Did Graham and Kyl Break the Law With Their Phony Debate? YES!

[originalpckelly]

While the Supreme Court of the United States may not have a rule against submission of fraudulent documents in a case, the Congress passed a law to prevent such submissions in all matter affecting the judicial branch. The law is 18 USC 1001, and it may land Graham and Kyl in jail. The complete language of the law is a follows:

"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate."

The fact that Graham and Kyl were not formally parties to this case prevents the immunity given in subsection b from protecting them. They may very well be safe from prosecution, however, since the executive branch is controlled by their party. Hopefully, public disclosure of this law and their crime will bring pressure to bear on the government to prosecute them.

Here is a link to the John Dean article explaining the fraudulent debate:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060705.html

[originalpckelly]

1. You see they filed an amicus curiae brief...

Here is a short explanation from Wikipedia:
"Amicus curiae (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court," that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it.<1>. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

So you can see how it is a cut and dry prosecution.

[OregonBlue]

2. Can Dean go after them himself?

[originalpckelly]

3. No, I wish he could...

these are criminal laws, not civil laws. They do not give a private right of action (meaning no one can do anything privately to prosecute them.) So unfortunately, we have to bring attention to this.

[hootinholler]

5. A grand jury could.

The problem being how to get the issue before them.

-Hoot

[OregonBlue]

7. Oh, too bad.

[originalpckelly]

4. So much for getting pressure on this issue.

:shrug:

Is this thing on?

[AirAmFan]

6. Frustrating, isn't it? You have an important issue to raise with DUers,

but your thread is sinking like an anchor. I know the feeling all too well.

I'm no paragon of successful posting by any means. But IMO as it stands your original post is WAY too much work for most of the folks who would keep your thread afloat long enough for people to get your message.

IMO, you shoulc repost, with a much shorter lead-in. No guarantees, but you might save the text of the statute the Senators violated for a "Reply", and try something like,

Target: Bill of Rights. Rethug Senators file knowingly false documents in ...

.. attempt to gut Habeas Corpus, the Constitutional provision that lets your lawyer go to court to get you out of jail. The actions of Senators Graham and Kyl are clear FELONY violations of Federal law, according to John Dean, who said, "I have not seen so blatant a ploy, or abuse of power, since Nixon's reign."

From (URL);

[Scout1071]

8. Maybe you should consider summarizing for those who aren't familiar

with the situation and/or don't speak statutes.

I still have no idea what this thread is about.

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. Same here. Been away for a few days

and I don't have a clue about a debate between Kyl and Graham. (Most of what they say is phony anyway. LOL!)

[blm]

9. This is also why Pat Roberts should be prosecuted for his Senate Intel

report where he ADDED anti-Wilson talking points to the report, that were completely debunked by Fitzgerald's investigation.