration strategy of massive deportation over the last 15 years. Last week the Pew Hispanic Center revealed that Latinos make up 40% of those sentences in federal courts in 2008 while comprising only 13% of the adult population. It went on to state that Latinos are 1/3 of federal prison inmates as of 2007. With our prisons facing massive overcrowding and public defender’s offices around the nation facing debilitating budget cuts, one would assume that this prison population was all dangerous felons, but in fact, 81% of them did nothing more than cross an imaginary line in a desert or overstay a student visa. (“Enforcement Gone Bad. New York Times)

Earlier this month, the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute published findings that while the Department of Homeland Security’s budget went from $9 million in 2003 to $218 million last year, it ceased to arrest the undocumented felons and “terrorists” it was charged with capturing and instead shifted its focus to families, workers, children, women – none of whom had a previous record or anything besides an overstayed visa or lack of documentation. Of the 72,000 arrested through February 2008, 73% had no criminal record. (“Enforcement Gone Bad. New York Times)

As Homeland Security USA continues to run on ABC, the reality is that since 2006, DHS has shifted its focus to more “easily apprehended” targets. The raids on factories like Postville, Iowa, and on homes netted few criminals but a myriad of working families. Catchy names like “Operation Return to Sender” fail to mask the fact that while there were more than ½ million immigrants with removal orders in 2006, ICE raids honed in on families and workers rather than criminals and terrorists. According to the Migration Policy Institute’s report, internal directives in 2006 set quotas for operatives in the National Fugitive Operations Program but disbanded the standard that 75% of apprehended individuals be criminals. Fugitives with criminal records dropped to 9% of those captured, while immigrants without deportation orders increased to account for 40%. The 2006 directive sent by acting director John P. Torres raised each team’s goal to 1,000 a year, from 125. (Bernstein, Nina. “Target of Immigrant Raids Shifted”)

An author of the report, Yale Law Professor Michael Wishnie stated that random arrests of extralegal immigrants in such residential raids was “dramatically different from how ICE has sold this program to Congress,” not to mention the civil and human rights issues it raises where ICE agents enter private homes without consent and/or warrants. From New Haven to Brownsville, from Maricopa County to San Diego County, ICE abused its power by passing legislation in one form and then enforcing it in a completely different format. As she reviews the agency, Janet Napolitano must take this into account, realizing that our resources must be spent on legalizing our workforce and apprehending our criminals, and never the twain shall meet. (Bernstein, Nina. “Target of Immigrant Raids Shifted”)

DHS recently released statistics of the last decade’s deportations, and of the 2.2 million immigrants deported from 1997-2007, 108,000 of them were parents of legal American citizens. If these immigrants even had two children [a low estimate], then more than 200,000 children were affected. And if they took their children with them when they were removed, then essentially the United States was deporting two legal citizens for every undocumented one. Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian, revealed a calloused, nativist sentiment when he responded, “Should those parents get off the hook just because their kids are put in a difficult position? Children often suffer because of the mistakes of their parents.” Mr. Krikorian seems to have a firm grasp on the Old Testament principle that Yahweh will punish “the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation” [Exodus 34:7], though he seems to have stopped his reading of the Torah just before 2 Chronicles 25:4 which repeals this vengeful promise [“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."] (Falcone, Michael. New York Times). Children are not acceptable collateral damage.

In the spirit of reform under the new administration, one would hope that high on Attorney General Eric Holder’s agenda would be reversing Mukasey’s January ruling that immigrants lack the Constitutional rights to effective representation as secured by the Due Process Clause and the 5^th and 14^th Amendments. Mukasey’s eleventh-hour statement overruled a twenty-year standard. Because immigration cases are civil cases rather than criminal, there is no requirement for representation [a single day in immigration court drives home the fact that this default to pro se representation is manifestly unfair for the majority of immigrants who cannot speak English yet]. (“Deportation and Due Process. New York Times)

In 2009, the United States stands as a country in an economic depression which is poring vast amounts of money into detaining its workforce, deporting its own citizens, and constructing a 700-mile during peacetime. As Dr. King warned, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” It’s high time we renounced our declaration of war against the 12 million extralegal people within our borders and instead moved towards a nonpartisan, comprehensive immigration reform which affirms the humanity of all.

"By their fruits you will know them and shit." Matt. 7:16

Newsweek says the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has former Bush Adminstration officials anxious (read terrified!!!).

Jay I-just-love-me-some-inquisition-style-justice Bybee and John Let’s-crush-the-suspect’s-child’s-testicles Yoo gave the sort of legal advice that might have fallen short of what’s legal and ethical.

Yeah, can I have a big, freakin’ duh.

Top toadies, former AG Michael Mukasey and his deputy, Mark Filip, “strongly objected” to OPR’s early findings.

Oh, but guess what…Mukasey is out, and the new guy, Eric “Waterboarding is torture” Holder is in.  Holder will be the one who receives the final version of the report.

Good job, OPR, waiting until the toadies made their exit.

Hopefully, it will all end up in the hands of appropriate bar associations.  The public may even get a copy.

Yes!

Watch Rachel Maddow break it down.

Jason Leopold, Consortium News. Posted January 26, 2009.

As President Barack Obama reverses some of ex-President George W. Bush’s most controversial “war on terror” policies, a consensus seems to be building among Democratic congressional leaders that further investigations are needed into Bush’s use of torture and other potential crimes.

On Wednesday – the first working day of the Obama administration – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would support funding and staff for additional fact-finding by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which last month released a report tracing abuse of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib to Bush’s Feb. 7, 2002, decision to exclude terror suspects from Geneva Convention protections.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, who issued that report, echoed Reid’s comments, saying “there needs to be an accounting of torture in this country.” Levin, D-Michigan, also said he intends to encourage the Justice Department and incoming Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate torture practices that took place while Bush was in office.

Two other key Democrats joined in this growing chorus of lawmakers saying that serious investigations should be conducted.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, a former federal prosecutor and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a floor speech, “As the President looks forward and charts a new course, must someone not also look back, to take an accounting of where we are, what was done, and what must now be repaired.”

Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters: “Looking at what has been done is necessary.”

On Jan. 18, two days before Obama’s inauguration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed support for House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers’s plan to create a blue-ribbon panel of outside experts to probe the “broad range” of policies pursued by the Bush administration “under claims of unreviewable war powers.”

In an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, Pelosi specifically endorsed a probe into the politicization of the Justice Department, but didn’t spell out a position on Conyers’s plan to examine the Bush administration’s torture and rendition policies, which could prove embarrassing to Pelosi and other Democratic leaders who were briefed by the CIA about these tactics.

Still, when Wallace cited Obama’s apparent unwillingness to investigate the Bush administration, Pelosi responded: “I think that we have to learn from the past, and we cannot let the politicizing of the — for example, the Justice Department, to go unreviewed. Past is prologue. We learn from it. And my views on the subject — I don’t think that Mr. Obama and Mr. Conyers are that far apart.”

The emerging consensus among top congressional Democrats for some form of investigation into Bush’s controversial policies has surprised some progressives who had written off the leadership long ago for blocking impeachment hearings and other proposals for holding Bush and his subordinates accountable.

In 2006, for instance, Pelosi famously declared that “impeachment is off the table,” and prior to Election 2008, the Democratic leadership largely acquiesced to Bush’s demands for legislation that supported his “war on terror” policies, including a compromise bill granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that assisted in Bush’s warrantless wiretaps.

A Changed Tone

Since the election – in which the Democrats increased their congressional majorities and won the White House – key Democrats have begun releasing more information about Bush’s abuses of power.

Besides Levin’s findings on mistreatment of detainees, Conyers published a 487-page report entitled “Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush” that calls for the creation of a blue-ribbon panel and independent criminal probes into the Bush administration’s conduct in the “war on terror.”

Conyers urged the Attorney General to “appoint a Special Counsel or expand the scope of the present investigation into CIA tape destruction to determine whether there were criminal violations committed pursuant to Bush administration policies that were undertaken under unreviewable war powers, including enhanced interrogation, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless domestic surveillance.”

Last year, Bush’s Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as special counsel to investigate whether the destruction of CIA videotapes that depicted interrogators waterboarding alleged terrorist detainees violated any laws. Durham was not given the authority to probe whether the interrogation techniques themselves violated anti-torture laws.

“At present, the Attorney General has agreed only to appoint a special U.S. Attorney to determine whether the destruction of videotapes depicting the waterboarding of a detainee constituted violations of federal law,” Conyers’s report said.

“Despite requests from Congress, that prosecutor has not been asked to investigate whether the underlying conduct being depicted – the waterboarding itself or other harsh interrogation techniques used by the military or the CIA – violated the law. … Appointment of a special counsel would be in the public interest (e.g., it would help dispel a cloud of doubt over our law enforcement system).”

Additional evidence about the Bush administration’s actions is expected to become available in the coming weeks as the Obama administration loosens the secrecy that has surrounded Bush’s “war on terror,” a phrase that Obama and his team have effectively dropped from Washington’s lexicon.

Obama’s aides have indicated that there soon may be a “public airing” of secret Justice Department legal opinions and other documents that provided the underpinning for the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation policies.

Levin also indicated that he expects to release the full Armed Services Committee report – covering an 18-month investigation – in about two or three weeks.  Levin added that he would ask the Senate Intelligence Committee to conduct its own investigation of torture as implemented by the CIA.

Meanwhile, Republicans have grown increasingly worried that Holder, as Attorney General, will launch a criminal investigation into Bush’s interrogation policies. They delayed a vote on his nomination demanding that he respond to questions about whether he intends to investigate and/or prosecute Bush administration officials.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he wants to ask Holder whether he intends to investigate the Bush administration and intelligence officials for torture

Last week, at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder was asked about the practice of waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning that the Bush administration has acknowledged using against three terror suspects. Holder answered that “waterboarding was torture.”

Cornyn said Holder’s view means there is a possibility that investigations might be on the horizon.

“Part of my concern, frankly, relates to some of his statements at the hearing in regard to torture and what his intentions are with regard to intelligence personnel who were operating in good faith based upon their understanding of what the law was,” Cornyn said Wednesday.

My initial skepticism over yesterday’s choice of Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary Clinton by the ever wavering Governor David Paterson was confirmed last night when I watched the news coverage of the announcement. Standing oh so close to Ms Gillibrand was the bloated image of former NY Senator Al D’amato (he even shoved Chuck Schumer out of camera range). It turns out that Ms Gillibrand was a summer intern for D’amato while in college and D’Amato, is an old family friend. Gillibrand’s ftather, Doug Rutnik once lived with former D’Amato aide Zenia Mucha. Being that close to Al D’amato is a very negative thing in my book.

My Gillibrand does not represent any urban thought process that I know about. Yes, we are a big state and I do recognize that up-staters have needs too. However, we down-staters are a vocal, cash-cow, voting group with serious political issues that cannot be overlooked. I think Paterson’s choice was a terrible one and his trashing of Caroline Kennedy does not bode well for his re-election campaign in 2010. Andrew Cuomo? Where are you?

Now, about Chuck Schumer – word has it that he was campaigning hard for Ms Gillibrand. I am still angry at him for pushing fromer Attorney Geneneral Michael Mukasey down our throats and now I find that he might be responsible for this choice as well. Chuck, you are disappointing us. AP Photo/Mike Groll above.

More tomorrow on Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy’s outrage over this selection and plan.

-  In the good news department: ‘President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration’s ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information _ an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century. The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office’.

- Great new site to bookmark. PolitiFact has compiled about 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on their Obameter. They rate their status as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once they find action is completed, they rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.

-  In the funny column: Political Irony -  In honor of our new president, Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream recently announced a new flavor called “Yes Pecan!“. Here is a list of some more flavors including, Heck of a Job, Brownie! imPeachmint, Abu Grape, Grammar Cracker S’moron, Guantanmallow, Chock ‘n Awe, Grape Depression and Cluster Fudge.

- January 23, 2009: The Day in 100 Seconds

-  In his first weekly address since being sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, President Barack Obama discussed how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan will jump-start the economy.

Glenn Greenwald, www.salon.com

It is hard to believe, right? Just two days to go. Optimism abounds even though the country is mired in muck up to our eyeballs. Public confidence is high and that has to mean something, doesn’t it? Mr. Obama is speaking with everyone from all sides of the political spectrum bringing a much needed feel good atmosphere to a broken city. I am psyched for Tuesday and hope that you will be enjoying the Inauguration with friends, like I am. We are going to gather for a champagne brunch, lots of toasts, smiles and perhaps a few tears. Frank Rich writers about Obama coming to town.  Maureen Dowd writes about Bush’ Long Goodbye. Today is filled with this and that. Oh, and a hearty happy birthday to Michelle Obama who turned 45 yesterday.

-  Be warned. Seat belts required wile watching this. Here is something George Bush might like to try in his retirement when not clearing brush.

-  Ever wonder what successful people do with each day? Check out this site.

-  File this under jerks of the week. Twi controversial US Attorneys have no intention of leaving the Justice Department on January 20th. “Political appointees to the Justice Department traditionally tender their resignation when a new president moves into the White House; Buchanan and Martin would apparently rather be fired. Their contrariness is particularly notable given a brand-new internal Justice Department report that includes unprecedented details regarding the department’s politicized atmosphere. “

-   Now that the genie is out of the bottle “Attorney General Michael Mukasey raised concerns that government agents and national security lawyers may be at risk for criminal prosecution after his likely successor, Eric Holder, declared that waterboarding of terror detainees is torture”. Mukasey  said “that one reason he didn’t answer the question as Mr. Holder did was because of the peril it would pose to agents and lawyers who he believes did their best under trying circumstances following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks”.

-  A cottage industry has already begun for Captain Sullenberger. Check out the I ‘heart Sully t-shirt.  Coast Guard Video of the first ten minutes of the Hudson River Plane Crash

-  Great Moments In Presidential Speeches Compilation from Dave Letterman. It is true that I despise the man, but I have to admit, he did make me laugh at times (through the tears).

- Do not sleep through the Inauguration like this little guy, okay?

political cartoons

Seed NewsvineSubscribe in a reader

The New York Times editorial from last week, “The Torture Report,” is a must-read for some back-story.

The Real News Network:

Last week, outgoing US Vice-President Dick Cheney made a series of remarkable comments in his exclusive interview with ABC. Cheney admitted to playing a role in the authorization of the use of waterboarding and other ‘aggressive interrogation techniques’, defended the decision to listen-in on domestic phone calls, and essentially provided broad approval for all the actions taken by his government over his tenure. In the first part of our interview with Michael Ratner, Michael gives his analysis of both the significance of the interview, and what he believes are Cheney’s motivations for such an uncharacteristic offering of information from the notoriously secretive VP.

BIO:

Michael Ratner is President of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York. He has taught at Yale Law School, lectured at Columbia Law School, and was President of the National Lawyers Guild.

Part One (8:24):

Part Two (13:13):

Democracy Now! – “Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) Calls for Independent Counsel to Investigate Cheney and Rumsfeld for Violating Torture Laws”:

Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York has urged Attorney General Michael Mukasey to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other senior Bush administration officials for violations of the law relating to the torture of prisoners in US custody. Nadler is the chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Part One (10:37):

Part Two (10:42):