Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
George W.'s Achilles' Heel: The First Amendment
Redressing the Emperor: What did Mr. Bush REALLY know (and when did he know it)? How many Iraqnam-focused Deep Throats will it take for us to learn the answers?
Q: What's worse than an incompetent president?
A: An incompetent president prone to deceive the public.
That's the crux of a RICO-Act lawsuit recently filed in Philadelphia to compel Pres. Bush to account for his administration's alleged foreknowledge of certain key events occurring before/during/after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack (for details -- and a related petition -- see the website of http://www.911forthetruth.com ).
It's also the crux of my own forthcoming First Amendment lawsuit against the U. S. Department of the Army -- for which I've retained the services of a Silver Spring, Md., law firm holding a commendable track record in defending freedom of speech. The speech in this case consists of the following classified ad I submitted, back on June 7, 2003, to the printer of the weekly, military newspaper "The Pentagram" (commercially published for Pentagon-based personnel by the public affairs office at nearby Fort Myer, Va.):
"BLOW THE WHISTLE ON BUSH'S 'GULF OF PERSIA' RESOLUTION!
"History shows that presidential lying constitutes an impeachable
offense. If Bush has lied to the world about his No. 1 reason
for waging war against Iraq, then he should be impeached. If
enough whistleblowers on this issue decide to come forward,
their evidence may be enough to guarantee that impeachment. And
if you happen to be (or know someone who is) one of those Deep
Throats, please make yourself known to L. W. Bryant at: [. . .].
Armed with your evidence ("leaked" or otherwise), we can begin
establishing a whistleblower reward fund toward achieving Pres.
Bush's full accountability as to what he knew (and when he knew it)
about the veracity of his statements and acts. (And: since our
defense officials affirm the efficacy of polygraph testing for
their employees, let's demand that Bush undergo a lie-detector
test on this issue!)"
Trouble is, the paper's Maryland-based printer has notified me of his inability to run this ad about such a vital public issue as presidential veracity, because of an objection raised by Myer commander Col. Christopher G. Essig. Speciously invoking his staff's editorial function of rejecting "letters to the editor," Essig has fallen upon his sword of censorship -- in contravention of the Army's own, clearly stated regulatory policy/procedures for handling such ad submissions, and in violation of the First Amendment's prohibition against governmental prior-restraint censorship.
The Army secretary has had ample time (and lawyerly nudging) to mull over the consequences of this constitutional tort (for which I shall seek declaratory and injunctive relief from the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia). His failure to overrule Essig's decision has set the stage for my filing the formal complaint within a few weeks. Stay tuned for my posting of a link to the complaint's full text here.
In the meantime, you might wish to write your congresspersons with the request that they help determine the REAL reason for the Army's pursuing its unacceptable action at (ultimately) the taxpayers' expense -- money that, alas, otherwise could help fund the "war on terrorism."
A: An incompetent president prone to deceive the public.
That's the crux of a RICO-Act lawsuit recently filed in Philadelphia to compel Pres. Bush to account for his administration's alleged foreknowledge of certain key events occurring before/during/after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack (for details -- and a related petition -- see the website of http://www.911forthetruth.com ).
It's also the crux of my own forthcoming First Amendment lawsuit against the U. S. Department of the Army -- for which I've retained the services of a Silver Spring, Md., law firm holding a commendable track record in defending freedom of speech. The speech in this case consists of the following classified ad I submitted, back on June 7, 2003, to the printer of the weekly, military newspaper "The Pentagram" (commercially published for Pentagon-based personnel by the public affairs office at nearby Fort Myer, Va.):
"BLOW THE WHISTLE ON BUSH'S 'GULF OF PERSIA' RESOLUTION!
"History shows that presidential lying constitutes an impeachable
offense. If Bush has lied to the world about his No. 1 reason
for waging war against Iraq, then he should be impeached. If
enough whistleblowers on this issue decide to come forward,
their evidence may be enough to guarantee that impeachment. And
if you happen to be (or know someone who is) one of those Deep
Throats, please make yourself known to L. W. Bryant at: [. . .].
Armed with your evidence ("leaked" or otherwise), we can begin
establishing a whistleblower reward fund toward achieving Pres.
Bush's full accountability as to what he knew (and when he knew it)
about the veracity of his statements and acts. (And: since our
defense officials affirm the efficacy of polygraph testing for
their employees, let's demand that Bush undergo a lie-detector
test on this issue!)"
Trouble is, the paper's Maryland-based printer has notified me of his inability to run this ad about such a vital public issue as presidential veracity, because of an objection raised by Myer commander Col. Christopher G. Essig. Speciously invoking his staff's editorial function of rejecting "letters to the editor," Essig has fallen upon his sword of censorship -- in contravention of the Army's own, clearly stated regulatory policy/procedures for handling such ad submissions, and in violation of the First Amendment's prohibition against governmental prior-restraint censorship.
The Army secretary has had ample time (and lawyerly nudging) to mull over the consequences of this constitutional tort (for which I shall seek declaratory and injunctive relief from the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia). His failure to overrule Essig's decision has set the stage for my filing the formal complaint within a few weeks. Stay tuned for my posting of a link to the complaint's full text here.
In the meantime, you might wish to write your congresspersons with the request that they help determine the REAL reason for the Army's pursuing its unacceptable action at (ultimately) the taxpayers' expense -- money that, alas, otherwise could help fund the "war on terrorism."
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Here's my comment appended to my Signature No. 771 on Mr. Berg's petition:
"How about establishing a '911-Coverup Whistleblower' reward fund -- in the amount , say, of $1 million -- for delivering key evidence proving King George's culpability?"
I'm addressing that question mainly to the citizens of two special states in the nation: Oklahoma and New Mexico. Why special?
Because: they're the only states whose constitutions permit the impanelment of a STATE grand jury via presentation of a thus-designed citizens petition signed by a small percentage of the registered voters in a given county. In particular, supposing that one or more
Oklahomans/New Mexicans lost their lives in the Sept. 11 attacks. In order to help seek the truth (and gain concomitant redress from officialdom), their survivors back home in Oklahoma/New Mexico now have a ripe, grassroots opportunity to weigh in with the full power
and authority of a grand jury to pursue its investigatory and reportorial function.
Of course, a STATE grand jury has no power to subpoena evidence/testimony from federal witnesses, but it can INVITE those witnesses to come forward (and to thereby take advantage of a protected forum in which to clear one's conscience). And, then too,
whistleblower-derived evidence funneled (even anonymously) to a grand jury can prove quite valuable in (1) tracking down additional evidence, and (2) evaluating evidence already in hand.
So, if any readers know some affected Oklahomans/New Mexicans who might be eager to take on this "grand" project, please share with
them the contents of this message.
-----
Information is PROPERTY, and public information is PUBLIC property.
CONTACT: Larry W. Bryant
== Writer Sues to End Army Newspaper's Censorship of His
Bush-critique Ad ==
Back in June 2003, Alexandria, Va., resident Larry W. Bryant had only a
small doubt that his classified advertisement "Blow the Whistle on Bush's 'Gulf of Persia' Resolution" would be accepted for publication in the weekly "Pentagram" newspaper, published at Fort Myer, Va., for Army personnel stationed in and near the Pentagon.
"After all," he reasoned, "in times past, hadn't the Pentagram's
commercial printer accepted any number of my (prepaid) occasional
public-issue ads?" But, somehow, this particular ad (soliciting
whistleblowers to help hold the president accountable for what he knew,
and when he knew it, about the veracity of his main reasons for creating
Iraqnam) touched such a deep nerve in Myer's public affairs office as to
prompt the post commander to reject the ad.
"Now, that censorship might've passed constitutional muster in, say,
Saddam's former regime, but it shouldn't pass -- and won't -- here in the
good ol' United States of Advertising," Bryant said with a wink. "Can we
get more ironic than that? -- our young men and women sent out there intoa vast political jungle putting their lives at risk for the very 'first
principles' that I see now being violated here in the 'homeland' by some
of our own officials."
Top amongst those "officials" happens to be Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, whose office oversees the entire military-newspaper program. That's why Rumsfeld now has the dubious honor of being the key defendant in the First Amendment lawsuit of Larry W. Bryant v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, et al. (Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-1125), as filed on June 30, 2004, in U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Bryant's formal complaint (prepared by the Silver Spring, Md., law firm of Marks & Katz, LLC -- http://www.markskatz.com ) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from the Army's egregious act of prior-restraint censorship -- an act that, in Bryant's words, "both violates my free-speech rights and embarrassingly calls our government's judgment into question at a time in history when we least can afford such negative attention."
NOTE: For an online copy of the complaint, as posted in "pdf" format, please visit the following Internet link:
http://www.markskatz.com/MilitaryCases.htm .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"When the plaintiff prevails in a First Amendment lawsuit, (s)he becomes a force multiplier for justice -- because the resultant case law strengthens EVERYBODY'S rights." -- LWB (6/30/04)
== Rumsfeld Redux (aka "Bryant's 'Bleak House'") ==
When English novelist Charles Dickens penned his masterwork "Bleak
House" (centering on a generations-long lawsuit -- "Jarndyce and
Jarndyce"), little did he (or could he) suspect that, some 150 years
hence, an American non-novelist might become embroiled in similar,
real-life legal circumstances.
The current litigation in question -- "Larry W. Bryant v. Donald H.
Rumsfeld, et al." -- began its first phase with his filing of a First
Amendment complaint on June 30, 2004, against Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld and the secretary of the Army, challenging the Army's
rejection of Bryant's classified advertisement "Blow the Whistle on
Bush's 'Gulf of Persia' Resolution!", which he'd submitted on June 7,
2003, for publication in the Fort Myer, Va., weekly newspaper (the
"Pentagram"). For a copy of that complaint, see the web site of
Bryant's attorney, Jonathan L. Katz, of the Silver Spring, Md., law
firm Marks & Katz, LLC ( http://www.markskatz.com/MilitaryCases.htm ).
(Note: Upon winning this lawsuit, Marks & Katz doubtlessly will
become the premier First Amendment litigator on the East Coast.)
During the succeeding months, as the case wended its way toward trial
through the vast procedural arena known as the U. S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, Bryant focused his energy on submitting
his several other whistleblower-solicitation ads (aka "issue ads") to
various military-owned "commercial enterprise newspapers" across the
country. Invariably, these additional prepublication-review
submissions met with no response (despite his repeated follow-up) or
with flat-out rejection at the hands of the post/base public affairs
offices assigned to process them.
But, lo! -- with these latest submissions, a new development
surfaced: some of the public affairs officers decided to view these
ads' content as "political in nature"; and, via the
anti-political-ads provision of DoD Instruction 5120.4, they felt
empowered to ban the ads' publication summarily.
Here are the titles of the banned ads (whose entire text may be
viewed at the Marks & Katz web site via the "pdf" version of the
newly filed complaint: http://www.markskatz.com/complaintlwb2005.pdf
):
* Blow the Whistle on Iraqnam's Battle-of-Baghdad Cover-up!
* Blow the Whistle on ALL Atrocities at Abu Ghraib!
* Blow the Whistle on the Army-CIA McCarthy Saga!
* Join the Revolt Against the "Feres Doctrine"!
* Blow the Whistle on the Military's Psychiatric Retaliation
Against Whistleblowers!
* Resist the Government's Drafty Spin!
As of Jan. 7, 2005, this expanded banned-at-the-bases mind-set has
engendered a brand-new lawsuit, which the court probably will
consolidate with the one filed in 2004. And this Phase 2 of "Bryant
v. Rumsfeld, et al." has a few more co-defendants: the secretaries
of Army/Navy/Air Force, as well as the commandant of the U. S. Marine
Corps.
As Bryant's discovery process moves forward in Phase 1, attorney Katz
expects shortly to file a motion in Phase 2 for a preliminary
injunction against the defendants -- seeking, inter alia, to have the
anti-political-ads provision of DDI 5120.4 declared invalid on its
face.
Meantime, Bryant has this to say about recent developments:
"This entire litigation (including two related cases dating back to
the mid-eighties and nineties) abounds in irony amidst a codified
society reminiscent of the Chancery life in Dickens's London. You
have to go way back to the late 1950's to savor my cases' 'Bleak
House' flavor. That's when I submitted my very first issue ad to a
military newspaper -- the 'Flyer,' published for personnel at Langley
Air Force Base, Va. Of course, the base PA chief, a Capt.
Oldenburgh, chose to reject the ad, by which I'd invited interested
LAFB personnel to participate in a UFO-research group newly formed in
Newport News.
"And now ask me if the current Powers-that-Be at the 'Flyer' have
chosen to reject any of my latest ad submissions!"