Letter to the Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
[Copy to the United States Senate]
January 3, 2006
The Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Prettyman Court House
Washington D.C. 20001
Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and agency surveillance evading judicial review
Dear Judge Kotelly,
Knowing J. Skelly Wright kept unsolicited correspondence in his files - now available for perusal in the Library of Congress - I am hopeful you will also consider points of view not otherwise brought formally to your attention. Immediately I react to a Washington Post story - Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program, Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer, Dec 22 2005, page A1 - which says the National Security Agency has conducted surveillance activities not authorized by any court, alleging 'the agencies' have collaborated in much broader violations of civil rights than the media suggests, those invidious activities have proven contagious among and between the agencies and their foreign counterparts, and it will not be possible to significantly address the 'erosion' of civil rights which that activity represents on a superficial basis. I also claim the CIA has undertaken a broad attack upon the judiciary and Supreme Court, and it is similarly not possible to isolate that effect from broader patterns of agency behavior.
I cite to two cases in the District of Columbia district, and I was not involved in either one at the District Court level:
Bilyeu v. Clinton et al. 1:00-cv-02290 RWR which became Bilyeu v. Federal Government 1:01-cv-00321 RWR appeal 02-5008 denied,
and Gloria Hicks v. National Security Agency (NSA) 04-cv-01586 GK appeal 04-5362 denied.
Both allege torture from remote locations using electromagnetic radiation and implantation with invasive medical technologies.
As you presumably know but typical pro se litigants don't, those allegations are preclusionary under the bastard Best v. Kelley 39 F.3d 328 (D.C.Cir 1994) footnote reference at 330 to Wilson v. United States Federal Government, Civ. Action No. 92-2159 (D.D.C. 1992)['1992' underlined in original]. Without at all examining the technologies, both courts effectively said it wasn't possible to litigate egregious activity undertaken by government agencies without media coverage, effectively subjugating the victims, the press, and whatever reform efforts may exist in the judiciary and in the agencies. Hon. James Robertson apparently resigned from the panel in response to the recent relevations - a shame; he was probably one of the reform elements.
[Short line here gave the appearence of a paragragh break in the copies to the Senate]
I go so far as to claim the 1994 ruling in Best relates [intentionally or otherwise] to the 'firewall' Jamie Gorelick established between the CIA and the FBI, which in turn fueled the so-called 'Patriot Act' in the post-9/11 environment - in other words, that ruling would have eroded civil liberties even if what the NSA is currently accused of had been authorized by the courts which it wasn't - but the really important thing Bilyeu and Hicks illustrate is the virtually LIMITLESS resources government agencies and those acting in the guise of government authority bring to invidious activity when they decide to do it. Bilyeu has been ongoing now for 'over a decade' [underlined in original] of intense, iterative, live - at times physically painful, always humiliating and disgraceful - surveillance, and Hicks for 'five years' [underlined] of shear hell. The courts won't hear either one, and both were [are] courageous women who physically fought to get into and through the court process as best they could. Not only have they been abandoned by the judiciary but they are shunned by the legislative branch never mind media - what is to be their recourse?
[Short line here gave the appearence of a paragragh break in the copies to the Senate]
Post says you've asked for a briefing by the agencies. Suppose they blandly deny or attempt to diminish the unauthorized activity. I believe a particular individual associated with the CIA - Peter Bourne - to be a pivotal type of person in looking at both the authorized and unauthorized activities of government agencies [implanting Dennis Sweeney in 1970, Jimmy Carter probably the latter part of 1978 TOTALLY UNAUTHORIZED and thusly undermining Carter in the 1980 campaign, visiting with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad 1995, escorting Carter to get the Nobel Peace Prize very likely at the behest of the CIA was that 2003]. NSA will try to say that's CIA and not them but that isn't true - Hicks appears to be NSA while Bilyeu looks like CIA. Actually, you probably have a better feel for that than I.
As director of the CIA, George H.W. Bush broke the Furman moratorium on capital punishment with Gary Gilmore in Utah - recently expanded to Connecticut [Ross in May 2005] and headed for Vermont [Fell sentenced in roughly the same time period - June 2005]. If Chief Justice Rehnquist was implanted with a neuroprosthetic my guess is they used it to kill him. Is Justice Stevens implanted? Finally the courts are being physically attacked, and it is difficult to separate that from agency surveillance activities. Yours etc., Andrew Bestor
[Copies to the Senate were distributed early morning with the official letter to Kollar-Kotelly hand delivered about 10:30 a.m.]
[Copy to the United States Senate]
January 3, 2006
The Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Prettyman Court House
Washington D.C. 20001
Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and agency surveillance evading judicial review
Dear Judge Kotelly,
Knowing J. Skelly Wright kept unsolicited correspondence in his files - now available for perusal in the Library of Congress - I am hopeful you will also consider points of view not otherwise brought formally to your attention. Immediately I react to a Washington Post story - Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program, Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer, Dec 22 2005, page A1 - which says the National Security Agency has conducted surveillance activities not authorized by any court, alleging 'the agencies' have collaborated in much broader violations of civil rights than the media suggests, those invidious activities have proven contagious among and between the agencies and their foreign counterparts, and it will not be possible to significantly address the 'erosion' of civil rights which that activity represents on a superficial basis. I also claim the CIA has undertaken a broad attack upon the judiciary and Supreme Court, and it is similarly not possible to isolate that effect from broader patterns of agency behavior.
I cite to two cases in the District of Columbia district, and I was not involved in either one at the District Court level:
Bilyeu v. Clinton et al. 1:00-cv-02290 RWR which became Bilyeu v. Federal Government 1:01-cv-00321 RWR appeal 02-5008 denied,
and Gloria Hicks v. National Security Agency (NSA) 04-cv-01586 GK appeal 04-5362 denied.
Both allege torture from remote locations using electromagnetic radiation and implantation with invasive medical technologies.
As you presumably know but typical pro se litigants don't, those allegations are preclusionary under the bastard Best v. Kelley 39 F.3d 328 (D.C.Cir 1994) footnote reference at 330 to Wilson v. United States Federal Government, Civ. Action No. 92-2159 (D.D.C. 1992)['1992' underlined in original]. Without at all examining the technologies, both courts effectively said it wasn't possible to litigate egregious activity undertaken by government agencies without media coverage, effectively subjugating the victims, the press, and whatever reform efforts may exist in the judiciary and in the agencies. Hon. James Robertson apparently resigned from the panel in response to the recent relevations - a shame; he was probably one of the reform elements.
[Short line here gave the appearence of a paragragh break in the copies to the Senate]
I go so far as to claim the 1994 ruling in Best relates [intentionally or otherwise] to the 'firewall' Jamie Gorelick established between the CIA and the FBI, which in turn fueled the so-called 'Patriot Act' in the post-9/11 environment - in other words, that ruling would have eroded civil liberties even if what the NSA is currently accused of had been authorized by the courts which it wasn't - but the really important thing Bilyeu and Hicks illustrate is the virtually LIMITLESS resources government agencies and those acting in the guise of government authority bring to invidious activity when they decide to do it. Bilyeu has been ongoing now for 'over a decade' [underlined in original] of intense, iterative, live - at times physically painful, always humiliating and disgraceful - surveillance, and Hicks for 'five years' [underlined] of shear hell. The courts won't hear either one, and both were [are] courageous women who physically fought to get into and through the court process as best they could. Not only have they been abandoned by the judiciary but they are shunned by the legislative branch never mind media - what is to be their recourse?
[Short line here gave the appearence of a paragragh break in the copies to the Senate]
Post says you've asked for a briefing by the agencies. Suppose they blandly deny or attempt to diminish the unauthorized activity. I believe a particular individual associated with the CIA - Peter Bourne - to be a pivotal type of person in looking at both the authorized and unauthorized activities of government agencies [implanting Dennis Sweeney in 1970, Jimmy Carter probably the latter part of 1978 TOTALLY UNAUTHORIZED and thusly undermining Carter in the 1980 campaign, visiting with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad 1995, escorting Carter to get the Nobel Peace Prize very likely at the behest of the CIA was that 2003]. NSA will try to say that's CIA and not them but that isn't true - Hicks appears to be NSA while Bilyeu looks like CIA. Actually, you probably have a better feel for that than I.
As director of the CIA, George H.W. Bush broke the Furman moratorium on capital punishment with Gary Gilmore in Utah - recently expanded to Connecticut [Ross in May 2005] and headed for Vermont [Fell sentenced in roughly the same time period - June 2005]. If Chief Justice Rehnquist was implanted with a neuroprosthetic my guess is they used it to kill him. Is Justice Stevens implanted? Finally the courts are being physically attacked, and it is difficult to separate that from agency surveillance activities. Yours etc., Andrew Bestor
[Copies to the Senate were distributed early morning with the official letter to Kollar-Kotelly hand delivered about 10:30 a.m.]
posted by Notes on Virginia at 10:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home