Impeachment of U.S. President Albert Gore, Jr._REF: U.S. Supreme Ct_Case No. 00-949
Constitutional Grounds for the Impeachment and Fraud Upon the Supreme Court, et al…—
(Editor’s note: Only when America’s legally elected president, Al Gore, is returned to office and subjected to required impeachment proceedings, can constitutional authority in the United States be re-established. Toward that end, all actions of the Bush (43) presidency are to be declared “null and void,” all treaties abrogated, all executive actions declared unlawful and all actions including but not limited to the establishment of the United States as a criminal empire undone. The subsequent election of Barak Obama as president thus has no legal standing. Gordon Duff and Lee Wanta)—
Before the Supreme Court of the United States
—
1. IMPROPER FAILURE TO REPORT,
2. CONTINUOUS ABSENCE FROM HIS U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DUTIES,
3. REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE ELECTORAL VOTE DECISION OF THE AMERICAN
POPULACE MAJORITY,
4. CONTINUING VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC TRUST AND EMPLOYMENT, WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS, INCLUDING ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the U.S.A. [hereafter the U.S. Constitution, or Constitution] are jointly the contract of specific performance between the U.S. citizens as the parties on one side of the agreement, and the U.S. government, its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors as the parties on the other side of the agreement.
The duty to take care is affirmative. So is the duty faithfully to execute the office. A President must carry out the obligations of his office diligently and in good faith. The elective character and political role of a President make it difficult to define faithful exercise of his powers in the abstract. A President must make policy and exercise discretion. This discretion necessarily is broad, especially in emergency situations, but the constitutional duties of a President impose limitations on its exercise.
The “take care” duty emphasizes the responsibilty of a President for the overall conduct of the executive branch, which the Constitution vests in him alone. He must take care that the executive is so organized and operated that this duty is preformed.
The duty of a President to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability includes the duty not to abuse his powers or transgress their limits — not to violate the rights of citizens, such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and not to act in derogation of powers vested elsewhere by the Constitution.
Please Note
: - Each of the thirteen American impeachments involved charges of
misconduct incompatible with the official position of the officeholder.
This conduct falls into three broad categories:
Definition : Political – Pertaining or relating to the policy or the administration of government, state or national …. As political theories … seek to determine or control its public policy …
- exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office in derogation of the powers of another branch of government;
- behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and
- employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.
Definition : Political – Pertaining or relating to the policy or the administration of government, state or national …. As political theories … seek to determine or control its public policy …
(Black’s Law 6th Ed.)
—
Considerations and Background :
—
“ The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
—
Title 18 USC 3 : Accessory after the fact Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
—
Title 18 USC 241 : Conspiracy Against Rights
—
Title 18 USC 242 : Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
—
Title 18 USC 1951 : – Interference with commerce by threats or violence
—
(2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property (our Civil Rights including our time and our right of Due Process of Law is our Property) from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under of official right.
—
Title 42 USC 1986 : Action for Neglect to Prevent
—
Justice Joseph Story wrote :
—
” Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope …; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the interest in the discharge of the duties of political office. These are so various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law. They must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of diplomacy of public policy and duty.—They must be judged of by the habits, and rules, and principles of diplomacy, or departmental operations and arrangements, or parliamentary practice, of executive customs and negotiations, of foreign, as well as domestic political movements; and in short, by a great variety of circumstances, as well those, which aggravate, as those, which extenuate, or justify the offensive acts, which do not properly belong to the judicial character in the ordinary administration of justice, and are far removed from the reach fo municipal jurisprudence.”
—
If the public official refuses to provide the contracted public service (e.g., justice) in compliance with the U.S. Constitution, then he/she must be imprisoned. Otherwise, the public service is undermined and rendered ineffective. [ MLR-C4]
—
COMMENT of U.S. Supreme Court Reporter Jeffrey Toobin :-
—
” To know Justice O’Connor as I am privileged to do is to know that the word ‘regret’ never passes her lips,” Toobin said. ” Did she regret her vote in Bush v. Gore? Did she regret the Bush presidency? You bet she did, and you bet she does.” 20apr13
—
Sandra Day O’Connor. ( Troy Harvey / AP )
—
”Maybe the court should have said, ‘ we’re not going to take it, goodbye,”‘ O’Connor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board, in reference to the controversial Bush v. Gore decision resolving a dispute over the 2000 election in George W. Bush’s favor. “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.”—“…those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”—“It has too often happened that powers delegated for the purpose of promoting the happiness of a community have been perverted to the advancement of the personal emoluments of the agents of the people; but the powers of the President are to well guarded and checked to warrant this liberal aspersion.”
Ambassador Leo E Wanta / Designate Chairman – S.D.R. Central Banque / Mogadishu
USA (202) 379 2904 ext. 001
