Is an amicus brief a sworn statement?
Posted by Misc at March 28, 2006 07:17 AMERI -
Great catch! I'm adding this to my KYL FILE in the hope that it will help remove this creep in November.
Posted by Steve J. at March 28, 2006 07:18 AMBush to Andy Card:
"Can you scare us up some cheeseburgers and a manshake?"
Vaya con Dios, Andy!
Posted by The Liberal Avenger at March 28, 2006 07:37 AMSteve: I live in Tempe, count my vote against him.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 28, 2006 07:38 AMi'd also like to know WHO wrote the script for the "Kyl and Graham's colloquy".
Posted by selise at March 28, 2006 07:39 AMI don't know if this Amicus brief was a sworn statement or not. (I'm guessing probably not). That doesn't matter. According to the articles I cite, these Senators are openly claiming, to the highest court in the land, something that is fraudulent. Even if it is not "technically" called perjury, it shows a clear intent to commit perjury. Whether or not they were sworn in is hardly the point. The point is whether they deliberately lied to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Posted by eriposte at March 28, 2006 07:41 AMPretty lame considering both Kyl and Graham have JDs.
Posted by boonelsj at March 28, 2006 07:46 AMColloquies are inserted into the Congressional record all the time (even when the Democrats were in the majority), on a variety of matters. That colloquy forms part of the legislative history--usually when two competing factions have worked out an agreement on a particular ambiguity. Senators will occasionally reserve the right to "revise and extend their remarks" as well. Granted, it is the lowest form of legislative history (next to hearing records), but it's still legislative history. The idea that it's perjury to cite it is ridiculous.
Posted by The Troll at March 28, 2006 07:54 AMSlightly OT; but on Kyl!
I recently wrote my Senator, Kyl, urging him to back Feingold on censure; the response I received started like this, "Thank you for contacting my office regarding the President's action authorizing the National Security Agency to intercept Al-Qaeda terrorists' international communications. This action has mistakenly been referred to as "domestic spying".
Enclosed is a copy of remarks I recently delivered to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which set forth my views on this matter."
The kicker was; that same day in the mail I received a letter from the US Dept. of Commerce asking that I participate in a survey for the Census Bureau, even though I had just completed this form when I moved to AZ 2 years ago from CO.
Since Kyl is the Republican Policy Committee Chairman I have to question his real motives behind my simple request for support of censure!
Like possible shipment to a detention camp!
Steve J., Let me know where to sign up for removal of this "creep"! Or "bootlicker", like I refer to him as!
Posted by bbtb at March 28, 2006 07:57 AMThis should actually be prosecuted as obstruction of justice. Just did some research on this, but the fabrication of false supporting documents is classic obstruction. In one case in DC (DC Circuit heard it), a man convicted of a crime fabricated a letter from his employer lauding him for his work ethic, etc., in an attempt to receive a lesser sentence.
I would say that forging a false debate with the intent of causing the Supreme Court to believe that the Senate had a debate that never happened is far worse.
This really deserves an immediate investigation.
Posted by Minstrel at March 28, 2006 08:09 AM"The Troll"
Looks like you didn't bother to read anything much before posting your defense of Republican fraud.
The issue is not the adding of "colloquys". It is the adding of "colloquys" that never occurred.
The issue is not the addition of "revise and extend remarks". It is the claim that those remarks were based on statements made on the Senate floor that never occurred.
Posted by eriposte at March 28, 2006 08:11 AMColloquies are inserted into the Congressional record all the time (even when the Democrats were in the majority), on a variety of matters. That colloquy forms part of the legislative history--usually when two competing factions have worked out an agreement on a particular ambiguity. Senators will occasionally reserve the right to "revise and extend their remarks" as well. Granted, it is the lowest form of legislative history (next to hearing records), but it's still legislative history. The idea that it's perjury to cite it is ridiculous.
Of course inserted colloquies are relatively routine, but Kyl and Graham argue that theirs was live, noting that only bulleted text indicates insertion, and theirs was not bulleted. It was even "interrupted" by Brownback, and mentions time running out. Time doesn't run out on an inserted colloquy.
This is important, because for their remarks to indicate that theirs represented the feeling of the Senate wrt the legislation, it would have to be shown that their statements were aired, and that there were no dissenting comments from other Senators who might have an alternate understanding.
It seems they tried to show the Senate agreed with them, but if it was inserted at the last minute, that isn't possible.
Posted by masonmcd at March 28, 2006 08:17 AMYou're right. I checked Greenwald's site, and he explained it much better. But it seems to me that the best point is that, as legislative history, it's compleltely worthless because it was slipped in the dark of night so no one knew what they were voting on or what the intended meaning was. It also should be said that the way they did it reeks of corruption. I still stand by the original position, though, that it goes to the weight such a statement should be given (zero), not its legality.
This story needs to be picked up by our crackerjack lib'rul press, as this kind of fraud and deceit might catch the attention of the brain dead citizenry.
Posted by euzoius at March 28, 2006 08:23 AMWith amici like these, the Court doesn't need jurisdiction.
Posted by AJM at March 28, 2006 08:34 AMI still stand by the original position, though, that it goes to the weight such a statement should be given (zero), not its legality.
If this fraud is brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, it should be treated as an ethical violation by the lawyers who signed the amicus brief (who, as officers of the Court, are expected to adhere to high standards of accuracy and honesty in their briefs). There's nothing criminal here, but the action of defrauding the Court deserves a heavy sanction -- either holding the lawyers in contempt or striking the amicus brief, or both. A contempt citation could be quite a blow, since it would probably also include the removal of these lawyers from the Supreme Court Bar, which would mean they could no longer practice in the Supreme Court.
Posted by Basharov at March 28, 2006 08:38 AM
ERiposte,
At the very least, it's fraud and grounds for contempt of court sactions, as well as additional sanctions from state bars, etc.
Lindsey, Kyl and Brownback are all attorneys. All states have disciplinary committees which are set up to investigate ethical lapses or complaints against lawyers. These agencies then have the authority to make reccomendations that the attorney be censured, suspended, disbarred, etc. Attorneys can be disbarred for committing or suborning perjury. Another point: this is all done at the state level, usually the state supreme court. State courts have not been real happy with the anti-judge BS so fashionable in Republican circles these days. A possibility.
Posted by at March 28, 2006 08:56 AMIt's interesting that both are attorneys and bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding candor the Court. Is anyone a member of either the South Carolina or Arizona (or DC?) Bar, or willing to file a formal complaint with either (assuming that's where they're admitted)?
Posted by monkeyboy at March 28, 2006 09:00 AMLetter sent. To Kyl. Please let there be a scandal over this!
Posted by jcrit at March 28, 2006 09:12 AMlooks like Huckster Graham is a sheister...
Posted by Pete Bogs at March 28, 2006 09:31 AMMisc,
At the very least, it's fraud and grounds for contempt of court sactions...
Like this Supreme Court is coing to hold these Repulicans in contempt. The only thing this court holds in contempt is the American public (their freedoms, their right to vote/elect the president, etc.)
Posted by the professor at March 28, 2006 09:49 AMFrom Bazelon's story, quoting the brief: "the Congressional Record is presumed to reflect live debate except when the statements therein are followed by a bullet … or are underlined."
It's a side issue and a bit on the conspiratorial side, but I wonder why the remarks weren't bulleted or underlined. It'd be interesting to know whether that happens often. If it doesn't, it's possible that Graham and Kyl prevailed on someone at the CR to refrain from identifying the remarks as an insertion in anticipation of the brief. Everyone knew it would be going to court.
Posted by weldon berger at March 28, 2006 10:37 AMYes, Weldon, a very good question.
Posted by David in NY at March 28, 2006 11:28 AMIf this fraud is brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, it should be treated as an ethical violation by the lawyers who signed the amicus brief (who, as officers of the Court, are expected to adhere to high standards of accuracy and honesty in their briefs). There's nothing criminal here, but the action of defrauding the Court deserves a heavy sanction -- either holding the lawyers in contempt or striking the amicus brief, or both. A contempt citation could be quite a blow, since it would probably also include the removal of these lawyers from the Supreme Court Bar, which would mean they could no longer practice in the Supreme Court.With apologies if I screwed up the html tags--the above is supposed to be italicized.
In order to have fraud, you have to have a false affirmative statement. Read their brief,(page 16) which only refers to a colloquy contained in the Congressional Record. It doesn't state that the colloquy occurred "live," only that they're "presumed" live--a presumption that the defense can and (in IMO did) rebut. As amici, they have no obligation to introduce facts that are adverse to their position. Nothing in there is technically false, even though as a statement of legislative history it's worthless, and would even warrant a FN on what NOT to do if you want the court to take your intentions seriously.
What they've done is play a high-risk strategy with the court, with the thought that they would probably not get caught. That's usually not the way the game is played at that level, but it doesn't surprise me that it's the way that these two elected to play it.
Again, you may not like the way that they made their case, but they didn't violate any rules in doing it. The charges of "fraud" and "perjury" are nonsense.
Posted by The Troll at March 28, 2006 11:29 AMHow about "intentionallly misleading the court"? They are trying to argue for a particular interpretation of the statute based on the intent of the legislature as reflected in the vigorous debate on the floor. Which never happened. Is it okay for two lawmakers to come back after the fact and claim, "Oh this is what the entire body actually meant, even though the law doesn't reflect that. Take our word for it." These two are really trying to get away from the text of the law and encourage some of that awful activist "judge-made law". There ought to be consequenses, if not professionally, then politically within their own party. Report 'em to the Federalist Society.
Posted by jopy at March 28, 2006 11:40 AMThis may be a con, but it's on old con. For many years, the Congressional Record has contained speeches that were delivered in written form rather than by voice.
Posted by Laney at March 28, 2006 11:50 AMUnbelievable.
Great work eR.
Posted by egregious at March 28, 2006 12:14 PMUh, Troll, even I know that making a false statement to a federal official is a felony, sworn or not. Says so right there in Title 18. And I'd say that failing to highlight insertions AS insertions constitutes intent to deceive, which would lead a logical person to conclude that the false statement, though implied, was substantive and intentional.
But then I'm not a lawyer, I'm a Republican, so what the hell do I know?
Posted by Lex at March 28, 2006 02:05 PMBad karma is so sticky, yet spreads around so easily!
Now two more Repubican seats in Congress will open up, once the jail doors lock down.
Posted by KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA at March 28, 2006 02:11 PMNothing sticks to these fuckers. They have 'PAM on top of teflon' coating them. Kyl is especially nauseating, defends every illegality from this administration, now creates his own mess. If only the people of AZ will kindly show him the door!
Posted by bbtb at March 28, 2006 02:24 PMSpirit of the Law vs. Letter of the Law...
...which ever makes more money, concentrates power and further entrenches the plutocratic aristocracy is the one that will win out, irregardless of party affiliation.
The Spineless-Dems are just as bought-and-paid-for as the Rethugs. Two-heads of the same party - G.R.E.E.D./P.O.W.E.R.
Best of luck in the coming economic catastrophe, which by all accounts is guaranteed to make the Great Depression look like a New Years party.
Ciao!
Not to mention that the sanctimonious Graham was one of the prosecutors in the Clinton impeachment which was supposedly about perjury, a fraud on the court.
Posted by Turk Meister at March 28, 2006 03:55 PMThe brief implies this was live by citing the method the Congressional Record uses for indicating live debate. The Record does not indicate that this was not live on the floor. It is certainly unethical of Senators Kyl and Graham to imply the item was live. This was intentionally misleading.
More importantly, if these Senators are allowed in their brief to cite a fabricated debate, it calls into question the credibility of the entire Senate. This is something that should bother all Americans.
Posted by Mike at March 28, 2006 04:25 PMLex--
1. They did not make any false statements. They came close to the line, but did not cross it.
2. Depends on who the federal official is. The FBI is governed by one statute, judges another. "Making false statements" to a judge is actionable two ways--either via perjury (which requires that the defendant have been under oath) or sanctions against the attorney. Neither happened, because the only representations made were by their lawyers (who were very careful), not by them. This happens all the time (criminal defense). One expects more from public servants, but not from this batch.
John Kyl is a worthless piece of javelina s**t. And believe me, javelinas REEK!
Posted by PSzymeczek at March 28, 2006 06:14 PMIs anyone a member of either the South Carolina or Arizona (or DC?) Bar, or willing to file a formal complaint with either (assuming that's where they're admitted)?
Kyl is admitted in AZ. Here's the info from www.azbar.org using the "find lawyer" function:
Sen. Jon Kyl
Address: US Senate
Mailing Address: 4442 E Camelback Rd Suite 160
Phoenix, AZ 85018-0001
Telephone: 602-840-1891
Fax: 602-957-6838
County: Maricopa
Law School: U OF A
Admitted to Practice: 1966
Admitted to AZ Bar: September 17, 1966
Jurisdiction: ARIZONA, 10th CIRCUIT, 6th CIRCUIT, 8th CIRCUIT, 9th CIRCUIT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, US SUPREME
Status: Inactive
Activity1: This lawyer currently has no activity.
I don't know if his inactive status makes him immune from a complaint but it can't hurt to file one.
I sent in a complaint to the AZ bar (www.azbar.org).
These senators are dangerous. In fact, they are more dangerous than the Communists or al Qaeda could ever imagine being.
These senators have decided to sell out our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
These senators have decided to sell out the separation of powers, and checks and balances between the three federal branches enshrined in our Constitution.
These senators have decided to sell out the separation of church and state.
These senators are trying to sell all of us patriotic U.S. citizens into a life of slavery, with them and their nefarious type hell-bent on being the slave-masters.
These senators are very, very dangerous.
And they are liars.
But then, this is the new Republican Party. Dangerous. Lying. Thieving. Crooked. Evil.
Is this clear enough for everyone?
Posted by The Oracle at March 28, 2006 07:56 PMeRiposte, Card was part of the WHIG's right? Was Scooter?
I was just thinking maybe we can start to scratch each one off as we go.
bbtb...yes. But these guys are being replaced by people as bad or worse - so that's not much of a consolation.
Posted by eriposte at March 29, 2006 06:53 AMThe Troll: Is a material omission not a false statement? I ask because I'm not a lawyer.
Posted by Lex at March 30, 2006 02:00 PM