Tweet
The following is quoted from material sent to A.G. Eric Holder of the Dept. of Justice as a criminal complaint against the Congressmen/women for not abiding by Article 5 of the US Constitution and summoning a convention to amend the Constitution as 49 of States have applied for hundreds of times throughout our history.
———————
January 12, 2012
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
Dear Sir,
I wish to bring to your attention a matter of flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States by officials of the United States Government. The specific issue I refer to is the refusal of the members of the Congress of the United States to call an Article V Convention as required by that document. I am including reference material with this letter for your convenience to which I will refer through this letter. I am requesting your office begin an immediate criminal investigation as to violation of oath of office by members of Congress in this regard.
The key point in this matter is contained in Article V of the Constitution which states [in part] “…on the application of two thirds of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which… shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution…[when ratified as further described in Article V].” Scholars, historians and, more importantly, the Supreme Court, as well as statements made in open court by the Government itself all agree on a fundamental point: the call is peremptory meaning under no circumstances can Congress refuse to call the convention once the states have applied.
Simple reference to the United States Senate’s own annotated reference is one of hundreds of references. This reference states, “The Constitution also authorizes a national convention, when two-thirds of the states petition Congress for such a convention….” In the federal lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress, the Solicitor General of the United States acknowledged that a convention call was “peremptory” and that a sufficient number of applications from the states have been submitted to cause Congress to call a convention. These facts, therefore, are irrefutable as they are all a matter of public record.
Equally, a matter of public record is the refusal of Congress to obey the Constitution. Their collective oaths of office are explicit. They shall have no “mental reservations” as to obedience to the Constitution, which, as I am sure you are aware, means they must obey the Constitution as written, without hesitation or evasion. Yet, the fact remains the members of Congress have not done so.
There is no question as to their criminal culpability in this matter. Congress has never even gathered the state applications into a single reference source so that tabulation of them can occur. When called upon by members of the public and more importantly in two federal lawsuits, the members of Congress unanimously publicly opposed obeying the Constitution and calling an Article V Convention. This again, despite four separate unanimous Supreme Court decisions all decreeing Congress must call a convention if the states so apply.
Upon learning of the above facts, I made efforts to report the violation of oath of office to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. As the enclosed letters indicate, federal officials ignored my efforts and requests. The Senate Committee on Ethics refused to take any action; stating refusal to obey the Constitution was “within the prerogative of each member to determine.” A Ms. Donna Hayes of the House Committee on Ethics verbally informed me the committee was not interested in pursuing this matter. This, in spite of the fact the House Ethics Manual clearly specifies that all House members, “Uphold the Constitution… of the United States and …never be a party to…[its] evasion.” As to the FBI, for the record, my name is John Guise, not FBI agent Steven E. Ibison. I believe this error alone demonstrates the level of seriousness and depth of investigation taken by FBI agent Sandra A. Bungo.
In other words, the individuals named in these letters or whom I have contacted made deliberate decisions. This includes formal decisions on the part of members of Congress. Please note the letter from the Senate refers to a decision by “the Committee.” All are federal officials sworn by oath of office to obey and support the Constitution of the United States. Instead, they, through their actions, aided and abetted Congress in its violation of oath of office. No other conclusion is possible given the present evidence.
Simply put, members of the FBI do not have statutory authority to refuse to notify your office of a violation of federal law by federal officials let alone determine a decision of prosecution. Indeed, as noted below, federal law specifies that only you have that authority given the federal officials in this instance. The Constitution is “supreme law of the United States.” Therefore, federal law authorizes (indeed requires) the Senate Ethics Committee and the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute for violations of this law of the land as it is for any subservient law under the Constitution. A refusal on the part of the House not only violates federal law and the Constitution, but House ethics rules as well.
All these officials were presented with “evidence of improper conduct or violation of law.” I am aware of public law 28 U.S.C. 591 which demands grounds to investigate charges against members of Congress for violation of federal law, in this case violation of oath of office for refusal to obey the Constitution of the United States and call a convention as required by Article V of the Constitution. The key charge in this instance is in regards to the states’ submission of applications. If evidence exists to prove the states have submitted sufficient applications to satisfy Article V of the Constitution, then the refusal on the part of Congress constitutes a violation of federal criminal law. The law mandates that I provide to you a credible source proving the states have submitted sufficient applications to numerically satisfy the two-thirds requirement specified in Article V and acknowledged in the senate annotated copy of the Constitution. I refer you to the website, Friends of the Article V Convention (FOAVC) and their webpage at http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm in which over 700 applications from 49 states for an Article V Convention call have been collected by this organization. The collection consists entirely of photographic copies of the Congressional Record and earlier appropriate public records; in short, irrefutable public records demonstrating the states have satisfied Article V in that 34 states have submitted 34 applications to Congress for an Article V Convention call from an entirely credible source. In conjunction with the other written material I have provided you, I believe this more than satisfies the law as to grounds to commence an investigation.
The fact this nation has never held an Article V Convention does not excuse federal officials from their mandated duty prescribed not only in federal law but in the Constitution as well. The fact they have acted as they have, however, fully explains why we have never had a convention; deliberate and willful acts on the part of Congress to refuse to obey the Constitution.
Based on all of this information, I request, as previously noted, your office commence an immediate investigation into violation of oath of office by members of Congress with the aim of criminal prosecution against those members and to cause Congress to call a convention as mandated by the Constitution. As the matter is peremptory, it is not arguable it is the sole discretion of Congress. Therefore, no outside government agency may interfere in Congress’ decision not to obey the Constitution. Indeed, the exact opposite is true. If the matter is peremptory then Congress has no option or discretion regarding the matter and by clear implication all parts of the government are empowered to cause it to obey the Constitution as it, the Congress, has no choice in this regard.
As a final point, I ask you to read the discussion by members of Congress following the submission of the first application for a convention submitted in 1789 by the state of Virginia. (General Annals of Congress 1 (J. Gales Ed.) Pg 257-61). In that discussion Congressman James Madison (who is credited with writing Article V at the 1787 convention) notes Congress has no right of vote, debate or even the authority of commitment to committee “as it would imply Congress had a right to decline.” Clearly therefore the actions of the federal officials I have brought to your attention in this letter are therefore illegal and investigation is warranted.
Sincerely,
John C. Guise
XXXXXXXXXX
Sharpsburg, GA 30XXX
Enclosures are:
U. S. Senate: Reference
House Ethics Manual Reference
FBI Complaint
FBI Response
Senate Select Committee on Ethics Complaint
Senate Response
House Committee on Ethics Complaint
Statement of the Facts of Phone Conversation with Ms. Donna Hayes
—————————————————————————
SUMMARY OF WALKER V.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (2004)
As a direct result of this federal lawsuit on August 26, 2006, every member of Congress (then and since) is in violation of federal income tax law and as many as four federal criminal statutes, plus Presidential Executive Order 10450.
On that day, the lawyer for the defendants (each and every member of Congress), was Paul Clement, the U. S. Solicitor-General. Responding to a writ of certiorari in this lawsuit, he said, “The government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.”
In so doing, each and every member of Congress admitted that the facts and the law as revealed in the plaintiff’s writ were absolutely true and undeniable. Further, because of the drafting of the original complaint, every person who became a member of Congress after September 17, 2004, became a defendant; including Barack Obama, who was sworn in as a U. S. Senator in January of 2005.
Therefore, the members of Congress acknowledged the truth; that they had in hand a sufficient number of qualified applications in order to meet the threshold number of 34 states required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution. Further, they knew that they were required to immediately call an amendatory convention, but they chose to willfully and deliberately ignore their oaths of office, contrary to supreme law.
It makes no difference whether you are or are not in favor of an amendatory convention. What matters is whether or not we are a government of laws. Either the supreme law contained in our Constitution is obeyed, or our Constitution is null and void.
Based upon the extraordinary results of this lawsuit, the last in a series of criminal complaints was filed on January 12, 2012, against each and every member of Congress. The complaint was filed with the Attorney General of the United States, and the complainant is the author of this summary, John Guise.
The AG received the complaint on January 17, 2012, and referred it to the Criminal Division on January 23, 2012, after he decided the evidence presented warranted an investigation by that division. Simultaneous with his referral, the AG properly informed the federal court of his decision. The law now gives that division until April 23, 2012, to determine whether or not to prosecute. More importantly, the court must be notified; meaning the AG has to come up with official reasons to the satisfaction of the court, as prescribed by the narrow confines of the law, not to move forward. This will be very difficult given the admissions by the Walker lawsuit. I must add that I have a basic distrust of the political appointees at the Department of Justice, but I am comforted by the reputation of the career investigators and prosecutors at the Criminal Division. The saga continues.
REASONS FOR CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS
By John Guise
The reasons for my filing of criminal complaints against each and every member of Congress are as follows:
1. I was born and raised in the Washington, DC, area, and, excepting 3 years service in the US Army, spent my first 43 years of life there. I became quite familiar with the way the federal government is supposed to function and the insidious nature of bureaucracies.
2. When I joined the Army, I raised my right hand and executed the military’s version of the oath of office. I pledged to support and defend our Constitution against our enemies, both foreign and domestic. As far as I was concerned, the oath that I took did not have an expiration date of my 3 years’ term of service. I took it to mean a lifetime.
2. When I was 24 years old, my boss and mentor strongly suggested that I join the Downtown chapter of the Washington, DC, Jaycees (a/k/a Junior Chamber of Commerce) to prepare me for eventual membership in the Greater Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade. The U. S. Jaycees were a national organization of young men from the age of 21 thru 35 that focused on developing leaders through the execution of meaningful community service projects.
3. Four years later, I transferred my membership to the chapter that serviced my home community in Olney, Maryland. The Jaycee organization had a creed that every member recited before every meeting:
“I believe that faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life;
- that the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations;
- that economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise;
- that government should be of laws rather than of men;
- that earth’s great treasure lies in human personality;
- and, that service to humanity is the best work of life.”
4. I stayed a member of the organization for 12 years, until I could no longer serve as an active member (JCI Senator 18161). During that dozen years, I held every significant elective office from local Director of my chapter up to State President of Maryland. I was elected a member of the U. S. Jaycees Board of Directors in 1969. I recited the Jaycee Creed more than a thousand times. I believed what I recited then and I believe it now. Further, for the past 30+ years, I have read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution every 4th of July, so I have a literal understanding of what they both say. It was during this time period that I learned to love my country and our Constitution.
5. There came a time in the past year that I discovered evidence that the U. S. Congress willfully and deliberately chooses to ignore Article V of our Constitution and illegally retain the exclusive right to propose amendments to our Constitution. By so doing, the Congress unlawfully reserves the right to insure that the power that they hold would never be diluted.
6. I believe that it is a fair statement that our three branches of federal government have failed the American people. One of the reasons for our condition is that our citizens have lost touch with the intent of our founders and our framers.
7. So, I made a reasonable effort to communicate with my congressman, my senators and leaders in both the House and the Senate. All of my attempts were ignored. Knowing what I knew to be the facts, I had no choice. It was clear to me that our form of government was under attack by a domestic enemy…the Congress. If we do not have a government of laws, then we are not a constitutional republic; we are a dictatorship. It would have been a violation of my oath not to do everything I could, legally, to attempt to right this wrong. So, on January 12th, I did the only thing that I could do that was consistent with my duty and honor as a citizen. I filed the final in a series of criminal complaints.
6 Comments
In American Constitutional law, the political question doctrine is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political question.
Because of the political question doctrine, however, it is an open question whether federal courts could assert jurisdiction over a legal challenge to Congress, should it refuse to call a convention.
Toss in “stale”, rescinded, not the same specific topic wording in the State call questions, and the fact that every state except Hawaii has applied for an Article V convention at one time or another, and I doubt this is going anywhere.
A violation of the Constitution is not a criminal violation unless there’s a corresponding criminal statute.
Is there one here?
Shouldn’t your remedy be at the ballot box instead?
This is not my complaint. I am just sharing the info. This is currently being investigated by the DOJ. It was not closed. We will find out what the results are by early May.
In answer to the questions above. First I was the plaintiff in the Walker v Members of Congress lawsuit. I’m going to address the speculations above. First, as to the comments of Papau. It’s really nice to suggest the political question doctrine is all encompassing. It is not. This is a question of criminal action, violation of oath of office, on the part of members of Congress. There is no consideration given in criminal law regarding this. Moreover, as noted above the attorney of record Mr. Clement was required by federal law to have made objection at the time of the lawsuit. If he or his clients (Congress) believed as you assert he was REQUIRED by federal law to state it. He did not.
This is not a legal challenge as you phrase it. It is the reporting of a criminal action on the part of members of Congress and law regulating this as to prosecution is extraordinarily narrow. In fact it specifically and expressly prohibits the grounds you suggest from even being considered. The decision on prosecution is limited exclusively to the evidence presented.
This then brings an answer to the “stale” part you suggest. The court has ruled repeatedly and hundreds of scholars and others all through history agree on one point about the convention call: Congress has no option in this regard. It must call. The courts have ruled there is no addition or rules of construction in Article V meaning there is no such thing as “stale” rescinded or same topic in Article V as it does not mention or describe them. All that is described is a numeric count of applying states. This, again was admitted by Clement in 2006 based on earlier official expressions in open public court by the DOJ. In short, your interpretation does not match up to official record or action.
As to MSPB Watch. There is a criminal statute in play, in fact several, in this matter. Indeed, as again admitted by Clement in 2006 the members are criminally libel as expressed by the Constitution itself. It states they can be charged with a felony, which is what in play here and they must take an oath to support the Constitution, meaning obey it. The expressed language of their oath says they can have no mental reservations meaning doubts as to obeying it and more importantly, must DISCHARGE their duties which in this case mans calling a convention if the states apply which they have.
Can you cite to the statute(s) or constitutional provision you reference?
Daniel, what would be the next steps, with regards to the DOJ’s findings? I am asking as one with more knowledge in other sectors of our “universe” than constitutional law and its enforcement. (read: completely clueless)
Quite the ambitious project which should, at the very least, give some indications with regard to just how this administration, and this DOJ in particular, views the rule of law as it pertains to the lawmakers. At least to my uneducated eyes. BTW, I really like this action regardless of the outcome b/c of the message it carries and the potential for deepening our understanding of just how far things have gone.