To: Merrick Garland - Attorney General
C/O: United States Department of Justice
Subject: Request to Reject/Remand “Congressional Contempt” Referrals
Date: December 15, 2021
Patriotic
Priority - HIGH
Dear Honorable Merrick
Garland as Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice:
I am not a lawyer. I am a
law-abiding senior citizen. I do not correspond today with any intent that what
I propose meets the “bar” in the legal standards arena, in being heard out on a
subject matter of legal concern. But I respectfully ask for your full
cooperation to address such based on the facts presented, at the same time
notwithstanding the facts that may limit my knowledge upon the legal aspects of
this concern. That said, I believe the DOJ should take pity any lack of such
knowledge and hear me out, as a concern that finds merit not by virtue of one’s
loneliness nor ignorance in jurisprudence, but the fact the DOJ is a legal vice
“For the People”, regardless of one’s ineptness in understanding the complications
inherent in our legal system. Even if a mainstay majority of Americans find not
an understanding of the “law” in these inherent legal complications through
jurisdictional motions and appeals, it is a system of merit that serves well
this Great Nation. So I plead, please do not find in answer this concern
feedback rushed to judgment that pushes back based on any incompetence on my
behalf, as I am only trying to bring forward a valid concern involving the DOJ
and the well-being of “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” in Democracy.
To begin with, the DOJ under
your watch has cited a Steve Bannon on two criminal counts, based on a
“citation referral” handed down by the United States House of Representatives
and now the work begins, in discovery and all the other things necessary to
make sure there is not a reason for a mistrial, hung jury or other obstacles
that could stand in the way of the DOJ’s efforts the rigors of prosecuting an
American citizen, for due cause with guilt. In that matter most recently, a
District Court has scheduled a trial date for July 18th, 2022,
further down the road then what the DOJ had requested and further down the road
then what most Americans thought was justified within the concept of a “speedy
trial”, based on the severity of this referral and its association in the
ongoing Congressional “investigation” with respect to the January 6th
“Attack” on the U.S. Capitol. And most recently, December 13th to be
exact, there appears to be another referral being processed through the “House
of Congress”, naming a Mr. Mark Meadows as the individual of interest, again for
“contempt” in refusal to provide testimony to the January 6th
“Select Committee”. The case load will double for the DOJ in this arena
adjudicating “Congressional Contempt” and possibly in the near future more
individuals of interest the same charges, thus increasing that workload some
more. I am sure the DOJ is prepared for this legal battle onslaught maybe a nightmare,
as it appears it will involve the U.S. Supreme Court along the way to
prosecutorial salvation. But herein is wherein I request to be heard, that
there already exists a time-proven solution that meets the demands of the legal
system’s righteousness in “merit” that could prove to be beneficial and
accelerate justice served and minimize the DOJ’s involvement. That said, then
the DOJ could use its resources to better serve this nation gainfully engaged in
other legal circumstances.
So it appears that
interference by yet another entity-in-law finds a tendency, maybe through the
“norms”, to obstruct justice as time is of the essence in the Mr. Bannon and Mr.
Meadows case. And therein finds my concern, that unnecessary delays due
“interference”, even though there is no easy way around such inherent delays,
well how could the DOJ have entered this verdict to hear the Bannon case and
soon the Meadows case in knowing that the nature of the beast would allow for
delays? That said I ask, “Do we really have the time”? This case(s) involves
the possible affiliation with the “Enemy of the People”, as the “Attack” on the
U.S. Capitol was a “coup” that which now brings Mr. Bannon and Mr. Meadows
front and center of attention on the legal stage. In a nutshell, why did not
the DOJ deny this Bannon referral to engage in this indictment when the “Select
Committee” - that which is the catalyst for the “House” referral when individual(s)
ignore a valid “Congressional Subpoena” - when that “Committee” did not yet exhaust
“All” of its available legal options in remedy before requesting help from the
DOJ?
That forms the foundation of
this concern, that “ALL” remedies had not yet been exhausted by that “Select
Committee” and through this premature advancement involving the DOJ, placing
the DOJ in an awkward position. In philosophy, that the burden by litigants to
exhaust all remedies is fundamental to a legal system that is not guilty of
pre-meditated gaslighting, in the sense of manipulation. To not seek all
possible solutions in remedy, it finds a dereliction and should not be
tolerated, the DOJ should not bend over to this dereliction by the “Select
Committee”. The latter “Committee” should own it until such time it can prove
it has exhausted all possible remedies, it has not done so.
Of merit in my concern finds
fact that the House of Representatives “Select Committee” did not exhaust “All”
available legal options at its disposal, as can be found in McGrain v.
Daugherty(circa 1927). Which is an almost identical case upon what is today
confronting the “Select Committee”, with respect to the law abiding duty upon
an American citizen in honoring a valid “Congressional Subpoena” instead inciting
a challenge through ignorance, wherein punishment for dishonoring such a motion
to compel finds in McGrain a precedence-set solution and should apply today such
similar circumstances - the exception back in 1927 when it was adjudicated it
was the Senate involvement, today it is still only the House.
From a legal perspective, one
could not ask for better similarities in a case, could not ask for a better
fit, with an already solution without the assistance of the DOJ. And McGrain
made it clear that it did not matter which Congressional body pursued such
remedies as found in this long-standing Supreme Court backed case, as both the
House and the Senate can act independently in matters of national security
through investigations with the unfettered authority to “subpoena” witnesses,
thus McGrain fits.
So the merits of McGrain
should not have been over-looked by the “Select Committee” and that “High
Court” decision in McGrain should have been exhausted in remedy before requesting
DOJ involvement, now as interference through such interaction the entity to
which you are in command of, or at least the potential to advocate
“interference”. I sight “McGrain” as the “Select Committee” has acknowledged
the same “rule of the land”, through its legal documents now published.
Needless to say, that entity
under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is aware of the existence of “McGrain” and
should realize its potential, upon what is confronting that “Committee” as I
speak, in its efforts to compel witnesses - the latter has failed, due the fact
the “Select Committee” is cutting short its legal responsibility as found in
“McGrain”. I contend that had the “Select Committee” utilized the full breath
of “McGrain”, there may not have been a problem to the point it required
involvement by the DOJ. To haphazardly involve the latter, it wastes resources,
it wastes the U.S. Taxpayers’ obligation in “Taxation” for reasonable cause, especially
when there exists other options. I will expound upon this “interference”
callout, and do not take this as derogatory gesture the merits of the DOJ and
its importance in establishing a law-abiding nation. In McGrain, which is
supported by the Supreme Court in “ALL” of its entitlements the power of
“Congress” to subpoena individuals, it provided the action of “attachment” upon
served individuals that ignored such requests, so this was not an option
exercised by the “Select Committee” - actionable through an “Arrest Warrant”
issued by the presiding officer over the “House”, namely Nancy Pelosi as House
Speaker and or others in that authority.
Another important treatise
found in McGrain and pointed out by the “High Court” Justices, the timeliness
required to ajudicate matters of national concern and advocating that
involvement by an outside entity and its time-wise inherent interference, that
can “defeat the purpose” when other courts become involved, surely the case
today and the reason early on I commented on this DOJ involvement as “interference”.
The time-element for justice is a concern based on the fact that when the 2nd
session of the 117th House of Congress ends, so does this
“Committee” cease to exist. And if there is still an interest when the “House”
is gaveled back into a “new session” with the 118th, as time delays
can sometimes decide the worthiness moving forward due lack of interest, such a
“Select Committee” must then be re-instated. And that “interest” finds many
factors that would influence any recovery to continue on, as the “House” is not
a continuing body in governance unlike the U.S. Senate finds some semblance of
a carry-over with its agendas and unfinished business. Politically speaking, a
change in the majority of the “House” could spell disaster for all investigatory
efforts upon the concerns over that January 6th “Attack”, so time is
a major concern the merits of finding any responsible party and or individual
responsible. In reasoning, the fact that the “Select Committee” in not
exhausting the merits of McGrain, that is contributing to unnecessary delays,
by now involving the DOJ.
So this involvement by the
DOJ when it was not out of a dire straits necessity, as other options are
available to the “Select Committee”, it contributes to unnecessary time delays,
which may contribute to “defeating the purpose” of the “Select Committee’s”
investigation bearing consequences on those individuals responsible for that
January 6th “Attack” on the U.S. Capitol.
Without exhausting the
merits found in McGrain, for very similar concerns regarding a “Congressional
Subpoena”, this may be an unfair advantage to both Steve Bannon and the
Constitution. Had the “Select Committee” followed the “High Court” ruling
consistent with the “McGrain” decision, Mr. Bannon would have been by now a
free man, had he found incarceration an unfavorable choice without a “writ of
habeas corpus” at his disposal and thus compelled to testify to the “Select
Committee’s” satisfaction. Or in hesitation, life still behind bars with the
Sergeant-at-Arms as the warden. That said, had Mr. Bannon chose to not defy
that “subpoena” and was in answer to the satisfaction any “Select Committee”
requests, either in documents and or direct testimony, he would have been
released from the Sergeant-at-Arms custody. To not have exhausted the remedy
allowed under McGrain, it is surely in disadvantage for the Constitution, as we
rely on the “High Court” to make conscious “opinions”, as was the case with
“McGrain”. In mention, it was a decision that came to be the “law of the land”
when both the House and Senate were under Republican control, not to politicize
this concern of mine, but because the “Select Committee” should have found no
inclination to dishonor the “McGrain verdict, as what else can we ask for when
a decision to “attach” Mr. Bannon had no ramification within the sense of a
political “witch hunt” - it was used before by the Republicans for that
purpose, it was formulated by a Supreme Court in the majority members of the
Republican Party.
So this is a request that as
the Nation’s Attorney General, that the DOJ take this herein concern under
serious consideration and quit the Steve Bannon case, by remanding it back to
the “Congress” stating the merits of the DOJ’s action in fact, that Congress
did not fulfill its obligation to exhaust all remedies at hand and to have the
DOJ get involved was premature. If that is not an available option due the fact
this “petition” was not timely filed, that any future similar referrals by the
House in its efforts to investigate the January 6th Attack on the
U.S. Capitol through the auspices of the “Select Committee” and referred under
the same disguise, wherein subpoenaed witnesses ignore that obligation in
defiance no excuse, that such be immediately rejected. By citing the fact that
there are other options that the Congress must exhaust before the DOJ will
entertain any involvement in holding those that refuse to honor a valid
“Congressional Subpoena” in “Criminal Contempt”.
Furthermore, in evidence the
fact that the “House of Representatives” did not exhaust all remedies that may
have been instigated upon to circumvent the need to get the DOJ involved, I
mention House Resolution 406, as sponsored by Representative Ted Lieu. I
mention this “resolution” as it is paramount my concern that the “House” is
derelict in its duty to make sure the “Select Committee” uses, to demonstrate,
to mobilize “All” efforts at its disposal to cover its priorities during any
investigation, as to not use all that is available can also point to the fact
it will not prevail, and thus a waste of the U.S. Taxpayers resources. This is of
no fault of the DOJ, just mentioned herein to reinforce my concern, that the
“Select Committee” and the “House of Representatives” together are not acting
in “good faith” upon its responsibilities and because of that failure, inviting
in other entities that could further fail the merits of the “investigation” in
a timely manner. Since May of this year, there has been no moving forward on
this resolution, it is stalled in the “Rules Committee” wherein a member of the
“Select Committee” enjoys the same membership responsibilities, so it appears
there exists delays in the very meaning of “Congress” that is having a tendency
to undermine the obligation of that body, to act diligently in times of need. And
no other “resolution” would better serve the “Select Committee” at this time,
to further its investigation with a tool that could undermine individuals the
right to obstruct justice. That said, without passage, it places an extra
burden on the DOJ. For the record and reference, this resolution is titled
“Congressional Inherent Contempt Act”, in mention it has failed twice to make
it through the “Rules Committee”, as like mentioned already the “House” is not
a continuous body in governance. But when one views the importance of this
“resolution” that which when passed if ever, it allows a $monetary$ fine” to be
assessed against those individuals that practice ignorance or other tactics to
avoid honoring a valid “Congressional Subpoena”. That in turn helps the
American Taxpayers avoid the pitfalls of having to spend resources to bring to
justice individuals that circumvent the law with ignorance - like with Steve
Bannon. So it is clear to see, that the “House” has not done its homework, has
not utilized “law of the land” precedence-set decisions backed by the U.S.
Supreme Court. There is more likely then not in possibility that things related
to the “Select Committee’s” investigation, that now are the unwelcome problem
of the DOJ, it will more then likely make its way to the “High Court” - just
more time in the dugout when we have not that time to waste. It wouldn’t be a
shame that when and if such a case gets to the Supreme Court, that justice
would rule that McGrain was not followed and sends the entire litigation back
to the “Select Committee”, as that is what happens when legal issues of merit
are sidetracked for reasons unbecoming a “House” through a sub-committee
performing without advocating the use of “All” internal options before seeking
help from outside entities.
So I ask that the Department
of Justice remand the Stephen Bannon “Contempt Citation” back to the House of
Congress, wherein it can be rectified back to the “Select Committee”. Wherein
the DOJ decision is based on the fact that the “law of the land” in “McGrain”
in precedence-set by the U.S. Supreme Court was not adhered to, that “All”
remedies were not exhausted. And until such time “All” remedies have been tried
to exhaustion, that the DOJ must remand the “Contempt Citation” back to the
“House” and that decision rests for any future “contempt” referrals under the
same matters by the “Select Committee” trying to involve the DOJ prematurely.
By doing so, the “House”
should then realize the potential of McGrain for addressing the very same thing
that is bothering the “Select Committee” in its probe of the January 6th
Attack on the Capitol, wherein the duty of Congress requires true testimony,
through a witness under a subpoena, for testimony in a timely manner without
any outside interference.
To end, it is noted what a
“Select Committee” member is of record in statement, upon this “Constitutional
Inherent Contempt” and its “merits” to conceive justice. Yet we see a reneging
by that very same “Committee” upon such “known” merits. It is time that the DOJ
rejects the “Select Committee’s” request for help, especially in cases similar
to Mr. Steve Bannon and the obligation of a valid subpoena, as it will then convince
that “Committee” to exhaust “All” remedies at its disposal, which would then
prove its worth, as it worked before it can work again. According to Mr. Adam
Schiff back in 2019(May 10th) the following:
House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said
Friday that Congress is considering reviving its inherent contempt power to
levy hefty fines on Trump administration officials and others who refuse
to comply with congressional subpoenas.
“One
thing we are considering … is whether we need to revive Congress’s inherent
contempt power, such that we would have our own adjudication of the Congress
and we would levy fines on those who are not cooperating until they produce
what they are compelled to produce,” Schiff said at an event hosted by Axios. Schiff
said he was not interested in using the inherent contempt power to jail
individuals who evade congressional subpoenas, but suggested fines — up to
$25,000 per day — would be a “practical” way to compel them to comply with
the myriad investigations underway by the Democratic-led House. “I
think it’s much more practical to consider levying individual fines on the
person, not the office, until they comply,” Schiff said. “You could fine
someone $25,000 a day until they comply and that would probably get their
attention.”
The
inherent contempt power is rarely used. Under it, an individual can
be detained at the Capitol or face fines for failing to comply with
congressional oversight investigations.
Schiff
said it would ultimately be up to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
whether to use the inherent contempt power. He said it would represent a “big
step” but may be necessary if the Trump administration continues to
stonewall Democrats' investigations.
“We are
looking through the history and studying the law to make sure we’re on solid
ground. That’s a big step but, look, if we’re going to consider other big steps
like impeachment, we have to consider steps like inherent contempt that will
allow us to get the information we need,” Schiff said.
“If there
is going to be this across the board stonewalling, we are going to have to
consider extraordinary remedies,” he said.
Without doubt, it advertises
the fact that the “Select Committee” is well aware of its options in McGrain. The
fact that “Inherent Contempt” still exists, this revive quote by Mr. Schiff is
but for an excuse in weakness that it is not available, or not well defined. It
is the “law of the land” and if called upon to assure that to be the case, I am
sure the DOJ could then demonstrate what its “mission” is all about. So it is affirmed,
that the DOJ may have a role in this “Select Committee’s” investigation, but
not for what it has been asked to do so far. For a “Select Committee” member to
state the fact that he/she may not be interested in adjudicating under the
merits of “Inherent Contempt”, which is basically the McGrain verdict
reassured, that is a ways and means to just pass the buck in responsibility. And
should not be allowed, the DOJ has the right to send back any referrals until
such time the “House” demonstrates it has exhausted all options it has available
as a remedy, within the domain of the Constitution and the powers bestowed upon
the Congress. And the fact that it has been over 2-years wherein the “House”
understood some weaknesses in its “rules” and advocated for change that would
assist in any obligation with respect to “Congressional Contempt”, there is no
excuse why “resolutions” that are required now are stalled in a “House”
controlled by the very same majority.
Yet it appears that what may
be at the disposal of the “House of Congress”, that of the existing “Inherent
Contempt” reinforced by the McGrain verdict, such may be shackled and of no use
by an authority outside the “Select Committee”, most likely by the “House
Speaker” Nancy Pelosi, so it is then definitely not the DOJ’s problem! To reiterate
my concern that the “House” is merely passing the buck of courage, it is not
demonstrating in “good faith” to use “ALL” options at its disposal and again
the reason the DOJ should remand back to the “House” the Steve Bannon referral
and or any future referrals for “Congressional Contempt”. Then maybe we will
find out why “All” options have not been engaged upon to try individuals guilty
of trespass on Democracy in ignoring a “Congressional Subpoena”. It is NOT a
problem of the DOJ.
And think of it this way Mr.
Garland. By taking hold of this in a manner that will then subject the “House”
to police its own institution, to get things of necessity passed that could
assist in investigations and also forces the use of “law of the land” Supreme
Court decisions like is found in McGrain, maybe then Professor Laurence Tribe
will know what you have been up against, and refrain away from that rhetoric
that you are not doing your job!
Respectfully Submitted, S.
Pam McGee for the Lousy Hat Proletariat Party
CC’d: BENNIE G. THOMPSON
as “Chairman” and LIZ CHENEY as “Vice Chair” along with, ZOE LOFGREN,
ELAINE LURIA, ADAM SCHIFF, PETE AGUILAR, STEPHANIE
MURPHY, JAMIE RASKIN and ADAM KINZINGER as “Honorable
Members” on the “Select Committee Investigating the January 6th “Attack”
on the United States Capitol” via “TIPLINE” at https://january6th.house.gov/
*****EOC
*****
*Sodomnote: In
evidence, that the above request to the DOJ finds merit that Merrick Garland could
better serve justice by rejecting and or remanding back to Congress any “Contempt”
referrals. Well on the very same day that the “Select Committee” was wasting
the U.S. Taxpayers’ dime in time selling another bridge to “nowhere”, using the
Congressional “Chamber” to complain and arguing to send a “Contempt” citation
to the DOJ for Mark Meadows, well Ted Lieu was in interview what really needs
to be done:
Dateline White House(MSNBC): Do you believe that there's a pressure,
in terms of the time that congress is under to get those answers, because are
you at all concerned that by sending this out to the DOJ to prosecute Mark Meadows
it could create a legal process that does not get resolved for months. If not
at least by the end of next year when there are midterm elections and congress
may switch from the democrats leading this investigation to republicans, who
would want to stonewall it?
Representative Ted Lieu: I am absolutely concerned, which is
why I have legislation that will allow the House of Representatives execute or inherent
content power. It's a power the supreme court has upheld, we can use it to fine
witnesses or to put them into confinement. It's time we use that because right
now the trial for Steve Bannon for example, is not set till august. For Mark Meadows,
will probably be even further and when he can delay enforcement subpoenas that
long, it effectively renders subpoenas meaningless. And I highly urge the house
legal counsel to reverse course, because the strategy that they have employed
for the last few years has not worked, congressional subpoenas have been
rendered largely meaningless by people who want to evade them.
That said, what I propose to the DOJ with the above
correspondence, it is all “We the People” have to save our DEMOCRACY. And for
Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows and John Eastman and Roger Stone and Jeffrey
Clark, hey the eggnog behind bars may taste pretty good and what else could you
ask for, like maybe Ted Kaczynski singing “We wish you…
