10-25-11 White Paper in support of 10-25-11 letter to AAG of the OLC Seitz to review OLC Special Counsel Colborn’s September 30, 2011 decision not to release the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo to AG Ashcroft and his decision not to decide the de novo 9-13-11 OLC FOIA requested 9-15-10 OLC documents

This is a White Paper in support of the 10-25-11 letter to AAG of the OLC Seitz to review OLC Special Counsel James Colborn’s September 30, 2011 decision not to release the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo to AG Ashcroft and not decide de novo 9-13-11 OLC FOIA request for 9-15-10 OLC documents. These documents reveal whether the FISA “secret law” was implemented without the knowledge of the FISC Court, the Supreme Court, the “Gang of Eight”, and Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

The Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant requested these documents based on the September 6, 2011 Second Circuit’s FOIA Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA decision, Docket No. 09-4684-cv, which affirmed Judge Garaufis 2002-2009 Robert IV, Robert V, Robert VI, and Robert VIII consolidated decisions. However, the Second Circuit also modified the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA December 15, 2005 Judgment that required Robert to secure a pre- clearance Order from Judge Garaufis to file a FOIA request, to require Robert to secure a pre- clearance Order from Judge Garaufis to file a FOIA complaint, and not a FOIA request.

On September 30, 2011, OLC Special Counsel Colborn decided to withhold the FOIA requested March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memorandum from AAG of the OLC Jack Goldsmith to AG Ashcroft based on FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and 5 without any detailed explanation of his decision. He also did not decide the tandem September 13, 2011 request of the de novo 9-15-10 FOIA request for OLC “nonacquiescence” policy documents:

1) 1985 “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” document 2) 1982 “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” document 3) 1990 “Ruppert nonacquiescence policy” document 4) 1986 “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” document 5) 2001 “Christensen nonacquiescence policy” document 6) 2007 “Ford v Shalala nonacquiescence policy” document 7) 2005 “National Council nonacquiescence policy” document 8) 1991 “Navarro nonacquiescence policy” document 9) 2006 “Ahlborn nonacquiescence policy” document

Appellant will cite to the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 FISA “secret law” Memo and other OLC “nonacquiescence” policy documents in his November, 2011 Robert VIII petition for a writ of certiorari. He will cite to the OLC March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo as evidence that SG Verrelli knows that Associate AG Baker, as the OIPR Counsel, had withheld the FISA “secret law” from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court in Robert VII v DOJ, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39616, 193 Fed. Appx. 8 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. den. 127 S.Ct. 1133 (2007). This was to conceal the fact that AG Meese and FBI Director Webster had filed a FISC petition seeking FISC warrants to wiretap Robert without informing the FISC that Robert was the target of the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) that they knew was being conducted in violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA.

1 Appellant will file a Motion for Judge Garaufis’ pre-clearance Order to file a complaint seeking the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested DOJ, FBI, CIA, ODNI, NSA, NARA, OMB, HHS, and SSA documents, and cite to the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 FISA “secret law” Memo and the OLC “nonacquiescence” policy documents. He will argue that USG attorneys had committed a Chambers v. Nasco, 111 S. Ct. 2123 (1991), “fraud upon the court” in Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), Robert v DOJ, 2001 WL 34077473 (EDNY), 26 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2002), Robert VII, and Robert VIII. He will request that Judge Garaufis read in camera the FOIA withheld documents to determine whether USG attorneys had made Judge Garaufis in Robert VII and Robert VIII the “handmaiden” of DOJ attorneys. “Under no circumstances should the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive.” Doe, et. al. v Mukasey, Mueller, and Caproni, 549 F 3d 861, 870 (2d Cir. 2008).

Out of courtesy and respect for President Obama, appellant will inform President Obama through back channels that the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 FISA “secret law” Memo is a “Past is Prologue” document that proves the existence of the 1982-2011 daisy chain of “shadow government” attorney-patriots who have made 1984-2011 Top Secret decisions regarding illegal data mining of the 1984-2012 NSA TSP data banks without the knowledge of Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Appellant will warn President Obama that a 2009-2011 faux “Commander in Chief” has been making the data mining access decisions to the NSA domestic surveillance program data banks that the public and 535 Members of Congress first learned about from investigative reporters Priest and Arkin in their July 19, 2010 “Top Secret America” series with its eye-opening and jaw-dropping Locater Map identifying thousands of US and private work stations hidden in plain sight with tens of thousands of analysts. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/map/

Appellant will respectfully suggest that the President file a § 413 (b) of the National Security Act “corrective action” plan that includes a Universal NCTC Access Guideline that is not a FISA “secret law” but a public document with appropriate limited redactions. That “corrective action” plan would cure the illegal intelligence activities revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo to AG Ashcroft. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ K, CC, DD, 6-27-11 Senate Intelligence Committee WP § Z and §§ WW, XX, EEE-III below.

Appellant will suggest that President Obama read former-NARA ISSO Director Leonard’s April 30, 2008 Senate Judiciary Committee Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government testimony. “It is as if Lewis Carroll, George Orwell, and Franz Kafka jointly conspired to come up with ultimate recipe for unchecked executive power.” Id. 8.

Appellant will respectfully suggest that a 2011 § 413 (b) “corrective action” plan would preempt any 2012 House impeachment proceeding triggered by the fact that President Obama had not filed a § 413 (b) “corrective action” given the President’s July 19, 2010 knowledge of the NSA domestic surveillance program that 435 House Members learned about from reading the Washington Post “Top Secret America” series. There is a House impeachment risk because of ISOO Director Fitzpatrick’s September 27, 2011 decision affirming the ODNI FOIA decision that ODNI Director Clapper cannot locate the FOIA requested NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines. “I think I should understand that better,' Alice said very politely, `if I had it written down: but I can't quite follow it as you say it.” Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland.

2 AAG of the OLC Seitz should review the OLC documents for the following reasons:

§ A p. 10 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder knows the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memorandum of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith to AG Ashcroft, reveals the 1985 legal basis for the FISA “secret law” that was applied in the 1985-2011 Robert FOIAs without the knowledge of the Article III Judges.

§ B p. 11 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder knows the FOIA requested "Mitchell v Forsyth "nonacquiescence policy" document is a classified document because it explains the FISA "secret law" that was implemented without § 413 (a) of the National Security Act notification to the “Gang of Eight” or to the FISC.

§ C p.12 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder knows by application of former-DOD Secretary Rumsfeld's "known-known", “known-unknown”, and "unknown-unknown" fact analysis, the 1985-2011 AAGs of the OLC knew the "known-known" fact that the Mitchell v Forsyth "nonacquiescence" policy was the FISA "secret law " that was an "unknown-unknown" fact to the FISC, the Supreme Court, and other Article III Judges.

§ D p. 13 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested September 15, 2010 OLC documents are "nonacquiescence” cases that the AG had a duty to report to Congress as required by 28 U.S.C. § 530D.

§ E p.14 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether any of the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested OLC documents were designated as classified "nonacquiescence" cases pursuant to President Bush's November 2, 2002 Presidential Signing Statement with its exception for the AG’s 28 U.S.C. § 530D reporting duty for “nonacquiescence” cases.

§ F p. 15 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether by application of the Second Circuit’s Amnesty v Clapper standing decision, AG Holder knows that his DOJ “chain of command” attorneys know that Robert has standing to file a Bivens action because he was the target of the NSA TSP as revealed in the Robert VIII FOIA requested “Robert v Holz” documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 2, 5, and 7 and not as classified documents.

§ G p.16 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to read the Robert VIII “Robert v Holz” documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 2, 5 and 7, to determine whether Robert has Amnesty v Clapper standing by application of the Ashcroft v Iqbal plausibility standard.

§ H p.17 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder should apply the Chambers v Nasco “fraud upon the court” standard to Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA litigation decisions not to inform Judge Garaufis and the Second Circuit of the “known-known” FISA “secret law” facts which DOJ attorneys knew were “unknown-unknown” facts to these Judges in Robert VII and Robert VIII, and to Judges Wexler, Mishler, and Second Circuit in Robert v NARA and Robert v DOJ.

§ I p. 18 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder should apply the NYS Judiciary Law § 487 penal standard that prohibits attorneys’ deception of Judges or parties,

3 to DOJ attorneys who deceived Judges and parties re the FISA “secret law” and nonacquiescence “secret law” cases that were applied in the Robert FOIAs and Ford v Shalala, knowing the Article III Judges did not know that the “unknown-unknown” law had been applied.

§ J p. 19 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine in Robert VIII whether EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch should have applied the April 1, 2009 NYS Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3), a duty of attorneys to cure misrepresentations of fact and law that she learned had been made by USG attorneys who had learned of the misrepresentations of law and fact and took no action to cure “known-known” misrepresentations of fact and law to tribunals.

§ K p. 20 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine from reading the FISA “secret law” and classified OLC “nonacquiescence” decisions, whether in Robert VII v DOJ DOJ attorneys, including OIPR Counsel Baker and AAG of the OLC Keisler, intentionally had made Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court the “handmaiden of the Executive” by application of the Doe, et. al. v Mukasey, Mueller, and Caproni holding. “Under no circumstances should the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive.” Id. 870.

§ L p. 21 AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that President Obama’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) continues not to function to process complaints by U.S. citizens of illegal data mining of the NSA domestic surveillance program data banks.

§ M p. 22 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine from reading the FISA “secret law” of the classified OLC “nonacquiescence” documents, whether there is any October, 2011 merit to former-NARA ISSO Director Leonard’s 2008 Lewis Carol, George Orwell, and Franz Kafka literary characterization of the FISA “secret law” and its implementation.

§ N p. 23 AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice of NARA ISSO Executive Secretary Fitzpatrick’s September 27, 2011 ISCAP decision he could not locate the “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” document as an example of former-NARA ISSO Director Leonard’s 2008 Carol, Orwell, and Kafka literary characterization applying to Access Guidelines that NCTC analysts apply to data mine the 1984-2011 NSA domestic surveillance data banks.

§ O p. 24 AAG of the OLC Seitz will decide whether that Heller’s Catch 22 is a characterization that applies to the FISA “secret law” along with former-NARA ISOO Director Leonard’s Carroll, Orwell, and Kafka characterizations, when she decides whether NARA ISOO Director Fitzpatrick is “incompetent” because he cannot locate the NCTC Guidelines that he knows the 2004-2011 NCTC analysts have used to data mine the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks.

§ P p. 25 AAG of the OLC Seitz should apply DOD Secretary Rumsfeld’s “known-known” test to AG Holder’s U.S.A. v Drake CIPA Affidavit to determine when AG Holder first learned NSA Director Hayden had used an algorithm to data mine the pre-9/11 NSA data banks.

§ Q p. 26 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to apply President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526 § 1.7 Classification Prohibitions and Limitations to Special Counsel Colborn’s use of FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3 to deny the request for the release of reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo pages that reveal the illegal pre-9/11 FISA “secret law.”

4 § R p. 27 AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice of the 10-5-11 Report Reducing Overclassification Through Accountability, and AG Holder’s 2011 duty to be accountable for the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo “secret law,” by application of the 1985 Mitchell v Forsyth holding that the AG does not have absolute immunity for the AG’s illegal wiretapping.

§ S p. 28 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 1 1985 “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” document is a de jure FISA “secret law” document that can be located by reading the classified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo, or whether there has been a de facto Mitchell “nonacquiescence” policy of illegal wiretapping for which there is no immunity defense for the 1985-2011 AGs.

§ T p. 29 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 2 "Jackson nonacquiescence policy" document is a FISA-SSA “secret law” document because it has provided the 1984-2011 legal basis for the illegal off-OMB Budget HHS-SSA funding for the "immaculate construction" and maintenance of the 1984- 2011 NSA TSP data banks that could not be funded with classified OMB Budget funds.

§ U p. 30 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 3 "Ruppert nonacquiescence policy" documents contains "smoking gun" evidence that proves that AUSA Mahoney knows that SSA Commissioner Nominee Astrue's January 24, 2007 Senate Finance Committee testimony that the "nonacquiescence" policy ended prior to his becoming the HHS General Counsel in 1989, is 2011 uncured false testimony.

§ V p. 31 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 OLC FOIA requested # 4 1986 "Barrett nonacquiescence policy" document incorporates the FISA “secret law” of the 1985 “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” of AG Meese.

§ W p. 32 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 5 "Christensen nonacquiescence policy" document is located within the Office of the OLC because no Ford remedy Notices have been sent to the millions of Ford class members that include citations to the “Jackson” regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1130 (b).

§ X p. 33 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 6 "Ford v Shalala nonacquiescence policy" document is evidence of the Ford "secret law" ongoing need to continue to use Jackson nonacquiescence policy funds as the off-OMB Budget funding source for the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks.

§ Y p. 34 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 7 “National Council nonacquiescence policy” document exists.

§ Z p. 35 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 8 “Navarro nonacquiescence policy” identifies the government attorneys who made this decision that will affect the use of Supplemental Needs Trusts (SNTs) by 1994- 2011 Ford class members and who know that this is a connect-the-dots document to the Robert VIII “Ruppert” and “Robert v Holz” documents to prove that government attorneys seeking Robert’s disbarment intentionally provided false facts to the Grievance Committee.

5 § AA p. 36 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 9 “Ahlborn nonacquiescence policy” identifies the government attorneys who made the decisions not to apply the Ahlborn holding retroactively to when the government attorneys seeking Robert’s disbarment provided false facts to the NYG Grievance Committee re the “secret law” that was being enforced by government attorneys. § BB p. 37 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to learn the name of the 2009-2011 faux “Commander in Chief” of the 2009-2011 daisy-chain of attorney-patriots who ratified the “secret law” of the Mitchell nonacquiescence policy who is not President Obama.

§ CC p. 38 AAG of the OLC Seitz can learn from AAG of OLP Schroeder whether he is the October, 2011 “genius” faux “Commander in Chief” making the FISA “secret law” decisions without President Obama’s knowledge because Special Counsel Colborn knows whether he had ordered him not to process the September 15, 2010 OLC FOIA request because he knew that the Second Circuit would learn about the FISA “secret law.” . § DD p. 39 AAG of the OLC Seitz can learn from WH Counsel Ruemmler whether a WH “stovepipe” exists to provide President Obama with a “plausible deniability” defense to his knowledge of the impeachable violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA that is revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo.

§ EE p. 40 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of Principal Deputy AAG of the OLC Caroline Krass as to the whereabouts of the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” document the DOJ FOIA Officer could not locate in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA, but which she knows exists because this was the legal basis for DOJ attorneys withholding FISA “secret law” facts from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court in Robert VII v DOJ.

§ FF p. 41 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of AAG of the National Security Division Lisa Monaco the whereabouts of the “IMC Investigation Final Report” document the DOJ FOIA Officer could not locate in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA because that document reveals whether FBI Director Webster knew of the “black operation” at IMC in 1985.

§ GG p. 42 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of Associate DAG James Baker who ordered him not to file a Robert VII v DOJ “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declaration that informed Judge Garaufis that Robert had been the target of the pre-9-11 NSA TSP based on the FISA “secret law” as explained in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memorandum to AG Ashcroft.

§ HH p. 43 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of DAG James Cole whether SG Verrelli will breach NYS Judiciary Law § 487 if he does not inform the Supreme Court that DOJ attorneys had withheld facts re the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA “secret law” that DOJ attorneys had applied in Robert VII v DOJ and Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA.

§ II p. 44 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of SG Donald Verrilli, the 2009 Associate DAG and 2010 Deputy WH Counsel, whether he knows whether President Obama knows that the NSA domestic surveillance program revealed in the July 19, 2010 Washington Post series, was based on the FISA “secret law” explained in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo that was an “unknown-unknown” fact to Judge Garaufis and Second Circuit in Robert VII and Robert VIII.

6 § JJ p. 45 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inform Acting Deputy SG Roy McLeese of the OLC “secret law” prior to his review of SG’s Robert VII v DOJ case file notes to determine if SG Clement had withheld the FISA “secret law” facts from the Supreme Court, and whether SG Days’ 1996 Gordon Brief defending the “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” was false given SSA Commissioner Astrue’s Senate testimony that the “nonacquiescence policy had ended in 1989.

§ KK p. 46 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of Associate AG Thomas Perrelli whether pursuant to President Bush’s 2002 Presidential Signing Statement, AAG of the OLC Bybee determined that Mitchell, Christensen, and Ford were classified “secret law” nonacquiescence cases that were not reported to Congress as required by 28 U.S.C. § 530D.

§ LL p. 47 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of AAG of the Civil Division Tony West whether he has read the de novo 9-13-11 Civil FOIA requested documents to determine whether they contain “smoking gun” evidence that prove true the grave Robert VIII allegations.

§ MM p. 48 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to secure from OPR Director Brown the list of OPR “nonacquiescence” cases to which OPR applied the “Thornburgh-Giuliani” acquiescence policy “exception” after the 2002 enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 530D.

§ NN p. 49 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of EOUSA Director H. Marshall Jarrett, whether the 93 U.S. attorneys he supervises applied the 1989 “Thornburgh-Giuliani” acquiescence policy to the application of the Jackson and Ruppert “nonacquiescence” policies to the Ford class members who do not reside in the Seventh Circuit states.

§ OO p. 50 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch whether she will comply with her April 1, 2009 NYS Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3) duty to cure misrepresentations of fact and law made in Gordon and the Robert FOIAs.

§ PP p. 51 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of FBI General Counsel Caproni whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FBI FOIA requested document reveal that FBI Director Webster knew in 1985 that a NSA TSP was conducted in violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, and that a CIA-DIA-FBI “black operation was conducted at IMC in violation of the Boland Amendment without the knowledge of President Reagan.

§ QQ p. 52 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to provide CIA General Counsel Preston accurate OLC FISA “secret law” facts in order that he can cure the false facts provided Judge Seybert by the Robert II v CIA and DOJ CIA General Counsels, and not provide false “Curveball” facts to CIA Director Petraeus which CIA Director Petraeus then presents to President Obama.

§ RR p. 53 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to provide NARA General Counsel Gary Stern accurate OLC “secret law” facts in order that he can provide accurate facts to NARA Archivist Ferriero, his client, when the NARA Archivist renders his NARA ADR decision re the four 1985 Robert II v CIA and DOJ “North Notebook” classified documents more than 25 years old.

§ SS p. 54 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to provide NARA General Counsel Stern accurate OLC “secret law” facts so that he can provide accurate facts to NARA Archivist Ferriero, when

7 the NARA Archivist renders his decision as to the de novo FOIA requested “Perot” and “Peter Keisler Collection” documents withheld by the President Ronald Reagan Library Archivist based on a former-President’s executive privilege decision.

§ TT p. 55 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of OMB General Counsel Bershteyn whether the de novo September 13, 2011 OMB FOIA requested “1982-2010 OMB Jackson” documents” reveal that unaudited OMB SSI funds were diverted to pay for the “immaculate construction” of the 1984-2010 NSA TSP data banks not funded with classified OMB funds.

§ UU p. 56 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of DOD General Counsel Johnson, a 1989-1991 SDNY AUSA, whether he knows whether the source of the 1984-2011 off-OMB Budget “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the NSA TSP not funded with classified OMB Budget funds, was “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” SSI funds.

§ VV p. 57 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of NSA General Counsel Olson’s successor whether he/she knows whether the 1984-2011 off-OMB Budget funding source for the “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the NSA TSP not funded with classified OMB Budget funds, has been “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” SSI funds.

§ WW p. 58 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of ODNI General Counsel Litt whether he knows the whereabouts of the September 13, 2011 de novo FOIA requested “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” that are being used in 2011 when NCTC analysts data mine the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance data banks.

§ XX p. 59 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of ODNI IG Mazur, the 1996-2001 ISCAP Chair, whether she knows the whereabouts of the September 13, 2011 FOIA requested “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” that are being used when NCTC analysts data mine the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance data banks.

§ YY p. 60 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of Acting HHS General Counsel William Schultz whether he will be informing HHS Secretary Sebelius whether any of the HHS FOIA requested documents reveal that an HHS “stovepipe” had bypassed the 1984-2011 HHS Secretaries re the diversion of HHS funds to pay for the NSA domestic intelligence program data banks not paid for with classified OMB Budget funds.

§ ZZ p. 61 AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of SSA General Counsel Black whether he will be informing SSA Commissioner Astrue whether any of the de novo 9-13-11 SSA FOIA requested documents prove that SSA Commissioner Nominee Astrue’s January 24, 2007 Senate Finance Committee that the “nonacquiescence” policy had ended prior to his becoming HHS General Counsel in 1989, remains as uncured false testimony in October, 2011.

§ AAA p. 62 AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo focuses the issue of AG Holder’s credibility as to his knowledge of the FISA “secret law” facts not provided to the Article I “Gang of Eight,” to Article II President Obama, and to Article III Judges including the FISC and Supreme Court, given his 2011 knowledge of that there had been NSA data mining using the Thin Thread algorithm.

8 § BBB p. 63 AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo reveals whether AG Holder’s Chief of Staff Grindler is withholding facts from AG Holder to provide AG Holder with a “plausible deniability” defense.

§ CCC p. 64 AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that AG Holder’s credibility will be tested by investigative reporters who file their own OLC FOIA request for the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA “secret law” memo and ask AG Holder how-could-this- have-ever happened questions for which AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the answers.

§ DDD p. 65 AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that because of the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA “secret law” Memo, investigative reporters who file their own FOIAs will not be deceived by USG agencies use of the cannot locate “Glomar Response” defense.

§ EEE p. 66 AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the answer to the 2012 putative House Judiciary Committee impeachment question: What did President Obama know about the NSA domestic surveillance program and the illegal intelligence activity that was revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo, and when did he know it?

§ FFF p. 67 AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo proves the serial impeachable violation of §413 (a) of the National Security Act.

§ GGG p. 68 AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether the reclassified May 6, 2004 Memo proves that there are uncured impeachable violations of “exclusivity provision” of the FISA of 1978.

§ HHH p. 69 AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo proves serial impeachable violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 limitations on military domestic law enforcement when the military NSA Directors data mined the NSA data banks.

§ III p. 70 AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether the reclassified May 6, 2011 OLC proves the serial impeachable violation of the Social Security Act by the diversion of HHS-SSA funds.

§ JJJ p. 71 AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that President Obama has a 50 U.S.C. § 413 (b) of the National Security Act duty to file a “corrective action” plan to cure the illegal intelligence activities revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 “secret law” FISA memo.

§ KKK p. 72 AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA quiet settlement offer is consistent with the suggested 2011 § 413 (b) of the National Security Act “correction action” plan for President Obama to file to cure the illegal intelligence activities revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified March 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo.

§ LLL p. 73 AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that if the quiet settlement offer is rejected, then 2012 litigation will seek documents to prove that the 24 USG attorneys identified above knew that SG Verrelli had committed Supreme Court déjà vu "fraud upon the court” by withholding the FISA "secret law" as explained in the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo.

§ MMM p. 74 Summary

9 A. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder knows the March 18, 2011 released reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memorandum of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith to AG Ashcroft, reveals the 1985 legal basis for the FISA “secret law” that was applied in the 1985-2011 Robert FOIAs without the knowledge of the Article III Judges

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder knows the March 18, 2011 released reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memorandum of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith to AG Ashcroft, reveals the 1985 legal basis for the FISA “secret law” that was applied in the 1985-2011 Robert FOIAs without the knowledge of the Article III Judges. If so, then AG Holder should inform the Supreme Court of this fact in the USG’s Brief in opposition to the Robert VIII petition for a writ of certiorari. See the 4-11-11 OLC MDR WP §§ A-G.

On September 30, 2011, Special Counsel Colborn denied the September 13, 2011 FOIA request for this reclassified OLC document. “We are withholding the un-redacted version of this document pursuant to FOIA Exemptions One, Three, and Five, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1), (3), and (5).”

AAG of the OLC Goldsmith’s May 6, 2004 Memorandum for AG Ashcroft explained that the main legal authority of the post-9/11 NSA PSP was the Congressionally enacted September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). This trumped the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA. However, this heavily redacted May 6, 2004 OLC opinion also discussed the President’s inherent unlimited Article II authority as the Commander-in-Chief to authorize the NSA to take actions at all times, not just during wartime such as after 9/11:

The President’s authority in this field is sufficiently comprehensive that the entire structure of federal restrictions for protection national security information has been created solely by presidential order, not by statute. See generally Department of the Navy v Egan, 484 U.S. 5187, 527, 530 (1988); See also New York Times Co. v United States, 403 U.S. 713, 729-730 (1971)(Stewart, J., concurring)(“(I)t is the constitutional duty of the Executive-as a matter of sovereign prerogative and not as a matter of laws the courts know law—through the promulgation and enforcement of executive regulations, to protect the confidentiality necessary to carry out its responsibilities in the field of international relations and national defense.”). Similarly, the NSA is entirely a creature of the Executive-it has no organic statute defining or limiting its functions. (redacted b1, b3). Id. 45. Emphasis added. https://webspace.utexas.edu/rmc2289/OLC%2054.FINAL.PDF.

AAG of the OLC Goldsmith’s May 6, 2004 Memorandum explained the “Unitary Executive” theory whereby the Article I Congress did not have the constitutional authority to encroach upon the Article II Commander in Chief’s duties. “As noted above, even in prior opinions suggesting that Congress has the power to restrict the Executive’s actions in foreign intelligence collection this Office has always preserved the caveat that such restrictions would be permissible only where they do not “go so far as to render it impossible for the President to perform his constitutionally prescribed functions.” Redacted b5.” Id. 70. Emphasis Added. If an OLC Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy is cited in the Memo, then this is the “secret law” applied in Robert VIII. If so, then AG Holder has ratified this policy in 2011.

10 B. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder knows the FOIA requested OLC "Mitchell v Forsyth "nonacquiescence policy" document is a classified document because it explains the FISA "secret law" that was implemented without § 413 (a) of the National Security Act notification to the “Gang of Eight” or to the FISC

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder knows the FOIA requested "Mitchell v Forsyth "nonacquiescence policy" document is a classified document because it explains the FISA "secret law" that was implemented without § 413 (a) of the National Security Act notification to the “Gang of Eight” or to the FISC. AG Holder should know whether the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy was the legal basis for the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance program that the public learned about from the Washington Post July 19, 2010 series, when he decides whether to file an Amnesty v Clapper petition for a writ of certiorari. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ M, N,V,W,AAA and §§ F, OO below.

On June 19, 1985, Mitchell v Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), was decided and Justice White wrote the majority opinion that rejected the AG’s absolute immunity argument: We conclude that the Attorney General is not absolutely immune from suit for damages arising out of his allegedly unconstitutional conduct in performing his national security functions. As the Nation’s chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General provides vital assistance to the President in his performance of the latter’s constitutional duty to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” U.S. Const. Art. II, 1, cl. 8. Mitchell’s argument, in essence, is that the national security functions of the Attorney General are so sensitive, so vital to the protection of our Nation’s well-being, that we cannot tolerate any risk that in performing those functions he will be chilled by the possibility of personal liability for acts that may be found to impinge on the constitutional rights of citizens. Such arguments, “when urged on behalf of the President and the national security in its domestic implications, merit the most careful consideration.” Keith, 407 U.S., at 219. Nonetheless, we do not believe that the considerations that have led us to recognize absolute immunities for other officials dictate the same result in this case. Id. 520. Emphasis Added. AG Meese explained his “Co-ordinate Branches of Government” theory in his 1986 “Tulane” speech, Law of the Constitution, 61 Tulane L. Rev. 979, that the President and the AG had equal authority with the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution: The Supreme Court, then, is not the only interpreter of the Constitution. Each of the three coordinate branches of government crated and empowered by the Constitution- the executive and legislative no less than the judicial— has a duty to interpret the Constitution.” Id. 985-986. Emphasis Added.

AG Holder should know whether the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy is based on AG Meese’s “Coordinate Branches of Government” theory. If so, then President Obama should know that AG Holder has ratified the decision that the Supreme Court had “incorrectly” decided Mitchell v Forsyth and this remains as the FISA “secret law” in 2011.

11 C. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder knows whether the FISA “secret law” was a “known-known” fact to the 1985-2011 AAGs of the OLC and whether he knows the FISA “secret law” was an “unknown-unknown” fact to the FISC and to Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court in Robert VII v DOJ

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder knows by application of former-DOD Secretary Rumsfeld's "known-known" and "unknown-unknown" fact analysis, the 1985-2011 AAGs of the OLC knew the "known-known" fact of the Mitchell v Forsyth "nonacquiescence" policy was the FISA "secret law," but was an "unknown-unknown" fact to the FISC and other Article III Judges. This includes whether AG Holder knows that the FISA “secret law” has been an “unknown-unknown” law to Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court in Robert VII v DOJ and now in Robert VIII. See §§ AAA-CCC below.

On February 12, 2002, DOD Secretary Rumsfeld explained an historical prism through which to better understand known-known, known-unknown, and unknown-unknown facts:

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. DoD News Briefing, 2-12-2002. Emphasis Added. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2636

AAG of the OLC Seitz can review OLC records and determine whether the FISA “secret law” revealed in the May 6, 2004 “OLC Memorandum from AAG of the OLC Goldsmith to AG Ashcroft, was a “known-known” fact to Charles Cooper (1985-1988), Douglas Kmiec (1988- 1999), William Barr (1989-1990), Michael Luttig (1990-1991), Timothy Flanigan (1991-1992), Walter Dellinger (1993-1994), (Acting) Beth Nolan (1994-1996), (Acting) Dawn Johnson (1996- 1998), Randolph Moss (1998-2001)), Jay Bybee (2001-2003), Jack Goldsmith (2003-2004), (Acting) Daniel Levin (2004-05), (Acting) Steven Bradbury (2005-2008), (Acting) David Barron (2009), (Acting) Jonathan Cedarbaum (2010-2011), and (Acting) Caroline Krass (2011). If so, then AAG of the OLC Seitz can learn from reading the classified “FISC Robert” documents OIPR Counsel Baker read on March 1, 2004 OIPR Counsel Baker, why he affirmed the CIA’s use of FOIA Exemption 1 and “Glomar Response” prior to the classified May 6, 2004 FISA Memo. Then she can read the Robert VII v DOJ case file notes and learn why he withdrew his “uncorrected” ex parte Robert VII v DOJ Declaration and replaced it with his October 1, 2004 “corrected” Declaration. http://www.snowflake5391.net/baker.pdf. See §§ K, GG below.

AAG of the OLC Seitz’ knowledge of whether the FISA “secret law” was an “unknown- unknown” fact to the Supreme Court in Robert VII v DOJ, will be at issue when the Robert VIII appellant files his November 2011 petition for a writ of certiorari. AG Holder should know these OLC “known-known” facts when he instructs SG Verrelli whether to file a Brief in opposition to the Robert VIII petition for a writ of certiorari. See §§ H-K, II, JJ below.

12 D. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested September 15, 2010 OLC documents are "nonacquiescence” cases that the AG has had a duty to report to Congress as required by 28 U.S.C. § 530D

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested September 15, 2010 OLC documents are "nonacquiescence” cases that the AG had a duty to report to Congress as required by 28 U.S.C. § 530D. If not, then AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder has determined that DOJ policy is to acquiesce to each of the Article III decisions that were not reported as “nonacquiescence” cases.

28 U.S.C. § 530D (a)(1)(A)(ii), Report on Enforcement of Laws: Policies Regarding the Constitutionality of Provisions and Non-acquiescence establishes the 2002-2011 reporting duty of the AG to report to Congress “nonacquiescence” cases:

(1) In general.— The Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice— (A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain— (ii) within any judicial jurisdiction of or within the United States, from adhering to, enforcing, applying, or complying with, any standing rule of decision (binding upon courts of, or inferior to those of, that jurisdiction) established by a final decision of any court of, or superior to those of, that jurisdiction, respecting the interpretation, construction, or application of the Constitution, any statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer; Emphasis Added

The de novo September 13, 2011 OLC FOIA request seeks the release of the “nonacquiescence” documents for the “nonacquiescence” cases that the AGs reported to Congress as required by 28 U.S.C. § 530D (a)(1)(A)(ii). If there is no “nonacquiescence” document for each of the listed cases, then OLC Special Counsel Colborn should so state that fact. This would mean that the AG has not determined that the listed case was “incorrectly” decided and not to be followed. Such a decision would be consistent with OPR Attorney Michael Shaheen’s January 9, 1989 letter to Robert that the DOJ had adopted the “Thornburgh-Giuliani” acquiescence policy except for “nonacquiescence” decisions made by the AG that is “supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” http://www.snowflake5391.net/1-9-89Shaheen.pdf. See 7-27-10 DOJ §§ P-U and § MM below.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the names of the universe of cases reported to Congress as “nonacquiescence” cases as required by 28 U.S.C. § 530D (a)(1)(A)(ii). If there have been no 28 U.S.C. § 530D AG Notifications to Congress, then AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that AG Holder’s 93 U.S. Attorneys have a duty to acquiesce to the holdings of the nine cases discussed in September 15, 2010 letter to Acting AAG of the OLC Cedarbaum, unless an AG has made a determination that the “secret law” national security exception applies. Therefore, if the “secret law” national security exception does not apply to these cases, then all of AG Holder’s 93 U.S. Attorneys have a duty to acquiesce to these nine decisions. See §§ E, EE, KK, MM, NN below.

13 E. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether any of the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested OLC documents were designated as classified "nonacquiescence" cases pursuant to President Bush's November 2, 2002 Presidential Signing Statement

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether any of the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested OLC documents were designated as classified "nonacquiescence" cases pursuant to President Bush's November 2, 2002 Presidential Signing Statement. If any of these cases are classified “nonacquiescence cases, then AG Holder should be making the decision whether FOIA Exemption 1, 3 of the "Glomar Response" applies to FOIA requested documents that reveal the "secret law" that the AGs have been enforcing without the knowledge of the Congress or the FISC or the Supreme Court. See the 7-27-10 DOJ WP § K, CC, DD.

President Bush’s November 2, 2002 28. U.S.C. § 530D Signing Statement established an exception whereby the President is not to file a Report with the Congress when the President decides the national security would be at risk if the “nonacquiescence” case is reported.

Furthermore, section 202(a) requires that the President report to the Congress the issuance of any "unclassified Executive Order or similar memorandum or order" that establishes or implements a policy of intra- circuit non-acquiescence or of refraining from enforcing, applying, or administering a Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, or policy on the ground that it is unconstitutional. Based upon the text and structure of this section, the executive branch shall construe this reporting obligation to cover only unclassified orders in writing that are officially promulgated and are not included in the reports of the Attorney General or other Federal officers to whom this section applies. Emphasis Added. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=73177

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to know the universe of classified “nonacquiescence” cases that President Bush or President Obama designated as a national security exceptions to the President’s 28 U.S.C. § 530D duty to report “nonacquiescence” cases to Congress. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to read these classified “nonacquiescence policy” decisions and instruct OLC Special Counsel Colborn whether he is to use FOIA Exemption 1, 3 or the “Glomar Response” defense when he renders his OLC FOIA request “nonacquiescence” cases decision.

If AAG of the OLC Seitz does not know the names of the classified “nonacquiecensce” cases, then she has a duty to report this fact to AG Holder who has a duty to report this fact to President Obama. This would provide President Obama with an opportunity to review the universe of classified “nonacquiescence” cases as designated by President Bush. This would include the “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” decision of AG Meese that has been the basis of the 1984-2011 “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance program and the NSA data-mining conducted from 1985-2011 without Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama complying with their § 413 (a) National Security Act duty to report this intelligence activity to Congress. If AG Holder learns that President Obama has no knowledge of any § 530D national security cases, then this is evidence of the fact that a faux “Commander in Chief” has made the classified “nonacquiescence” decisions. See 4-11-11 OLC MDR WP § M.

14 F. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether by application of the Second Circuit’s Amnesty v Clapper standing decision, AG Holder knows that his DOJ “chain of command” attorneys know that Robert has standing to file a Bivens action because he was the target of the NSA TSP as revealed in the Robert VIII “Robert v Holz” documents

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether by application of the Second Circuit’s Amnesty v Clapper standing decision, AG Holder knows that his DOJ “chain of command” attorneys know that Robert has standing to file a Bivens action because he was the target of the NSA TSP as revealed in the Robert VIII “Robert v Holz” documents. These “chain of command” attorneys know that Robert had been the illegal domestic target of the NSA TSP from reading the “Robert v Holz” documents and Robert VIII case file notes. They know Robert’s First Amendment access to the Courts were violated by USG attorneys’ “secret law” litigation decisions in the 1985-2011 Robert FOIAs. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP § AAA.

On September 21, 2011, the Second Circuit issued its Amnesty v Clapper en banc decision denying AG Holder’s petition for an en banc rehearing of Amnesty v Clapper, 638 F. 3d 118 (2d Cir. 2011). Circuit Judge Lynch explained the importance of the Amnesty standing holding that opened the courthouse door to Article III reviews of Article II wiretapping:

To reject the plaintiffs’ arguments not because they lack merit, but because we refuse to hear them, runs a much graver risk than whatever invasion of the plaintiffs’ privacy might be occasioned by the surveillance authorized by the challenged statute. The Constitution sets limits on the powers even of Congress. It is the glory of our system that even our elected leaders must defend the legality of their conduct when challenged. Short-circuiting that process risks not only that we will be governed by unconstitutional laws, but also that legitimate exercises of the lawmaking power will exist under a cloud, undispelled by the light of objective reasoning. Id. slip op. 17. Emphasis Added.

In his November, 2011 Robert VIII petition for a writ of certiorari, appellant will argue that the “Robert v Holz” documents carry his Catch-22 burden to prove that he was the target of the Top Secret NSA TSP. “This Catch-22 says that because the wiretaps are secret, no one knows for certain whether they have actually been tapped, and that means no one has a right to sue the government.” Editorial, Accountability Avoidance, NY Times, 10-6-11. See § M below.

In his Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Motion seeking a pre-clearance Order to file a putative FOIA action, Robert will request that Judge Garaufis read in camera the connect-the- dots Robert VIII “Robert v Holz” documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 2, 5, and 7 and the Robert VII “Robert FISC” documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense. In this way, Judge Garaufis will know whether these documents contain facts that Robert could use to prove his putative Bivens action allegation that USG officials and attorneys had violated his First Amendment right of access to the Courts by withholding material facts from Article III Judges. If so, then Robert will have Amnesty v Clapper standing if these documents prove true his allegation that 2012 DOJ attorneys know he was the illegal target of the NSA TSP in violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA.

15 G. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to read the “Robert v Holz” documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 2 5, and 7 to determine whether Robert has Amnesty v Clapper standing by application of the Ashcroft v Iqbal plausibility standard AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to read the “Robert v Holz” documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 2, 5 and 7, to determine whether Robert has Amnesty v Clapper standing by application of the Ashcroft v Iqbal plausibility standard. AG Holder should know whether the “fraud” exception to the attorney-client applied to USG attorneys’ FRCP 11 signed documents, has been trumped by the FISA “secret law” that was the basis of the NSA TSP targeting Robert during the “Fraud Against the Government” investigation of Robert initiated by HHS General Counsel Juan del Real as a covered agent. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ M, N, AAA.

In its Second Circuit Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA decision, the Second Circuit held that the FOIA Exemption 5 work product defense applied to the “Robert v Holz” and “Ruppert” case file notes. “We agree with the District Court that the withheld pages constituted attorney work product and were properly withheld under FOIA exemption 5.” Id. 3 n.1. Without reading any documents in camera, the Second Circuit rejected appellant’s argument that the “fraud” exception to the attorney-client privilege applied to these documents. "A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told." Clark v United States, 289 U.S. 1, 15 (1933).

Appellant will cite to the “Robert v Holz” and “FISC Robert” documents in his Bivens action alleging that USG attorneys violated his First Amendment right of access to the Courts, in order to pass the “plausibility” hurdle of Ashcroft v Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). “When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. 1950. See § KKK below.

The 1985-1988 “Robert v Holz” case file notes reveal whether the AUSAs of EDNY U.S. Attorneys Raymond Dearie (1982-1986), Reena Raggi (1986), and Andrew Maloney (1986- 1992), including EDNY AUSA Valerie Caproni, knew that a FBI counterintelligence “plumber” unit had provided information for the “Fraud Against the Government” investigation of Robert. That FBI unit knew whether Robert had been targeted by the NSA TSP as a terrorist or an agent of a foreign power. Robert’s allegation is made “plausible” by reading the Robert VII “FISC Robert” documents that OIPR Baker read on March 1, 2004 when he affirmed the CIA’s use of the FOIA Exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense. See §§ GG, QQ below.

The FOIA requested “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” document and the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo from AAG of the OLC Goldsmith to AG Ashcroft, reveal the FISA “secret law” that AG Meese was enforcing during the “Fraud Against the Government” investigation of Robert. As a result, those documents are the foundation of Robert’s grave allegation that the “fraud” exception applies to the use of FOIA Exemption 5 to withhold the 1980s “Robert v Holz” case file notes. The “secret law” documents reveal whether the Robert v Holz FRCP 11 signed documents of USG attorneys filed by the EDNY AUSAs, were false given the fact that FISA “secret law” was not revealed to Judge Wexler in the USG’s docketed pleadings, or to Judge Garaufis in the Robert VII v DOJ “FISC Robert” documents. Hence, AAG of the OLC Seitz’ duty to read the “Robert v Holz” documents along with the FISA “secret law” documents to determine if the “fraud” exception applies to DOJ’s use of FOIA Exemption 5.

16 H. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder should apply the Chambers v Nasco “fraud upon the court” standard to the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA litigation decisions not to inform Judge Garaufis or the Second Circuit of the FISA “secret law” facts which they knew were “unknown-unknown” facts to the Judges

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder should apply the Chambers v Nasco “fraud upon the court” standard to Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA litigation decisions not to inform Judge Garaufis and the Second Circuit of the “known-known” FISA “secret law” facts. 2011 DOJ attorneys know whether 1997-2000 DAG Holder knew that the 1985-2000 FISA “secret law” had been “unknown-unknown” facts to Judges Wexler, Judge Mishler, and the Second Circuit in Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001) and Robert v DOJ, 2001 WL 34077473 (EDNY), 26 Fed. Appx. 87(2d Cir. 2002).

In Chambers v. Nasco, 111 S. Ct. 2123 (1991), the Supreme Court established the federal “fraud upon the court” standard. After reviewing false pleadings filed by a party, the Supreme Court highlighted the inherent authority of a court to vacate prior judgments in order to protect its own integrity when false representations are made to a court:

This “historic power of equity to set aside fraudulently begotten judgments,” cite omitted, is necessary to the integrity of the courts for “tampering with the administration of justice in (this)manner …involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public. cites omitted. Moreover, a court has the power to conduct an independent investigation whether it has been the victim of a fraud. Cite omitted. Id. at p. 2132. Emphasis Added.

In his Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Motion seeking Judge Garaufis’ pre-clearance Order to file a FOIA complaint, appellant will request that Judge Garaufis read in camera the FISA “secret law” documents and decide whether the Chambers “fraud upon the court” standard applies in the Robert FOIA actions. He will argue that a “fraud upon the court” will have occurred whenever USG attorneys implemented the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” and withheld material facts from the Article III Judges in the 1985-2011 Robert FOIAs. “Finally, acceptance of the view urged by the federal appellants would result in a blanket grant of absolute immunity to government lawyers acting to prevent exposure of the government in liability.” Barrett v. United States, 798 F. 2d 565, 573 (2d Cir. 1986). Emphasis Added.

Given the gravity of Robert’s allegation that FBI Director Caproni as a 1980s EDNY AUSA knew HHS General Counsel del Real was a covered agent, AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to read the de novo 9-13-11 OLC FOIA requested # 2 1982 “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” document along with the FOIA requested September 4, 1985 “Ruppert” case file notes withheld in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5. Those documents reveal whether AAG of the OLC Richard Willard was the “Washington” attorney in Judge Altimari’s Ruppert Chambers. If so, then 1980s DOJ attorneys committed a “fraud upon the court” in both Ruppert and Robert v Holz if they did not inform Judges Altimari and Wexler of the FISA “secret law” upon which HHS Gen. Counsel del Real made Robert a target of the NSA TSP and the Robert “Fraud Against the Government” investigation. See § LLL below.

17 I. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder should apply the NYS Judiciary Law § 487 penal standard that prohibits attorneys’ deception of Judges or parties, to DOJ attorneys who deceived Judges and parties re the “secret law” nonacquiescence cases that have been applied in the Robert FOIAs and Ford v Shalala

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether AG Holder should apply the NYS Judiciary Law § 487 penal standard that prohibits attorneys’ deception of Judges or parties, to DOJ attorneys who deceived Judges and parties re the “secret law” nonacquiescence cases that have been applied in the Robert FOIAs and Ford v Shalala. In his Motion seeking a pre- clearance Order to file a putative FOIA complaint, appellant will request that Judge Garaufis read in camera the de novo 9-13-11 FOIA requested “nonacquiescence” policy documents and determine whether USG attorneys knew that the Article III Judges and the parties did not know the “unknown-unknown” law of these “nonacquiescence” cases. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP § F.

New York State Judiciary Law § 487 establishes a Misconduct by attorneys, standard for attorneys participating in NYS litigation:

An attorney or counselor who: 1. Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party; or …

Is guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the punishment prescribed therefore by the penal law, he forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action. Emphasis Added.

Appellant will argue that the de novo 9-13-11 FOIA requested OLC documents reveal the “secret law” nonacquiescence policies that AG Holder continues to defend in 2011 as applied to FOIA party-plaintiff Robert and to the millions of Ford v Shalala nationwide class party plaintiffs whose October, 2011 monthly federal SSI benefits were reduced by one-third because of the 2011 implementation of the 1982 Jackson, 1990 Ruppert, 2000 Christensen, and 2007 Ford “nonacquiescence” policies. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows this is a very simple fact issue for Judge Garaufis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, the AG was to report all “nonacquiescence” cases to Congress unless President Bush’s November 2, 2002 Presidential Signing Statement national security exception standard applied. See §§ D, E, J, K, T, U, W, X below.

Thus, AAG of the OLC Seitz should inform AG Holder whether the FOIA requested OLC “nonacquiescence” documents exist or do not exist. If they exist, then AG Holder will determine whether to release the documents or withheld the documents with an articulated FOIA Exemption. If these are classified “secret law” nonacquiescence decisions, then he will use FOIA Exemption 1, 3 or the “Glomar Response” defense which will be subject to Article III review.

If AAG of the OLC Seitz determines that these FOIA requested OLC “nonacquiescence” documents do not exist, then AG Holder should know DOJ attorneys have implemented de facto “nonacquiescence policies contrary to SSA Commissioner Astrue’s January 24, 2007 Senate testimony that the “nonacquiescence” policy had ended prior to his becoming HHS General Counsel in 1989. AG Holder should know the 1989-2011 NYS Judiciary Law § 487 violations.

18 J. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to advise AG Holder whether in Robert VIII EDNY U.S. attorney Lynch should have applied the April 1, 2009 NYS Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3), duty of attorneys to cure misrepresentations of fact and law that she learned that government attorneys had made to Judges in the Robert FOIAs

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether in Robert VIII EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch should have applied the April 1, 2009 NYS Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3), a duty of attorneys to cure misrepresentations of fact and law that she learned government attorneys had made to Judges in the Robert FOIAs. AAG of the OLC Seitz will know whether misrepresentations of fact and law were made to Judge Garaufis and the Second Circuit in Robert VII and Robert VIII when she reads the de novo 9-13-11 FOIA OLC requested # 4 Barrett and # 5 Christensen documents. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G and AAA.

As of April 1, 2009, in NYS an attorney has a duty to comply with the NYS Professional Responsibility Guidelines. Pursuant to Rule 3.3(a)(3). EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch has had a “shall” duty to correct the false representations she knows were made to Judges:

If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of the falsity, the lawyer shall take responsible remedial measures, including if necessary disclosure to the tribunal. Emphasis added. NYS Unified Court System Part 1200 Rules of Professional Conduct

In its September 6, 2011 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA decision, the Second Circuit credited AG’s FOIA Officer’s two due diligence searches for the “Barrett” and “Christensen” nonacquiescence policy documents. “… we again agree with the District Court’s finding that the DOJ demonstrated though its supplemental declarations that it had conducted searches that were reasonably calculated to locate the requested documents (assuming any exist), and that Robert offered only conclusionary allegations that were insufficient to rebut the DOJ’s showing.” Id. slip op. 3. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that during the Robert IV, Robert V, Robert VI, and Robert VIII litigation seeking the Barrett and Christensen nonacquiescence policy documents, no DOJ FOIA Officer made the logical decision to contact directly AAGs of the OLCs Jack Goldsmith (2003-2004), (Acting) Daniel Levin (2004-05), (Acting) Steven Bradbury (2005- 2008), or (Acting) David Barron (2009), to locate the OLC documents. See §§ V, W below.

Hence, the importance of AAG of the OLC Seitz conducting her own due diligence search for the de novo September 13, 2011 OLC FOIA requested # 4 1986 “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” and # 5 “Christensen nonacquiescence policy” documents. If she locates these OLC documents, then pursuant to NYS ethics Rule 3.3(a)(3), she should report this fact not only to Judge Garaufis, but also to the Second Circuit because it had relied upon the accuracy of the DOJ FOIA Officers Declarations as to the reasonableness of their searches for these OLC documents. If these are classified “secret law” nonacquiescence case documents not to be reported to Article III Judges, then AG Holder has to decide whether U.S. Attorney Lynch had breached Rule 3.3(a)(3) duty to report to Judge Garaufis in a “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declaration that the documents exist, but that Robert cannot know this classified fact because then he would know that the FISA “secret law” had been applied in his 1985-2009 FOIA cases.

19 K. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine from reading the FISA “secret law” and classified OLC “nonacquiescence” decisions, whether DOJ attorneys in Robert VII v DOJ intentionally had made Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court the “handmaiden of the Executive” by application of the Doe v Mukasey standard

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine from reading the FISA “secret law” and classified OLC “nonacquiescence” decisions, whether DOJ attorneys in Robert VII v DOJ intentionally had made Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court the “handmaiden of the Executive” by application of the Doe, et. al. v Mukasey, Mueller, and Caproni holding. In his November, 2011 petition for a writ of certiorari, appellant will cite to the FISA “secret law” revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 FISA Memo from AAG of the OLC Goldsmith to AG Ashcroft. This was written prior to OIPR Counsel Baker’s October 1, 2004 Robert VII v DOJ “corrected” Declaration in which he explained his use of FOIA Exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense. See §§ GG, FFF, GGG below.

On December 15, 2008, in Doe, et. al. v Mukasey, Mueller, and Caproni, 549 F 3d 861 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit revisited the Barrett issue of Article III Judges deferring to “good faith” Article II actions of government attorney-patriots to protect the nation from terrorists. The Second Circuit affirmed with modifications the District Court injunction to prevent government officials from violating the First Amendment by use of prior restraint FBI “gag” Notices re FBI issuance of National Security Letters (NSLs), but rejected the USG’s argument that there should be Article III total deference to Article II national security decisions:

There is not meaningful judicial review of the decision of the Executive Branch to prohibit speech if the position of the Executive Branch that speech would be harmful is “conclusive” on a reviewing court, absent only a demonstration of bad faith. To accept deference to that extraordinary degree would be to reduce strict scrutiny to no scrutiny, save only the rarest of situations where bad faith could be shown. Under either traditional strict scrutiny or a less exacting application of that standard, some demonstration from the Executive Branch of the need for secrecy is required in order to conform the nondisclosure requirement to First Amendment standards. The fiat of a government official, though senior in rank and doubtless honorable in the execution of official duties, cannot displace the judicial obligation to enforce constitutional requirements. “Under no circumstances should the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive.” United States v Smith, 899 F. 2d 564, 569, (6th Cir. 1990).” Id. 870 Emphasis Added.

Appellant will argue that Judge Garaufis did not conduct a “meaningful review” because of DOJ attorneys “bad faith” implementation of the FISA “secret law” revealed in the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo, for the purpose of making Judge Garaufis the “handmaiden” of the DOJ. He will also argue that EDNY U.S. Attorneys Mauskopf (2002- 2007), and Campbell (2007-2010), should have filed “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations explaining the FISA “secret law” that OIPR Counsel Baker and EDNY AUSA Mahoney knew had been applied in Robert VII v DOJ which then was ratified by SG Clement when he reviewed the Robert VII v DOJ petition for a writ of certiorari. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G, K-O, V-Y.

20 L. AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that President Obama’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) continues not to function to process complaints by U.S. citizens of illegal data mining of the NSA domestic surveillance program data banks

AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that President Obama’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) continues not to function to process complaints by U.S. citizens of illegal data mining of the NSA domestic surveillance program data banks. This is an OLC issue because the President’s PCLOP has been staffed with DAG employees. Appellant is asserting that 2011 Associate DAG Baker knows that the FISA “secret law” continues to be applied in Robert VIII to “cover up” the fact that as OIPR Counsel Baker in Robert VII, he knew that the FISA “secret law” explained in the classified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo, had been withheld from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and Supreme Court. See §§ GG below.

On January 5, 2011, President Obama nominated Elisabeth Collins Cook to be a Member of the PCLOB. She was AG Judge Mukasey’s AAG of the Office of Legal Policy after being the OLP Senior Counsel, Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General, and OLP DAAG. She knows the content of AAG of the OLC Goldsmith’s May 6, 2004 redacted memo and whether NSA military officials had data mined the pre-9/11 NSA TSP in serial impeachable violation of the § 413 of the National Security Act, the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, the Posse Comitatus Act limitations on domestic military law enforcement, and the Social Security Act without the knowledge President George W. Bush. Her confirmation hearing has not been held.

Upon information and belief, VP Biden’s Counsel Ron Klain knew that VP Cheney’s Counsel-Chief of Staff Addington had been the faux “Commander in Chief” for President Bush in order to provide President Bush and VP Cheney with “plausible deniability” to the illegal NSA data mining of the 1984-2008 NSA TSP and PSP data banks. However, he knew that there was an inherent conflict of interest for the VP’s Counsel to be the faux “Commander in Chief” making FISA “secret law” decisions without the knowledge of the President. VP Counsel Klain had been the 1989-1992 Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 1994 Chief of Staff and Counselor to AG Reno, 1995 Associate WH Counsel for President Clinton, and 1996-2000 Chief of Staff and Counselor to VP Gore. Prior to his January, 2011 resignation, he realized the continued 2011 implementation of the FISA “secret law” explained in the classified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo to AG Ashcroft, would place President Obama at risk of a House impeachment proceeding if a § 413 (b) “corrective action” plan was not filed. See § EEE below.

AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that the appellant’s 4-11-11 OLC MDR request continues not to be docketed and FOIA Civil Attorney-in-charge Kovakas has not decided the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA request for the July 27, 2010 FOIA request for the # 2 “1985-1988 Robert v Holz “Fraud Against the Government” DOJ case file notes and e- mails” and # 11 “2004-2007 Robert VII v DOJ ex parte Declarations, case file notes, and e- mails” documents. Because there is no PCLOB, the appellant cannot file a complaint as to the processing of his September 13, 2011 DOJ request for documents he asserts contain “smoking gun” evidence that he had been the target of illegal wiretapping. Hence, the importance of AAG of the OLC Seitz learning who made the decision not to docket the 4-11-11 OLC MDR request to declassify the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo. AG Holder should know these facts when he decides whether to file an Amnesty petition for a writ of certiorari.

21 M. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine from reading the FISA “secret law” of the classified OLC “nonacquiescence” documents, whether there is any October, 2011 merit to former-NARA ISSO Director Leonard’s 2008 Lewis Carol, George Orwell, and Franz Kafka literary characterization of the FISA “secret law” and its implementation

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine from reading the FISA “secret law” of the classified OLC “nonacquiescence” documents, whether there is any October, 2011 merit to former-NARA ISSO Director Leonard’s 2008 Lewis Carol, George Orwell, and Franz Kafka literary characterization of the FISA “secret law” and its implementation. AAG of the OLC Seitz may come to the same conclusion if she concludes that she will not be able to provide a coherent “heads up” memo for Acting Deputy Solicitor General McLeese, her husband, to use when he prepares his “heads up” memo for SG Verelli when SG Verrelli decides whether to file a Robert VIII Brief in opposition to appellant’s petition for a writ of certiorari that cites to the FISA “secret law” applied in Robert VII and Robert VIII. See §§ M,.JJ, FFF, GGG below.

AAG of the OLC Seitz should be considering former-NARA ISSO Director Leonard’s April 30, 2008 testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee considering Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government, when he framed the “secret law” issue:

The ability of President’s authority to act unilaterally are defined by the willingness and ability of the Congress and the courts to constrain it. Of course, before the Congress or the courts can act to constrain Presidential claims to inherent unilateral powers, they must first be aware of those claims. Yet, a long recognized power of the President is to classify and thus restrict the dissemination of information in there interest of national security. The combination of these two powers of the President-that is, when the President lays claim to inherent powers to act unilaterally, but does so in secret—can equate to the very open- ended, non-circumscribed, executive authority that the Constitution’s framers sought to avoid in constructing a system of checks and balances. Added to this is the reality that the President is not irrevocably bound by his own Executive orders, and this administration claims that President can depart from the terms of an Executive Order without public notice. Thus, at least in theory, the President could authorize the classification of the OLC memo, even though to do so would violate the standards of his own Executive Order. Equally possible, the president could change his Executive Order governing secrecy, and do so in secret, all unbeknownst to the Congress and the courts. It is as if Lewis Carroll, George Orwell, and Franz Kafka jointly conspired to come up with the ultimate recipe for unchecked executive power. Id. 8. Emphasis Added. http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3305.

Appellant presented the “secret law” issue to NARA ISOO Director Fitzpatrick in his 8- 12-11 ODNI MDR ISCAP WP. ISCAP Docket No. 2011-096. The appellant asserted the FISA “secret law” was so secret that President Obama does not know the FISA “secret law” that he has an Article II duty to enforce. See 8-12-11 ISCAP MDR WP § D and §§ BB, GGG below.

22 N. AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice of NARA ISSO Executive Secretary Fitzpatrick’s September 27, 2011 ISCAP decision re the “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” document as an example of the application of former-NARA ISSO Director Leonard’s 2008 Carol, Orwell, and Kafka literary characterization to the 2011 Access Guidelines NCTC analysts apply to the NSA domestic surveillance data banks

AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice of NARA ISSO Executive Secretary Fitzpatrick’s September 27, 2011 ISCAP decision re the “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” document as an example of the application of former-NARA ISSO Director Leonard’s 2008 Carol, Orwell, and Kafka literary characterization to the 2011 Access Guideline NCTC analysts apply to the 1984-2011 NSA domestic surveillance data banks. His ISOO decision is an important decision because it reveals that President Obama’s ISCAP Members will not be de facto PCLOB Members who report to President Obama allegations of violations of the FISA. See the 8-12-11 ISCAP ODNI MDR WP §§ A-H , 8-26-11 ODNI IG Litt complaint WP 8-12-11, and 8-26-11, and 9-7-11 letters to NARA ISSO Exec. Sec. Fitzpatrick.

On September 27, 2011, NARA ISSO Executive Secretary John P. Fitzpatrick determined that ISCAP did not have jurisdiction to consider the Robert VIII appellant’s 8-12-11 ISCAP ODNI MDR request re the July 27, 2010 FOIA requested “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” document because he could not locate the “responsive” document:

Your mandatory declassification review of (MDR) request to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concerned NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines. That Office has repeatedly attempted to identify the materials responsive to your appeal, and these efforts have failed to locate the responsive records. Please be advised that absent any records to examine, the ISCAP cannot make any determination on your appeal. With this letter, I am informing you that your appeal to ISCAP has been administratively closed. Emphasis Added.

The ODNI FOIA Officers had denied the FOIA request because they could not locate the NCTC Access Guidelines document. The appellant filed the ISCAP ODNI MDR request because the FOIA Officers used a “Glomar Response” defense. They knew this NCTC document is an admission of ODNI access to the Top Secret America” data banks revealed in the July 19, 2010 Washington Post series. The ODNI FOIA Officers knew that a due diligence search for the NCTC document would include contacting NCTC Director Olsen, ODNI General Counsel Litt, Principal Deputy ODNI Director O’Sullivan, ODNI CIO Tarasiuk, ODNI IG Mazur, and ODNI CPLO Joel because they all knew the NCTC document exists. See §§ O, VV, WW, XX below.

On August 1, 2011, NARA ISOO Executive Secretary Fitzpatrick became the ISOO Executive Director. He had been the Assistant Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Security, ODNI Director Clapper’s principal advisor on matters regarding the protection of national intelligence and intelligence sources and methods. He knows the NCTC Access Guideline exist because Congress would consider ODNI Director Clapper as being incompetent if the NCTC access Guidelines did not exist. Catch 22. As a result, he knows his “Alice in Wonderland” September 27, 2011 decision was written in Orwellian Double Speak because of his Kafkaesque decision to close the ISCAP appeal file without any appeal right. § GGG below.

23 O AAG of the OLC Seitz will decide whether Heller’s Catch 22 is a characterization that applies to the FISA “secret law” along with former-NARA ISOO Director Leonard’s Carroll, Orwell, and Kafka characterizations, when she decides whether NARA ISOO Director Fitzpatrick is “incompetent” because he cannot locate the NCTC Guidelines upon which the NCTC analysts had data mined the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks

AAG of the OLC Seitz will decide whether that Heller’s Catch 22 is a characterization that applies to the FISA “secret law” along with former-NARA ISOO Director Leonard’s Carroll, Orwell, and Kafka characterizations, when she decides whether NARA ISOO Director Fitzpatrick is “incompetent” because he cannot locate the NCTC Guidelines upon which he had known the NCTC analysts had data mined the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks. AAG of the OLC Seitz will learn the NCTC Access Guidelines exist when she reads the March 18, 2011 reclassifed May 6, 2004 OLC Memo along with the “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” document that was reclassified pursuant to President Bush’s November 2, 2002 Presidential Signing Statement. See §§ A-E above and §§ O-S, WW, XX, AAA, CCC below.

After AAG of the OLC Seitz reads the reclassified pages of the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo from AAG of the OLC Goldsmith to AG Ashcroft along with the Robert VII “FISC Robert” documents which on March 1, 2004 OIPR Baker affirmed the CIA’s use of FOIA Exemption 1 and “Glomar Response” defense, she will know the NY Times Amnesty v Clapper Editorial got it right. “This Catch-22 says that because the wiretaps are secret, no one knows for certain whether they have actually been tapped, and that means no one has a right to sue the government.” Editorial, Accountability Avoidance, NY Times, 10-6-11. See §§ O-R below.

On September 6, 2011, the D.C. Circuit in ACLU v DOJ, __F.3rd __ , applied a Joseph Heller Catch 22 analysis to a DOJ argument re the public’s knowledge of the DOJ’s use of cell phone location data in criminal prosecutions that have been publicly docketed. “This is nothing more than a Catch-22 argument: if public attention were not already focused, the government would argue that shows there is no public interest in disclosure; because there is public attention, it argues that no more is needed. Id. slip op. 24. Emphasis Added. See § AAA below.

If SG Verrelli, AG Holder’s 2009 Associate DAG, reads OIPR Counsel Baker’s 2004 “uncorrected” and “corrected” October 1, 2004 Robert VII v DOJ Declarations, then he will know the Robert VIII “Robert v Holz” documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5, reveal who was the “client” and who was the “attorney” to which the attorney-client privilege and work product privilege continues to be applied in 2011. He knows that AG Holder is the 2011 “client” who makes the decision whether to apply the attorney-client privilege to the 1985- 1988 DOJ Robert VIII “Robert v Holz” documents. Appellant asserts these documents prove that in October 2011 Associate DAG Counsel Baker is applying a “Catch 22” to the March 21, 2011 Amnesty v Clapper standing standard because he knows that the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 FISA “secret law” Memo proves OIPR Counsel Baker knew on March 1, 2004 that Robert had standing to sue because AG Meese had illegally wiretapped him.

Hence, the importance of the AAG of the OLC Seitz applying the Heller “Catch 22” to the existence of the 2011 NCTC Guidelines. She will know that if ISOO Director Fitzpatrick does not know where the NCTC Guidelines are located, then he is incompetent. Catch 22.

24 P. AAG of the OLC Seitz should apply DOD Secretary Rumsfeld’s “known-known” test to the U.S.A. v Drake CIPA Affidavit to determine when AG Holder first learned that NSA Director Hayden had used an algorithm to data-mine the pre-9/11 NSA data banks

AAG of the OLC Seitz should apply DOD Secretary Rumsfeld’s “known-known” test to AG Holder’s U.S.A. v Drake CIPA Affidavit to determine when AG Holder first learned NSA Director Hayden had used an algorithm to data mine the pre-9/11 NSA data banks. This is a key time line fact for Judge Garaufis to know when deciding Robert’s Motion for a pre-clearance order because AG Holder was DAG Holder during the Robert v National Archives and Robert v DOJ FOIA litigation in which material facts had been withheld from Judge Wexler, Judge Mishle, and the Second Circuit. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G, M, N, V, W and § BBB below.

The public learned that AG Holder learned that NSA “whistleblower” Drake’s allegations were true when in June, 2011 he approved the plea bargain whereby NSA “whistleblower” Drake’s Espionage Act violation was withdrawn and he pled guilty to improper possession of classified information without any jail time. This mens rea fact is established in the U.S.A. v Drake CIPA documents reviewed in camera by ND of Maryland Judge Bennett and cited in his 6-1-11 Order Regarding Admissibility Classified Information ¶¶ 1-9. See the Order at http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/files/2011/06/110601-CIPA-Admissibility.pdf.

The public knows that NSA Director Hayden knows the public knows of the pre-9/11 NSA data mining from reading Mayer’s The Secret Sharer, The New Yorker, 5-23-11. After AG Gonzales’ December 22, 2005 § 413 (a) of the National Security Act Notification to the “Gang of Eight” of the post-9/11 TSP, CIA Director Nominee Hayden knew of the NSA data mining:

On May 18, 2006, the day that Hayden faced Senate confirmation hearings for a new post—the head of the C.I.A.—the Sun published Gorman’s exposé on Thin Thread, which accused the N.S.A. of rejecting an approach that protected Americans’ privacy. Hayden, evidently peeved, testified that intelligence officers deserved “not to have every action analyzed, second- guessed, and criticized on the front pages of the newspapers.” http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer

The public also knows that AG Holder knows whether NSA “whistleblower” Drake allegations that USG officials had lied about the data mining were true and he took no action:

Drake says of Bush Administration officials, “They were lying through their teeth. They had chosen to go an illegal route, and it wasn’t because they had no other choice.” He also believed that the Administration was covering up the full extent of the program. “The phone calls were the tip of the iceberg. The really sensitive stuff was the data mining.” He says, “I was faced with a crisis of conscience. What do I do—remain silent, and complicit, or go to the press?” Emphasis Added.

These were “unknown-unknown” facts to Robert FOIA Judges. AAG of the OLC Seitz should know whether DAG Holder knew of the FISA “secret law” in 2000. See § GGG below.

25 Q. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to apply President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526 § 1.7 Classification Prohibitions and Limitations to Special Counsel Colborn’s use of FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3 to deny the request for the release of the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo pages that reveal the illegal pre-9/11 FISA “secret law”

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to apply President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526 § 1.7 Classification Prohibitions and Limitations to Special Counsel Colborn’s use of FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3 to deny the request for the release of reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo pages that reveal the illegal pre-9/11 FISA “secret law.” In his November, 2011 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA petition for a writ of certiorari, appellant will argue that DOJ attorneys are breaching § 1.7 by using the FOIA classified Exemptions to cover-up the serial impeachable violations of § 413 (a) of the National Security Act, the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, the PCA limitations on military domestic law enforcement, and the Social Security Act. See 3-18-11 ISCAP ODNI WP §§ E-G, 8-12-11 ISCAP ODNI WP § I, and § BBB below.

E.O. 13526 §1.7, Classification Prohibitions and Limitations, provides: a) In no case shall information be classified , continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be classified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security. Emphasis Added.

The appellant had asserted in his Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appeal that the FOIA requested documents were connect-the-dots documents to the Robert VII v DOJ “FISC Robert” documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense. He will argue that the March 18, 2011 decision to declassify most of the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo, but reclassify the pages that discussed the “secret law” upon which pre-9/11 NSA TSP was based, was a violation of §1.7 (1), (2), and (4). Special Counsel Colborn knows terrorists knew the NSA “wiretapped” the electronic communications of the whole world including the U.S. He knows that U.S. citizens do not know the legal basis for the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance program the public learned about from reading the July 19, 2010 Washington Post series, Jane Mayer’s May 23, 2011 The New Yorker, “The Secret Sharer” Article, and viewing the August 21, 2011 60 Minutes “U.S.A. v Thomas Drake” segment.

In its September 6, 2011 Robert VIII decision, the Second Circuit queried as to how the application of the December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526 issued after Robert VIII FOIA requests had been processed, would have affected Judge Garaufis decision. “Robert has not explained how these standards would undermine, or even apply, to the District Court’s decision.” Id. slip op. 3.

In his November, 2011 petition for a writ of certiorari, appellant will explain that § 1.7 applies because the Robert IV-Robert VIII connect-the-dots documents reveal serial violations of federal laws. These law violations were concealed by the March 18, 2011 reclassification of the FISA “secret law” that is explained in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo to AG Ashcroft.

26 R. AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice of the 10-5-11 Report Reducing Overclassification Through Accountability, and AG Holder’s duty to be accountable for the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo “secret law” by application of the Mitchell v Forsyth holding that the AG does not have absolute immunity for the AG’s illegal wiretapping

AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice of the 10-5-11 Report Reducing Overclassification Through Accountability, and AG Holder’s duty to be accountable for the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo “secret law” by application of the Mitchell v Forsyth holding that the AG does not have absolute immunity for the AG’s illegal wiretapping. AAG of the OLC Seitz should determine whether there has been an overclassification of the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo because the Memo informed the public of the legal basis for the post-9/11 NSA TSP, but AG Holder reclassified the legal basis for the pre-9./11 NSA TSP.

On October 5, 2011, the Brennan Center for Justice released its Report Reducing Overclassification Through Accountability written by Elizabeth Goitein and David M. Shapiro. The Report reviewed the USG classification system and determined that “overclassification” of documents was a national security risk because it prevents internal information-sharing:

On the contrary needless classification—“overclassification”-jeopardizes national security. Excessive secrecy prevents federal agencies from exchanging information internally with other agencies, and with state and local law enforcement, making it more difficult to draw connections and anticipate threats. The 9/11 Commission found that the failure to share information contributed to intelligence gaps in the months before the September 11, 2001, attacks, cautioning that “(c)urrent security requirements nurture overclassification and excessive compartmentalization of information among agencies. Id. 1. Emphasis Added.

The Report also concluded that a “culture of secrecy” results in overclassification of documents in part based on a desire to conceal governmental misconduct or incompetence:

This report concludes that the primary source of the “implementation gap” is the skewed incentive structure underlying the current system—a structure that all but guarantees overclassification will occur. Numerous incentives push powerfully in the direction of classification, including the culture of secrecy that pervades some government agencies; the desire to conceal information that would reveal governmental misconduct or incompetence; the relative ease with which executive officials can implement policy when involvement by other officials, members of Congress, and the public is limited; the pressure to error on the side of classification rather than risk official sanctions or public condemnation for revealing sensitive information; and the simple press of business, which discourages giving thoughtful consideration on classification decisions. Id. 2. Emphasis Added.

If the 2011 classified FISA “secret law” is the Mitchell “nonacquiescence” policy, then AG Holder should be held accountable. He does not have “absolute immunity” for that decision.

27 S. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 1 1985 “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” document is a de jure FISA “secret law” document that can be located by reading the classified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo, or whether there has been a de facto Mitchell “nonacquiescence” policy of illegal wiretapping for which there is no immunity defense for the 1985-2011 AGs

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 1 1985 “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” document is a de jure FISA “secret law” document that can be located by reading the classified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo, or whether there has been a de facto Mitchell “nonacquiescence” policy of illegal wiretapping for which there is no immunity defense for the 1985-2011 AGs. Special Counsel Colborn knows that if this is not a 28 U.S.C. 530D “nonacquiescence” case that was reported to Congress, then it should be a de jure classified “nonacquiescence” case to protect the national security by application of the President Bush’s November 2, 2002 Presidential Signing Statement. See 1-4-11 PIAB WP §§ 1-4,13,14, 4-11-11 OLC MDR § K and §§ B-E above.

On March 28, 1986, Civil Division AAG Richard Willard, who was on the Mitchell v Forsyth USG Brief that made the AG’s absolute immunity argument that the Supreme Court rejected, sent a Mitchell v Forsyth memo to USG attorneys explaining the state of the law as to Personal Liability of Federal Officials The Bivens Problem. He advised DOJ attorneys who knew that after Mitchell they could be sued if they knew of wiretaps without FISC orders, and there would be no right of indemnification. Therefore, he recommended they should purchase a professional liability policy. “A decision on professional liability insurance is personal and I am attaching a copy of a brochure and application should you wish to explore the matter further.” Willard, at.2. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ M, N, AAA and §§ BBB, DDD, GGG below.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that if there is no de jure “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” document, then USG attorneys who followed faux “Commanders-in- Chief orders to “cover up” the 1985-2011 de facto Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy, could be defendants in U.S. citizens’ Bivens illegal wiretapping actions. AG Holders’ 2011 “chain of command” attorneys know that AG Holder does not have an absolute immunity defense to any illegal wiretapping that occurred during his 2009-2011 Constitutional watch of the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance program with its thousands of government and private work stations that have been hidden in plain sight as identified in the jaw-dropping July 19, 2010 Washington Post Locator Map. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret- america/map/ See 4-11-11 OLC MDR WP §§ C, G, H, J, M and §§ BB-ZZ below.

Hence, the importance of Special Counsel Colborn’s FOIA decision as to the # 1 “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” document given his decision to use FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and 5 to withhold the reclassified pages of the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo to AG Ashcroft. He knows whether the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy was a “known-known” fact to SG Clement from reading the Robert VII “FISC Robert” documents. He knows that SG Verrelli, AG Holder’s 2009 Associate DAG, knows the “known-known” fact whether a de jure ”Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” document exists. If it exists, then SG Verrelli has a duty to so inform AG Holder prior to AG Holder’s decision whether to file an Amnesty v Clapper petition for a writ of certiorari. §§ H-J above and §§ II, JJ below.

28 T. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 2 "Jackson nonacquiescence policy" document is a FISA-SSA “secret law” document because it has provided the 1984-2011 legal basis for the off-OMB Budget funding for the "immaculate construction" and maintenance of the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks that could not be funded with classified OMB Budget funds

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 2 "Jackson nonacquiescence policy" document is a FISA-SSA “secret law” document because it has provided the 1984-2011 legal basis for the off-OMB Budget funding for the "immaculate construction" and maintenance of the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks that could not be funded with classified OMB Budget funds. If so, then this document triggers the Bowen v City of New York “clandestine” policy remedy for millions of 1994-2011 Ford v Shalala class members whose equal protection rights continue to be violated because they do not reside in the Seventh Circuit. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ C, P, Q, U,V, W, Z, AA-GG, YY, ZZ.

On July 20, 1982, the Seventh Circuit decided Jackson v. Schweiker, 683 F. 2d 1076 (7th Cir. (1982). The Court interpreted Secretary Schweiker's income regulation, then denominated as 20 C.F.R. § 416.1125, as applying equally in all 50 states. "The Secretary has litigated this case on a generalized "all or nothing" basis, i.e. the Secretary's regulation (20 C.F.R. § 416.1125 (d) (1981) must be either valid or invalid as applied in all situations." Id. n. 2.

The Seventh Circuit remanded Jackson to the District Court to determine the class remedy including amending the SSI regulation:

If the district court is satisfied that the current named plaintiff will continue to adequately represent the interests of class members, we further direct that the court order the Secretary either to amend the challenged regulation or to change his application of and procedure under, the regulation to provide relief to affected class members consistent with this opinion. Id. at 1086. Emphasis Added.

AAG of the OLC Ted Olson (1981-1984) approved the 1982 HHS “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” and AAG of the OLC Charles Cooper (1985-1988) approved HHS General Counsel del Real’s 1985 Jackson litigation decision that the “Jackson” regulation, 20 C.F.R § 416.1130(b), would only apply to SSI recipients residing in the Seventh Circuit States. This was contrary to the intent of President Nixon and Congress to provide a uniform federal standard that applies to the aged, blind, and disabled of all 50 States. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP § U.

If AAG of the OLC Seitz learns that HHS General Counsel del Real was a CIA covered agent when he made his 1985 “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” decision before becoming IMC President Recarey’s Chief of Staff, then this would be a “clandestine” policy that triggers the application of the Bowen v City of New York, 106 S. Ct. 2022 (1986), equitable tolling remedy for Ford class members not residing in the Seventh Circuit. “The claimants were denied the fair and neutral procedure required by the statute and regulations, and they are now entitled to pursue that procedure.” Id. 2034. Hence, the importance of AG Holder reviewing the “Jackson nonacquiescence policies” of AAGs of the OLC Olson and Cooper that continues to be implemented during his Constitutional watch. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ K, P, Z, EE, FF, ZZ.

29 U. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 3 "Ruppert nonacquiescence policy" documents contains "smoking gun" evidence that proves that AUSA Mahoney knows that SSA Commissioner Nominee Astrue's January 24, 2007 Senate Finance Committee testimony is uncured false testimony

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 3 "Ruppert nonacquiescence policy" documents contains "smoking gun" evidence that proves that AUSA Mahoney knows that SSA Commissioner Nominee Astrue's January 24, 2007 Senate Finance Committee testimony that the "nonacquiescence" policy ended prior to his becoming the HHS General Counsel in 1989, is 2011 uncured false testimony. The “Ruppert nonacquiescence policy” document is a connect-the-dots document to the Robert VIII “Ruppert” documents withheld by application of the FOIA Exemption 5, and to SG Drew Days’ Gordon v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. den, 517 U.S. 1103 (1996), Brief in opposition to the Gordon petition for a writ of certiorari These documents contain evidence that proves SSA Commissioner Astrue’s testimony was false. See 7-27-11 WP §§ J, S-U, Z, EE, FF.

On March 29, 1989, the Second Circuit issued its Ruppert v. Bowen, 871 F. 2d 1172 (2d Cir. 1989), decision and reversed in part Judge Wexler’s Ruppert v. Bowen, 671 F. Supp. 151 (EDNY 1987), decision. The Court rejected the appellant’s assertion that USG attorneys had made “Janus-faced” representations to Judge Wexler and the Second Circuit:

Appellants' counsel would have the SSA apply circuit court decisions nationally. He goes so far as to detect unethical conduct on the part of government counsel, who, he argues, mislead us with what he calls "Janus-faced," see Hidalgo v. Bowen, 822 F. 2d 294, 299 (2d Cir. 1987), statements regarding the SSA's acquiescence policy. See Estreicter & Revesz, Nonacquiescence by Federal Administrative Agencies, 98 Yale L.J. 679, 681 (1989) (defining "agency nonacquiescence" as the "selective refusal of administrative agencies to conduct their internal proceedings consistently with adverse rulings of the courts of appeals"). The SSA evidently considers itself bound only by the decisions of the Supreme Court and by those decisions of the applicable circuit court to which the SSA has not announced its objections. Id. 1177. Emphasis Added.

Ruppert was remanded for the Secretary to render a decision as to application of the “Jackson” regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1130 (b). AAG of the OLC William Barr (1989-1990), approved HHS General Counsel Astrue’s July 16, 1990, Ruppert AR 90-02, which explained the “Ruppert nonacquiescence policy” and why the “Jackson” regulation would only be applied in the Seventh Circuit states. http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/ar/02/AR90-02-ar-02.html.

In his February, 1996 Gordon Brief in opposition to the petition for a writ of certiorari, SG Days explained why AG Reno defended HHS Secretary Shalala’s “Ruppert nonacquiescence policy” in Gordon. “That practice, however, in no way obligates the Commissioner to change her administration of the Act in cases involving other litigants in other circuits that have not rejected her legal position on a particular issue. See e.g., United States v Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (1984).” Plaintiff Gordon continues to be a Ford v Shalala class member. See 7-27-11 WP § T.

30 V. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 4 1986 "Barrett nonacquiescence policy" document incorporates the FISA “secret law” of the 1985 “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” of AG Meese

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 4 1986 "Barrett nonacquiescence policy" document incorporates the FISA “secret law” of the 1985 “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” of AG Meese. This document reveals whether the “nonacquiescence” decisions was necessary to protect AG Meese’s 1985 Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy “secret law” that was an “unknown- unknown” fact to the Article I “Gang of Eight” and Article III FISC. See OLC MDR WP § D.

On July 31, 1986, the Second Circuit decided Barrett v. United States, 798 F. 2d 565, 573 (2d Cir. 1986). The Court explained why it rejected AG Meese’s argument that USG attorneys could withhold material facts from a Judge in order to protect national security secrets:

“Finally, acceptance of the view urged by the federal appellants would result in a blanket grant of absolute immunity to government lawyers acting to prevent exposure of the government in liability.” 573 (2d Cir. 1986). Emphasis Added.

The Second Circuit also criticized the USG for using the threat of an Espionage Act indictment if a witness discussed secret information. “…the estate further contends that the federal-attorney defendants’ unlawful interference with their rights in the pending New York Court of Claims action is confirmed by Marcus’ deposition testimony in the present case to the effect that they forced him to engage in the foregoing tactics under threat that he might be prosecuted personally for violation of the federal Espionage Act.” Id. 577. Emphasis Added.

OLC Special Counsel Colborn knows that informing the appellant that he cannot locate the OLC “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” document, would be a deception of the party appellant, and a violation of NYS Judiciary Law § 487. He knows whether a “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” document exists as a classified “nonacquiescence” document by application of President Bush’s November 2, 2002 Presidential Signing Statement. He knows whether Principal Deputy AAG of the OLC Krass knows the document exists. See § EE below

Therefore, AAG of the OLC Seitz should consider using the “Glomar Response” defense in anticipation of her filing a U.S.C. 552 "c (3) exclusion" defense ex parte Declaration with Judge Garaufis in response to appellant’s Motion for a pre-clearance Order to file a FOIA complaint seeking this document. “Where an exclusion was not in fact employed, the in camera declaration will simply state that fact, together with an explanation to the judge of why the very act of its submission and consideration by the court was necessary to mask whether that is or is not the case.” Id. 20. Attorney General’s Memorandum on the 1986 Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. “http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/86agmemo.htm. This ex parte Declaration is appropriate if AAG of the OLC Seitz learns there is no de jure “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” document. In this way, AG Holder would not breach NY Judiciary Law § 487 by deceiving Judge Garaufis. However, since this would be an admission of deception of the Robert VII Judges, she should consult with AG Holder. See 4-11-11 OLC MDR WP § C.

31 W. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 5 "Christensen nonacquiescence policy" document is located within the Office of the OLC because no Ford remedy Notices have been sent to the millions of Ford class members that include citations to the “Jackson” regulation, 20 C.F.R. 416.1130 (b)

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 5 "Christensen nonacquiescence policy" document is located within the Office of the OLC because no Ford remedy Notices have been sent to the millions of Ford class members that include citations to the “Jackson” regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1130 (b). Special Counsel Colborn’s reasonable search for the document would include inquiring of AAG of the OLC Seitz whether this is a classified “nonacquiescence” case because SSA Commissioner Astrue’s Christensen acquiescence would end the Jackson “nonacquiescence” policy and dry up the off-OMB Budget funding source for the NSA TSP. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ C, R, Z, ZZ.

On May 1, 2000, in Christensen v. Harris County, 120 S. Ct. 1655 (2000), Justice Thomas soundly rejected AG Reno's and Solicitor General Waxman's argument that the Court should defer to Executive Branch counsel's interpretation of the agency’s regulations:

But Auer deference is warranted only when the language of the regulation is ambiguous.--it is plainly permissive. To defer to the agency's position would be to permit the agency, under the guise of interpreting a regulation, to create de facto a new regulation. Because the regulation is not ambiguous on the issue of the compelled compensatory time, Auer deference is unwarranted. Id. at 1612. Emphasis added.

Here, however, we confront an interpretation contained in an opinion letter, not one arrived at after, for example, a formal adjudication or notice-and-comment rulemaking. Interpretations such as those in opinion letters-like interpretations contained in policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law--do not warrant Chevron-style deference. Id. at 1662. Emphasis added.

If AAG of the OLC Seitz determines that there is a classified “Christensen nonacquiescence policy” document based on President Bush’s November 2, 2002 Presidential Signing statement, then AG Holder should be informed of this fact. This would be evidence the “Christensen nonacquiescence policy” has been implemented to continue the illegal diversion of off-OMB Budget funds to pay for the “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the 1984- 2011 NSA TSP data banks not funded with classified OMB Budget funds. See § DDD below.

If AAG of the OLC Seitz determines there is no de jure “Christensen nonacquiescence policy, then she should inform AG Holder because she possesses the Schweiker v. Chilicky, 108 S. Ct. 2460 (1988), “normal sensibilities” of human beings. “The trauma to respondents, and thousands of others like them, must surely have gone beyond what anyone of normal sensibilities would wish to see imposed on innocent disabled citizens.” Id. at 2470. Then AG Holder will learn whether SSA Commissioner Astrue made Ford decisions not to acquiesce to Christensen, and whether he possesses the “normal sensibilities” of human beings. See § FFF below.

32 X. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 6 "Ford v Shalala nonacquiescence policy" document is evidence of the Ford "secret law" ongoing need to continue to use Jackson nonacquiescence policy funds as the off-OMB Budget SSI funding source for the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 6 "Ford v Shalala nonacquiescence policy" document is evidence of the Ford "secret law" ongoing need to continue to use Jackson nonacquiescence policy funds as the off- OMB Budget SSI funding source for the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks. If not, then AAG of the OLC Seitz should determine how-it-could-have-happened that twelve (12) years after the Ford decision, President Obama continues to deny the due process and equal protection rights of millions of 1994-2011 Ford class members without the knowledge of President Obama.

On September 29, 1999, Judge Sifton decided Ford v. Shalala, 87 F. Supp 2d 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). He certified an April 9, 1994 nationwide class and discussed the plight of SSI recipients who did not know the reasons why the benefits were denied by citing to Gray Panthers v. Schweiker, 652 F. 2d 146, 168-169 (D.C. Cir. 1980):

Unless a persons is adequately informed of the reasons for the denial of a legal interest, a hearing serves no purpose-- and resembles more a scene from Kafka than a constitutional process. Without notice of the specific reasons... a clamant is reduced to guessing what evidence can or should be submitted in response and driven to responding to every possible argument ... at the risk of missing the critical one altogether. Id. at 181. Emphasis Added

Judge Sifton’s 1999 Ford Order foreshadowed Justice Thomas’ 2000 Christensen administrative law holding by including the use of regulations to cure the due process violations: “e) citation to specific laws and/or regulations upon which the SSI determination is based;”

On May 22, 2001, HHS Secretary Thompson issued the Ford v Shalala memo AM 01080 explaining how the HHS Secretary would begin the process of remedying the Ford class due process violations. “The decision in the Ford case ordered SSA to modify the automated SSI financial eligibility notices to provide information to better understand the reasons for an award, modification, termination or denial of SSI benefits.” http://www.snowflake5391.net/ford.pdf.

Justice O’Connor’s 1988 Chilicky v Schweiker “normal sensibilities” of human beings standard was based on an HHS remedy measured in months, not years or decades. Hence, the importance of AAG of the OLC Seitz providing a “heads up” memo that provides President Obama with answers for investigative reporters “follow the money” questions as to the source of funding for the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance program that was not funded with classified OMB Budget funds. Because President Obama also possesses the “normal sensibilities of human beings, he will no doubt be outraged if he learns that the twelve year delay in curing the Ford due process violations has been a classified litigation decision to protect the illegal off-OMB Budget SSI source paying for the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks. Hence, the importance of AAG of the OLC Seitz consulting with Principal Deputy AAG of the OLC Krass, the 2009-2010 Special Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs. See § GGG below.

33 Y. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 7 “National Council nonacquiescence policy” document exists

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 7 “National Council nonacquiescence policy” document exists. If so, then USG attorneys cannot use the attorney-client privilege defense to withhold the Robert VIII “Ruppert” and “Robert v Holz” documents which prove whether the attorney-privilege “fraud” exception applies to these documents that prove whether USG attorneys had provided false facts to Judge Altimari, Judge Wexler, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court in Ruppert and Gordon that has resulted in the Ford nonacquiescence policy. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ P-Z.

On May 31, 2005, the Second Circuit in National Council of La Raza, et. al. v DOJ, 411 F. 3d 350 (2d Cir. 2005), held that the attorney-client privilege could not shield the release of a FOIA requested document that established a DOJ policy.

We cannot allow the Department to make public use of the Memorandum when it serves the Department’s ends but claim the attorney-client privilege when it does not. Because the Department, in light of all the facts and circumstances set forth above, incorporated the OLC Memorandum into the Department’s policy, the attorney-client privilege cannot here be invoked to bar that Memorandum’s disclosure.” Id. 361.

This decision was after AAG of the OLC Goldsmith’s May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo to AG Ashcroft. It was before AG Gonzales’ December 22, 2005 retroactive § 413 (a) Notification to the “Gang of Eight” of the post-9/11 NSA TSP. See 2-22-11 Robert VIII Brief, p 14-15.

In its September 6, 2011 Robert VII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA decision, the Second Circuit cited to National Counsel as the “law” that was to have been applied within the Second Circuit:

With respect to Robert’s arguments that the case should be remanded to allow the District Court to reconsider its ruling in light of purportedly new standards for handling FOIA requests, Robert has not explained how these standards would undermine, or even apply, to the District Court’s decision. Though the “March 19, 2009 FOIA Guidelines” issued by the Attorney General support a presumption in favor of disclosure, they did not change the existing law applied by the District Court. See National Council of La Raza, 411 F. 3d at 355 (noting FOIA’s presumption in favor of disclosure”). Id. slip op. 3. Emphasis Added.

In his 2012 Robert VIII Motion seeking the release of the OLC “nonacquiescence” policy documents, appellant will assert these OLC documents prove that USG attorneys made policy decisions without the knowledge of their clients. Hence, the importance of the “National Council nonacquiescence” policy” document which reveals why Acting AAG of the OLC Bradbury determined National Council was “incorrectly” decided. If a “National Council nonacquiescence policy” document does not exist, then USG attorneys have a duty to acquiesce to the National Council 2005 presumption of disclosure standard. See §§ D, T, U, W, X above

34 Z. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 8 “Navarro nonacquiescence policy” identifies the government attorneys who made this decision that will affect the use of Supplemental Needs Trusts by 1994-2011 Ford class members, and who provided false information to the Grievance Committee seeking Robert’s disbarment to eliminate his challenges to “nonacquiescence” policies

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 8 “Navarro nonacquiescence policy” identifies the government attorneys who made this decision that will affect the use of Supplemental Needs Trusts (SNTs) by 1994-2011 Ford class members. This document is a connect-the-dots documents to the Robert VIII “Ruppert” and “Robert v Holz” documents with which Robert intends to secure NYS Rule 3.3 admissions from attorneys who know government attorneys seeking Robert’s disbarment had provided false facts and law to the Grievance Committee. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E, AAA.

Supplemental Needs Trusts (SNTs) were statutorily established to allow disabled SSI recipients inherit monies or settle law suits and transfer those funds into the SNTs that allow them to continue to receive their SSI benefits on the condition that upon their death, Medicaid has a priority lien on the assets of the SNT. See In re Moretti, 606 N.Y.S. 2d 543 (Kings Co. Sup. Ct. 1993). SNTs were approved in 1992 by NYS Governor Mario Cuomo and in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. If President Obama decides in 2012 to acquiesce to Judge Sifton’s 1999 Ford v Shalala Order and Ford “remedy” Notices are sent, then SNTs can be used by the millions of 1994-2011 Ford class members who are eligible to receive retroactive lump sum SSI benefits.

The “Navarro nonacquiescence policy” document is a bridging document between federal and state attorneys who knew that on July 25, 1985 Acting SSA Commissioner Mc Steen, SSA Chief Counsel Gonya, and DAAG Kuhl testified before a House Sub Committee that the HHS and SSA “nonacquiescence” policy had ended on June 3, 1985. The government attorneys acted in concert to implement the “secret law” nonacquiescence policies of HHS General Counsels. The Robert VIII appellant intends to serve the “Navarro nonacquiescence policy” document, along with a mosaic of other connect-the-dots documents, upon government attorneys who know that government attorneys had provided false facts and representations of the law to the NYS Grievance Committee seeking Robert’s disbarment. These attorneys know they have an April 1, 2009 NYS Professional Responsibility Guidelines Rule 3.3(a)(3) duty to cure false facts that attorneys provided the Grievance Committee. See §§ I, J above and § LLL below.

This is an especially sensitive and complicated ethics issue if the government attorneys who subsequently learned that government attorneys had provided false information to Grievance Committee seeking Robert’s disbarment, had been placed on Notice they would be violating the Espionage Act if they indirectly revealed national security secrets to the Grievance Committee. AAG of the OLC Seitz can verify this almost incredible intimidation allegation by reading Robert VII “FISC Robert” documents withheld by the CIA and DOJ pursuant to the FOIA Exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense, and Robert VIII “Robert v Holz” documents. Then she should consult with FBI General Counsel Caproni, a 1985-1989 EDNY AUSA, because she knows the content of the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 5 “FBI unredacted copy of Robert v DOJ “62-0 file” documents and # 8 “FBI Charles Robert documents including NSLs sent to banks and ISP.” See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E, K, M, N, AAA.

35 AA. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 9 “Ahlborn nonacquiescence policy” identifies the government attorneys who made the decisions not to apply the Ahlborn holding retroactively to when government attorneys seeking Robert’s disbarment provided false facts to the NYG Grievance Committee re the “secret law” that was enforced by government attorneys AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to determine whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested # 9 “Ahlborn nonacquiescence policy” identifies the government attorneys who made the decisions not to apply the Ahlborn holding retroactively to when government attorneys seeking Robert’s disbarment provided false facts to the NYG Grievance Committee re the “secret law” that was enforced by government attorneys. Robert had placed AG Spitzer’s Counsel 1999-2006 David Nocenti, a 1986-1990 EDNY AUSA, on Notice that government attorneys made misrepresentations of the law to the Grievance Committee who knew the “secret law” nonacquiescence policies were “unknown-unknown” facts. He knew that as in Barrett, Robert believed that he and other government attorneys had been intimidated by USG threats of Espionage Act violations if they even indirectly informed the Grievance Committee of the USG’s Top Secret “nonacquiescence” policy law. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G, X, AAA. In Arkansas Department of Human Services v Ahlborn, 125 S. Ct. 1742 (2006), the Court held that Congress intended that a Medicaid lien was to be paid on a pro rata basis prior to the establishment of an SNT. NYS government attorneys had made misrepresentations of law that the Medicaid lien was a “priority” lien to be paid back 100 % prior to the establishment of an SNT. See Calvanese v. Calvanese-Callahan, 93 N.Y. 2d 111, 688 N.Y.S. 2d 479 (Ct. App. 1999), cert. den. sub. nom.Callahan v. Suffolk County DSS, 120 S. Ct. 323 (1999), and Sullivan v. County of Suffolk, 1 F. Supp. 2d 186 (E.D.N.Y. 1998), 174 F. 3d 282 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. den. 120 S. Ct. 372 (1999). This was during the Robert Grievance proceeding. See § J above.

NYS AG Chief Counsel Nocenti knew as a 1986-1990 EDNY AUSA whether the Robert “Fraud against the Government” investigation was initiated by HHS General Counsel del Real as a CIA covered agent. He had defended the Jackson “nonacquiescence” policy and knew the July 25, 1985 House Judiciary Committee of DAAG Kuhl that the “nonacquiescence” policy had ended on June 3, 1985, was false. He knew HHS Chief Regional Counsel Blum was the lead HHS attorney in the Robert “Fraud against the Government” investigation and that she had ratified the Ruppert and Navarro nonacquiescence policies. He knew EDNY AUSA Mahoney was Chief Blum’s ARC in Ford from 1994-1997 and she knew whether she had provided false facts to Judge Wexler in Robert v National Archives and Judge Sifton in Ford. See § I above.

AAG of the OLC Seitz will learn whether NYS AG Counsel Nocenti knew NYS IG Roslynn Mauskopf (1995-2002), Principal Deputy SG (1998-2001)-Acting SG (January-June, 2001)-Chief Assistant EDNY U.S. Attorney (2001-2003)-Counsel to EDNY U.S. Attorney Mauskopf (2003-2007) Barbara Underwood, NYS SG Preeta Bansal (1999-2001) and NYS SG Caitlin Halligan (2001-2007), knew misrepresentations of law were made to state and federal courts that tracked back to the “Navarro nonacquiescence policy.” She will learn whether as in Barrett, that the USG placed these attorneys on Notice that they would be subject to Espionage Act violations if they informed the Grievance Committee of the “secret law” policies that were enforced by the government attorneys seeking Robert’s disbarment. 2007-2011 NYS SG Underwood knows she has a NYS Rule 3.3 duty to cure the misrepresentations of law and facts.

36 BB. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to provide AG Holder with the name of the 2011 faux “Commander in Chief” of the 2011 daisy-chain of attorney-patriots who ratified the FISA “secret law” of the Mitchell nonacquiescence policy who was not President Obama

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to provide AG Holder with the name of the 2011 faux “Commander in Chief” of the 2011 daisy-chain of attorney-patriots who ratified the FISA “secret law” of the Mitchell nonacquiescence policy who was not President Obama. This faux “Commander in Chief” knows that President Obama does not know of the 1984-2011 serial impeachable violations of § 413(a) of the National Security Act, “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, PCA limitations on military domestic law enforcement, and the Social Security Act that has resulted from the implementation of the Top Secret 1985-2011 Mitchell nonacquiescence policy without the knowledge of Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. See 7-27- 10 DOJ WP §§ K, Z, AA,1-4-11 PIAB WP §§ 13, 14, and 3-18-11 ODNI ISCAP WP. §§ D-G.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether AAG of the OLC Bybee approved the “secret law” nonacquiescence decisions based on President Ford’s November 2, 2002 Presidential Signing Statement. She knows whether AAG of the OLC Goldsmith’s classified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo to AG Aschroft ratified AAG of the OLC Bybee’s decisions to reclassify the Mitchell and Barrett “nonacquiescence” policies. She knows whether 2004 AAG of the OLC Goldsmith in his Memoir the Terror Presidency, was referring to VP Counsel David Addington as one of the “geniuses” who implemented the “Unitary Executive theory of AG Meese:

They were geniuses at this,” Goldsmith said. “they could divide up all these problems in the bureaucracy, ask different people to decide things in their lanes, control the facts that they gave them, and then put the answers together to get the result they want. Conflict Over Spying Led White House to Brink. Gellman, Washington Post, 9-14-08, internet print out 3 of 9. Emphasis Added.

VP Cheney’s 2001-2008 Counsel-Chief of Staff Addington was the 1981-1984 CIA Assistant General Counsel, 1984-1987 Counsel to the House Committees on Intelligence and Foreign Affairs, 1987 Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, 1988 Deputy Assistant to Reagan, 1989-1992 Special Assistant to Defense Secretary Cheney, 1992-1993 DOD General Counsel for Defense Secretary Cheney, and 2001-2008 Counsel-Chief of Staff of VP Cheney. He knew whether 1984-2008 “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” funds had been the off-OMB Budget source for the “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the 1984-2011 pre-9/11 and post-9/11 NSA TSP data banks that could not be funded with classified OMB funds

He knew the 1982-2008 daisy-chain of attorney-patriots knew the “Unitary Executive” theory was the basis of their argument that Congress had no authority to pass laws that encroached upon the President’s Commander in Chief duties. He knew they knew that otherwise there would be 1984-2008 serial impeachable violations of § 413(a) of the National Security Act, the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, PCA limitations on military domestic law enforcement, and the Social Security Act. As a result, the 1984-2008 faux “Commanders in Chief” tasked the bipartisan 1984-2008 daisy-chain of attorney-patriots with providing “plausible deniability” defenses for Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. If so, then AG Holder should be warning President Obama of the Posse Comitatus Act violations. See §§ DDD, GGG below.

37 CC. AAG of the OLC Seitz can learn from AAG of OLP Schroeder whether he is the October, 2011 “genius” faux “Commander in Chief” making the FISA “secret law” decisions without President Obama’s knowledge because Special Counsel Colborn knows whether he had ordered him not to process the September 15, 2010 OLC FOIA request because he knew that the Second Circuit would learn about the FISA “secret law”

AAG of the OLC Seitz can learn from AAG of OLP Schroeder whether he is the October, 2011 “genius” faux “Commander in Chief” making the FISA “secret law” decisions without President Obama’s knowledge because Special Counsel Colborn knows whether he had ordered him not to process the September 15, 2010 OLC FOIA request because he knew that the Second Circuit would learn about the FISA “secret law.” AAG of the OLP Schroeder knows whether he informed President Obama of the FISA “secret law” explained in the May 6, 2004 FISA OLC Memorandum to AG Ashcroft. See the certified RRR July 27, 2010, December 17, 2010, March 8, 2011, and October 25, 2011 letters received by AAG of the OLP Schroeder.

AAG of the OLP Schroeder was the 1993-1994 Counselor to AAG of the OLC Walter Dellinger. As a result, he knows why AAG of the OLC Dellinger had established a “passive- active participation” test that was intended to limit the military participation in domestic “law enforcement” to monitoring electronic surveillance so as to avoid a PCA violation. See the April 5, 1994 Memorandum for Jo Ann Harris Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Re: Use of Military Personnel for Monitoring Electronic Surveillance. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP § K.

He was the 1995-1997 Deputy Associate AG. As a result, he knows the content of the de novo FOIA requested 1995 “Gordon memo” Associate AG Schmidt sent to WH Counsel Mikva explaining the “Jackson nonacquiescence” policy” which was to have ended on June 3, 1985 based on the July 25, 1985 House testimony of DAAG Kuhl. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP § T.

He was 1998-1999 Chairman Biden’s Impeachment Trial Counsel. As a result, he knows the impeachment standards that would be applied to President Obama if the House was considering 2012 proceedings to impeach President Obama. See §§ EEE below.

AAG of the OLP Schroeder’s duty is stated in the OLP’s posted mission statement.

The mission of OLP is to develop and implement the Department’s significant policy initiatives, handle special projects that implicate the interests of multiple Department components, coordinate with other interested Department components and other Executive Branch agencies, and serve as the primary policy advisor to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General;… Emphasis Added.

Upon information and belief, AAG of the OLP Schroeder decided that DAG Cole, a 1989-1992 Public Integrity attorney, could not be the faux “Commander in Chief” because he was a friend of AG Holder and would not withhold facts from AG Holder to provide him with a “plausible deniability” defense to the FISA “secret law.” AAG of the OLC Seitz should consult with AAG of the OLP Schroeder to learn whether he became the faux “Commander in Chief” when 2010 Acting DAG Grindler became AG Holder’s Chief of Staff. See § BBB below.

38 DD. AAG of the OLC Seitz can learn from WH Counsel Ruemmler whether a WH “stovepipe” exists to provide President Obama with a “plausible deniability” defense to his knowledge of the impeachable violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA that is revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo

AAG of the OLC Seitz can learn from WH Counsel Ruemmler whether a WH “stovepipe” exists to provide President Obama with a “plausible deniability” defense to his knowledge of the impeachable violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA that is revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo. When WH Counsel Ruemmler reads the May 6, 2004 Memo, then she will know it is a “Past is Prologue” document. She will know that it reveals that President Reagan did not know that AG Meese had made the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy decision. She knows that President Obama does not know that a faux “Commander in Chief” has made the 2009-2011 decisions that the 1985 Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy should continue to be the basis for the data mining of the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance data banks. See §§ DDD, EEE below.

WH Counsel Ruemmler was the 2000 to 2001 Associate Counsel to President Bill Clinton. As a result, she knows whether a WH “stovepipe” bypassed President Clinton in order that President Clinton would not know of the NSA data mining of the pre-9/11 NSA TSP data banks in violation of § 413 (a) of the National Security Act, the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, the PCA limitations on military domestic law enforcement, and the Social Security Act.

WH Counsel Ruemmler was the 2009 Principal Associate of DAG Ogden. She knows whether DAG Ogden was a faux “Commander in Chief” who made FISA “secret law” decisions to continue to implement AG Meese’s Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy in 2009.

WH Counsel Ruemmler was the 2010 Associate WH Counsel for President Obama. She knows whether a WH Counsel “stovepipe” has existed in order that WH Counsels Fielding (1981-1986), Wallison (1986-1987), Culvahouse (1987-1989), Gray (1989-1993), Nussbaum (1993-1994), Cutler (1994), Mikva (1995-1995), Quinn (1995-1996), Davis (1996-1998), Ruff (1998-1999), Nolan (1999-2001), Gonzales (2001-2005), Miers (2005-2007), Fielding (2007- 2008), Craig (2009-2010), and Bauer (2010-2011), did not know of the serial impeachable violations of law that resulted from AG Meese’s 1985 Mitchel v Forsyth “secret law” decision.

Hence, the importance of AAG of the OLC Seitz knowing whether WH Counsel Ruemmler will advise President Obama to release the “Peter Keisler Collection” and “Perot” documents withheld by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library based on the objection of a former-President. The de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested NARA “Peter Keisler Collection” and “Perot” documents reveal whether in 1986 Assistant WH Counsel Peter Keisler informed WH Counsel Fred Fielding of the “black operations” at IMC and NSA that were being funded with off-OMB Budget funds that were not classified OMB Budget funds. These are “smoking gun” documents because in 1987 SSA Commissioner Astrue was President Reagan’s Assistant WH Counsel along with Associate WH Counsel Keisler. WH Counsel Ruemmler knows the name of the 2011 representative of the former-President who informed the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Archivist that a former-President exercised his 2011 right to withhold the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection” and “Perot” documents. See §§ RR, SS below.

39 EE. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of Principal Deputy AAG of the OLC Caroline Krass as to the whereabouts of the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” document the DOJ FOIA Officer could not locate in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of Principal Deputy AAG of the OLC Caroline Krass as to the whereabouts of the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” document the DOJ FOIA Officer could not locate in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA. This is a timely issue because in his November, 2011 petition for a writ of certiorari, appellant will inform the Justices of the results of OLC Special Counsel Colborn’s due diligence search for the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA request for the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” document, and his September 30, 2011 decision to withhold the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo. See §§ I, J above.

If AAG of the OLC Seitz learns from Principal Deputy AAG of the OLC Krass that there is no de jure “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” document, then this is an important fact for AG Holder to know. This would be an admission that the FISA “secret law” has been conducted by the implementation of a de facto “Barrett nonacquiescence policy. See §§ CCC, GGG below.

Principal Deputy AAG of the OLC Krass was 1999-2000 Deputy Legal Adviser for the National Security Council. Therefore, she knows whether President Clinton’s National Security Counsel knew that NSA Director General Hayden was implementing the “Mitchell v Forsyth nonacquiescence policy” and data mining the 1984-2000 NSA TSP data banks without the knowledge of President Clinton, the “Gang of Eight” and the FISC. See § DDD below.

Principal Deputy AAG of the OLC Krass was the 2001-2009 OLC Attorney-Advisor- Senior Counsel. As a result, she knows whether OLC General Counsels Bybee, Goldsmith, and Bradbury knew NSA Directors Minihan (1996-1999), Hayden (1999-2005), and Alexander (2005-) implemented the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy and data mined the 1984-2008 NSA TSP data banks. This was before December 22, 2005 when AG Gonzales provided retroactive § 413 (a) of the National Security Act Notification to the “Gang of Eight” of the post-9/11 NSA PSP, but not the pre-9/11 NSA TSP and data mining. See §§ GGG below.

Principal Deputy AAG of the OLC Krass was the 2009-2010 Special Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs. As a result, she knows whether NSA Director Lt. General Alexander has been implementing the “secret law” of the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy and data mining the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks without the knowledge of President Obama. If so, then she knows why President Obama should file a 2011 § 413 (b) of the National Security Act “corrective action” plan to cure the “secret law” intelligence activities to preempt any 2012 House impeachment proceeding. See § EEE below

These are “Past is Prologue” facts because of the September 12, 1985 legal advice of Counsel to President Reagan’s Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB) Bretton Sciaronni which became the “secret law” interpretation of the Boland Amendment re HHS funds that were paid to the Contras through the CIA-DIA-FBI “black operation” conducted at IMC without “Gang of Eight” notification. This becomes a “Prologue” fact when President Obama learns that the funding source for the 1985-2011 NSA TSP and PSP data banks was not reported to the “Gang of Eight” as required by § 413 (a) of the National Security Act. See 1-4-11 PIAB WP §§ 13,14.

40 FF. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of AAG of the National Security Division Lisa Monaco the whereabouts of the “IMC Investigation Final Report” document the DOJ FOIA Officer could not locate in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA because that FBI document reveals whether FBI Director Webster knew of the “black operation” at IMC

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of AAG of the National Security Division Lisa Monaco the whereabouts of the “IMC Investigation Final Report” document the DOJ FOIA Officer could not locate in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA because that document reveals whether FBI Director Webster knew of the “black operation” at IMC in 1985. This is a “smoking gun” document because it also reveals whether FBI Director Webster knew in 1985 that a FBI counterintelligence “plumber” unit was tasked to prevent USG attorneys from violating their non-disclosure agreements re knowledge of the 1985 CIA-DIA-FBI “black operation” at IMC and 1985 CIA-DIA-FBI domestic wiretapping “black operation” at the NSA.

AAG of the National Security Division Monaco was the 1998-2001 Counselor for AG Reno. As a result, she knows whether AG Reno and DAG Holder knew that USG attorneys implemented the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” in Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), and Robert v DOJ, 2001 WL 34077473 (EDNY), 26 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2002). She knows the facts withheld from Judges Wexler, Mishler, and the Second Circuit re the CIA “black operations” that were conducted at IMC and the NSA, based on AG Meese’s “secret law” as explained in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo. See 7-27-11 DOJ WP §§ V-Z, BB.

AAG of the National Security Division Monaco was the 2007-2009 Chief of Staff for FBI Director Mueller. As a result, she knows whether FBI Director Mueller knows that FBI General Counsel Caproni knows that the September 13, 2011 de novo FOIA requested # 1) “FBI Abshire”, # 2 “FBI copy of joint FBI-DOJ-HHS IMC Final Investigative Report”, # 3 “FBI copy of February 25, 1987 Perot”, # 4 “FBI copy of Robert v National Archives “FBI Agent Allison”, # 5 “FBI unredacted copy of Robert v DOJ ‘62-0 file’”, and # 6 “FBI Robert III v DOJ “Recarey extradition” connect-the-dots FBI documents, reveal whether FBI Director Webster knew in 1985 and CIA Director Webster knew in 1987 that the CIA had conducted the “black operation” at IMC without the knowledge of President Reagan or the “Gang of Eight” in violation of the § 413 (a) of the National Security Act. See §§ H-J above and §§ PP, QQ below.

AAG of the National Security Division Monaco was the 2009-2010 Principal Associate DAG. As a result, she knows whether 2009 Associate DAG Verrelli and 2010 Associate DAG Baker knew whether FBI Director Mueller knew on March 1, 2004 that NSA Director General Hayden was data mining the 1984-2004 NSA TSP data banks that had not been reported to Congress. She also knows whether FBI General Counsel Caproni knows whether the September 13, 2011 de novo FOIA requested # 7 “FBI Robert VII v DOJ “FISC Robert” and # 8 “FBI Charles Robert documents including NSLs sent to banks and ISP” prove that USG attorneys violated Robert’s First Amendment right of access to the courts. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP § AAA.

Hence, the importance of consulting with AAG of the Nat. Sec. Div. Monaco because of her FBI institutional memory. She will not lie to President Obama. Therefore, AAG of the OLC Seitz and AAG of the Nat. Sec. Div. Monaco together can provide accurate facts to AG Holder when he considers the Robert VIII appellant’s quiet settlement offer. See §§ FFF, GGG below.

41 GG. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of Associate DAG James Baker who ordered him not to file a Robert VII v DOJ “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declaration that informed Judge Garaufis that Robert had been the target of the pre-9-11 NSA TSP based on the FISA “secret law” explained in the classified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of Associate DAG James Baker who ordered him not to file a Robert VII v DOJ “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declaration that informed Judge Garaufis that Robert was the target of the pre-9-11 NSA TSP based on the FISA “secret law” explained in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memorandum. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows Associate AG Baker knows whether the FISC has ever been informed of the 1985 Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy conducted in violation of § 413 (a) of the National Security Act, because AG Gonzales’ December 22, 2005 letter to the “Gang of Eight” was limited to the post-9/11 NSA TSP. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E- K, 4-11-11 OLC MDR §§ A-E

Associate DAG Baker was a 1996-1997 staff attorney for the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) before becoming 1998-2001 OIPR Deputy Counsel and in May 2001 OIPR Acting Counsel. He was the 2002-2007 Counsel for the National Security Division of Intelligence Policy. In December, 2006, CIA Director Hayden awarded him the George H.W. Bush Award for Excellence in Counterterrorism. On January 19, 2007, AG Gonzales awarded him the Edmund J. Randolph Award. These are the highest CIA and DOJ awards.

In 2008 he was a Resident Fellow at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. From 2009-2011 he has been the Associate DAG for DAG Ogden and DAG Cole. He knows the “secret law” upon which the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance program was being conducted without President Obama’s knowledge.

He knows the name of his “client” when he made his March 1, 2004 decision to affirm the CIA’s use of FOIA Exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense to withhold the “FISC Robert” documents that revealed the NSA TSP. This was prior to the infamous March 10, 2004 confrontation between WH Counsel Gonzales and AG Ashcroft, DAG Comey, and FBI Director Mueller in AG Ashcroft’s hospital room, to AAG of the OLC Goldsmith’s May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memorandum to AG Ashcroft, and to AG Gonzales’ December 22, 2005 § 413 (a) Notification to the “Gang of Eight of the post-9/11 NSA PSP. He knows whether he violated the NYS Judiciary Law § 487 penal standard by deceiving Judge Garaufis and party-plaintiff Robert in his October 1, 2004 “corrected” Robert VII v DOJ Declaration explaining why his “client” correctly applied FOIA Exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense to withhold the “FISC Robert” documents. http://www.snowflake5391.net/baker.pdf. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ M, N.

Associate DAG Baker knows whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA requested Robert VII v DOJ “FISC Robert” documents reveal his concerted implementation of the Mitchell and Barrett “nonacquiescence” policies. He knows whether DOJ attorneys, including himself, intentionally withheld material facts from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court re the 1985-2006 NSA TSP because the DOJ attorneys knew that these documents contained “smoking gun” evidence of serial impeachable violations of § 413 (a) of the National Security Act, the “exclusivity provision of the FISA, the PCA limitations on military domestic law enforcement, and the Social Security Act. See 3-18-11 ISCAP ODNI MDR WP §§ D-G.

42 HH. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of DAG James Cole whether SG Verrelli will breach NYS Judiciary Law § 487 if he does not inform the Supreme Court that DOJ attorneys had withheld facts re the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA “secret law” that DOJ attorneys applied in Robert VII v DOJ and Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of DAG James Cole whether SG Verrelli will breach NYS Judiciary Law § 487 if he does not inform the Supreme Court that DOJ attorneys had withheld facts re the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA “secret law” that DOJ attorneys applied in Robert VII v DOJ and in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA. DAG Cole has a duty to decide whether SG Verrelli would be deceiving the Supreme Court if he did not file a Brief in response to the Robert VIII petition for a writ of certiorari and inform the Court of the FISA “secret law” facts revealed in the May 6, 2004 Memo that DOJ attorneys had withheld from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court in Robert VII v DOJ. See § I above.

DAG Cole was a DOJ 1979-1992 Public Integrity attorney. He is a friend of AG Holder tracking back to when AG Holder was a Public Integrity Section attorney (1976-1988). As a result, he can answer an ethics question re DOJ attorneys withholding facts from Article III Judges to protect the 1985-2011 FISA “secret law” of the Mitchell “nonacquiescence” policy that has been being conducted without the knowledge of the FISC. See §§ H-K.

DAG Cole succeeded 2009 DAG David Ogden who knew why President Bush’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) staffed by the Office of the DAG, was not functioning as the internal Article II check and balance to unchecked Article II “Unitary Executive” policies like the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy. He had been the 1994- 1995 DOD Deputy General Counsel and knew whether DIA Director Clapper (1992-1995) had data mined the 1984-1995 NSA TSP data banks. He was the 1995-1997 Associate DAG and knew the contents of the 1995 “Gordon memo” from Associate AG Schmidt to WH Counsel Mikva re the “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” and SG Days’ 1996 Gordon Brief in opposition to the petition for a writ of certiorari. He was the 1997-1998 Counselor to AG Reno and 1998 – 1999 Chief of Staff to AG Reno during the Robert v NARA litigation. He was the 1999-2001 AAG of the Civil Division during the Ford v Shalala litigation and knew why in October, 2000 DAG Holder made the decision not to perfect the Ford Notice of Appeal. See §§ T, U, X above.

DAG Cole knows from reading the U.S.A. v Drake, 10 CR 00181, CIPA Notice, that AG Holder knew that NSA “whistleblower” Thomas Drake’s allegations were true that NSA Director Hayden had data mined the pre-9/11 NSA TSP data banks and that USG officials had lied to Members of Congress. AG Holder had informed ND of Maryland Judge Richard Bennett that USG documents should not be released at trial because national security secrets could be revealed to the public re the NSA surveillance program. See Judge Bennett’s July 1, 2011 Order Regarding Admissibility Classified Information ¶¶ 1-9. See §§ H-J above and § GGG below.

DAG Cole also has a duty to reevaluate the DOJ policy of intimidating witnesses with the threat of Espionage Act indictment as occurred in Barrett. This strategy has been used to silence “whistleblowers” who know the FISA “secret law.” The public learned about this Espionage Act strategy in the August 21, 2011 60 Minutes “The Espionage Act: Why Tom Drake was indicted.” ”http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/21/60minutes/main20093660.shtml?tag=strip

43 II. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of SG Donald Verrilli, the 2009 Associate DAG and 2010 Deputy WH Counsel, whether he knows whether President Obama knows that the NSA domestic surveillance program revealed in the July 19, 2010 Washington Post series, was based on the FISA “secret law” explained in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of SG Donald Verrilli, the 2009 Associate DAG and 2010 Deputy WH Counsel, whether he knows whether President Obama knows that the NSA domestic surveillance program revealed in the July 19, 2010 Washington Post series, was based on the FISA “secret law” explained in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo. AAG of the OLC Seitz should know this fact because this a “known-known” fact to SG Verrilli when he decides whether 1) to file a Brief in opposition to the November, 2011 Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA petition for a writ of certiorari that will cite to the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo and 2) to file an Amnesty v Clapper petition for a writ of certiorari with the knowledge that Robert had standing in Robert VII v DOJ. See §§ A, C, F, H-J, N, O above.

SG Verrelli also knows the content of the Associate AG Schmidt’s 1995 “Gordon memo” sent to WH Counsel Abner Mikva to respond to Robert’s January 17, 1995 letter to WH Counsel Mikva advising him that HHS Secretary Shalala continued to be implementing the “Jackson and Ruppert” nonacquiescence policies without the knowledge of President Clinton. “Because the Department of Justice is representing the defendants in the pending litigation we have forwarded your correspondence and enclosures to the Associate Attorney General for any appropriate action.” http://www.snowflake5391.net/mikva.pdf. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP § T and § CCC below.

This an important SG Verrelli mens rea fact because he knows whether the “Jackson nonacquiescence policy funds were used to pay for the pre-9/11 NSA TSP data banks not paid for with classified OMB Budget funds. In his Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA Motion to secure a pre-clearance Order to file a FOIA complaint, appellant will be citing Judge Garaufis to the September 13, 2011 de novo FOIA requested SG documents as evidence of the mens rea of SG Verrilli. Appellant will cite to the # 5 “2006 SG’s Robert VII v DOJ case file notes and e- mails” that reveal whether SG Verrelli knows that SG Clement had known that OIPR Baker and AAG of the Civil Division Keisler had implemented the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” when they withheld from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court, the FISA “secret law” revealed in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo to AG Ashcroft that OLC Special Counsel Colborn has withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and 5. See § GGG below.

On September 28, 2011, the SG FOIA Officer informed the Robert VIII appellant that the de novo September 13, 2011 SG FOIA requested # 3 “1995-1996 AAG Hunger-Gordon” and # 4 “1995-1996 “Office of the SG “Gordon” documents” were in the custody of the Civil Division. The appellant had requested these “Gordon” documents from FOIA Civil Attorney-in- Charge James Kovkas in his de novo September 13, 2011 Civil FOIA request. He also sought the # 2 “1985-1988 Robert v Holz “Fraud Against the Government” DOJ case file notes and e- mails” because the Robert VIII “Robert v Holz” documents were withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5. In his November, 2011 petition for a writ of certiorari, he will assert that SG Verrelli knows the Robert VIII “Robert v Holz” documents in DOJ’s custody contains “smoking gun” evidence whether AG Gonzales had withheld Robert VII evidence from the Second Circuit that Robert was a 50 U.S.C. § 1806 (f) “aggrieved person.” See 7-27-11 DOJ WP § AAA.

44 JJ. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inform Acting Deputy SG Roy McLeese of the OLC “secret law” after his review of SG’s Robert VII v DOJ case file notes to determine whether SG Clement had withheld the FISA “secret law” facts from the Supreme Court, and whether SG Days’ Gordon Brief defending the “nonacquiescence” policy was false given SSA Commissioner Astrue’s testimony the “nonacquiescence policy ended in 1989

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inform Acting Deputy SG Roy McLeese of the OLC “secret law” after his review of SG’s Robert VII v DOJ case file notes to determine whether SG Clement had withheld the FISA “secret law” facts from the Supreme Court, and whether SG Days’ Gordon Brief defending the “nonacquiescence” policy was false given SSA Commissioner Astrue’s testimony the “nonacquiescence policy ended in 1989. Given appellant’s allegations that SG Clement in Robert VII and SG Days in Gordon did not provide accurate facts to the Supreme Court, AAG of the OLC Seitz should provide Acting Deputy SG McLeese, her husband, with a memo re the 28 U.S.C. § 530D classified “nonacquiescence” cases so that Acting SG McLeese will make sure that SG Verrelli does not withhold FISA “secret law” from the Supreme Court in his Brief in opposition to the Robert VIII petition. See § GGG below.

As to the September 13, 2011 SG FOIA requested # 5 “2006 SG’s Robert VII v DOJ case file notes and e-mails” documents, Acting Deputy SG Mc Leese will know from reading these documents whether SG Clement intentionally implemented the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” and withheld from the Supreme Court the fact that Robert was a target of the NSA TSP which was based on the “secret law” revealed in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo. If so, then Acting Deputy SG Mc Leese can advise SG Verrelli whether he has a duty to inform the Supreme Court of these facts in the SG’s Brief in opposition to the Robert VIII writ petition. See §§ H-J above.

As to the September 13, 2011 SG FOIA requested “Gordon” documents, Acting Deputy SG Mc Leese can read those documents and determine whether SG Days’ February, 1996 Gordon Brief defending the Jackson and Ruppert “nonacquiescence” policies was false:

“Petitioner’s discussion of the Acquiescence Ruling manifests a misunderstanding of such rulings. In issuing those rulings, the Commissioner has chosen to acquiesce in adverse court of appeals decisions within the respective circuits, instead of seeking review of those decisions in this Court. That practice, however, in no way obligates the Commissioner to change her administration of the Act in cases involving other litigants in other circuits that have not rejected her legal position on a particular issue. See e.g., United States v Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (1984).” http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w95955w.txt.

With accurate OLC information, Acting Deputy SG Mc Leese can solve the “Gordon riddle” that investigative reporters will be asking AG Holder to solve as to the millions of 1994- 2011 Ford v Shalala class members whose monthly federal SSI benefits have been reduced by one-third: Which USG attorney’s representation is false: 1) SG Days’ February, 1996 Gordon Brief defending the 1984-1996 “nonacquiescence” policy; or 2) SSA Commissioner Astrue’s sworn January 24, 2007 Senate Finance Committee testimony that the nonacquiescence policy had ended prior to his becoming the HHS General Counsel in 1989? See §§ T, U, W, X above

45 KK. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of Associate AG Thomas Perrelli whether pursuant to President Bush’s 2002 Presidential Signing Statement, AAG of the OLC Bybee determined that Mitchell, Christensen, and Ford were classified “secret law” nonacquiescence cases that were not reported to Congress as required by 28 U.S.C. § 530D

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of Associate AG Thomas Perrelli whether pursuant to President Bush’s 2002 Presidential Signing Statement, AAG of the OLC Bybee determined that Mitchell, Christensen, and Ford were classified “secret law” nonacquiescence cases that were not reported to Congress as required by 28 U.S.C. § 530D. Because he is President Obama’s Chief FOIA Officer, he needs to know the list of classified “secret law” nonacquiescence cases because the September 13, 2011 de novo DOJ, FBI, CIA, ODNI, NSA, NARA, OMB, HHS, and SSA FOIA requests seek documents that may be subject to “Glomar Response” defense of FOIA Officers not locating “responsive” documents. See § HHH below.

Associate AG Perrelli clerked for Judge Royce C. Lamberth from 1991-1992. This is a relevant fact because from 1995-2002 Judge Lamberth was the Presiding Judge of the FISC. Associate AG Perelli knows the FISA “secret law” that is explained in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo. He knows AG Gonzales’ December 22, 2005 § 413 (a) Notification to the “Gang of Eight” provided retroactive Notification for the post-9/11 NSA PSP, but not for the pre-9/11 NSA TSP. He knows that if AG Reno and AG Ashcroft did not inform FISC Presiding Judge Lamberth of the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy and the 1984-2002 NSA TSP, that there this had been NYS Judiciary Law § 487 deception of Judge Lamberth. See §§ I, J above.

The USG’s Chief FOIA Officer Perrelli knows from reading the Robert VII v DOJ “FISC Robert” and the connect-the-dots Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA “Robert v Holz” documents whether AG Meese and FBI Director Webster in their Robert petition seeking the FISC warrants, had made the FISC the “handmaiden of the Executive” by not informing the FISC of the NSA TSP that had targeted Robert was conducted in violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA. “Under no circumstances should the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive.” Doe, et. al. v Mukasey, Mueller, and Caproni, 549 F 3d 861, 870 (2d Cir. 2008).

Associate AG Perrelli was the 1997-1999 Counsel to AG Reno and 1999-2001 DAAG of Civil Division for AAG of the Civil Division Ogden. He knows whether the DOJ attorneys had implemented the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy in Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), and Robert v DOJ, 2001 WL 34077473 (EDNY), 26 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2002), and withheld material facts to deceive the Judges. He knows whether AAG of the Civil Division Ogden and DAG Holder knew the “known-known” facts of the FISA “secret law” were “unknown-unknown” facts to Judge Wexler, Judge Mishler, and Second Circuit.

Associate AG Perrelli also knows that he knew in 2000 whether AAG of the OLC Moss (1998-2001) made the decision that the Christensen administrative law decision would not be applied to HHS and SSA. He knows whether DAG Holder made the October, 2000 decision not to perfect EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch’s appeal of the Ford decision with its April 9, 1994 nationwide class certification date for millions of Ford class members. Hence, the importance of the OLC list of de jure “nonacquiescence” cases so that President Obama knows whether Mitchell, Christensen, and Ford are 2011 classified “nonacquiescence” cases. See § DDD below.

46 LL. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of AAG of the Civil Division Tony West whether he has read the de novo Civil FOIA requested documents to determine whether they contain “smoking gun” evidence that prove true the grave Robert VIII allegations

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of AAG of the Civil Division Tony West whether he has read the de novo 9-13-11 Civil FOIA requested documents to determine whether they contain “smoking gun” evidence that prove true the grave Robert VIII allegations. He has the duty of presenting accurate facts to SG Verrelli when the SG decides what facts to include in his Brief in opposition to the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA petition for a writ of certiorari. He should know whether the DOJ “known known” facts contained in de novo requested July 27, 2010 documents were “unknown-unknown” facts to Judge Garaufis and the Second Circuit when they decided Robert VIII. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G, K, M, N, AAA and § J above.

AAG of the Civil Division West was a 1993-1994 Special Assistant to DAGs Heymann and Gorelick. As a result, he knows whether DAGs Haymann and Gorelick knew in 1993-1994 the FISA “secret law” which provided the legal basis for the NSA TSP. He knows from reading the Robert VII v DOJ “FISC Robert” and Robert VIII “Robert v Holz” documents whether based on the Mitchell and Barrett “secret law” nonacquiescence cases, AAG of the Civil Division Willard had withheld material facts from Judge Wexler in Robert v Holz and AAG of the Civil Division Keisler had withheld material facts from Judge Garaufis in Robert VII.

He knows who ordered FOIA Civil Attorney-in-Charge Kovakas to process the Robert VIII appellant’s de novo 9-13-11 Civil FOIA request for the 7-27-10 Civil FOIA request, Control No. 145-FOI-10283, for # # 1, 3, and 5, but not for # # 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12:

1. September 4, 1985 Ruppert v Bowen DOJ case file notes 2. 1985-1988 Robert v Holz “Fraud Against the Government” DOJ case file notes and e-mails 3. 1986-1996 Gordon v Shalala DOJ case file notes and e-mail 4. 1987 IMC Final Investigation Report DOJ or FBI copy 5. August 14, 1987-November 12, 1987 -AAG of the Civil Division Willard Robert notes 6 1995 Gordon v Shalala “1995 Associate AG Gordon” memo 7. 1998-2001 Robert v National Archives, ex parte Declarations, case file notes, and e-mails. 8 1998-2002 Robert v DOJ, ex parte Declarations, case file notes and e-mails 9. 2002-2010 Robert II v CIA and DOJ ex parte Declarations case file notes, and e-mails 10. 2001-2004 Robert III v DOJ ex parte Declarations, case file notes, and e-mails 11. 2004-2007 Robert VII v DOJ ex parte Declarations, case file notes, and e-mails 12. 2004 Robert VII v DOJ “uncorrected” Declaration of OIPR Baker

If AAG of the Civil Division West fulfills his due diligence duty and reads these documents, then he will know whether AAG of the Civil Division Frank Hunger (1993-1997) knew the content of Associate AG Schmidt’s 1995 Gordon memo to WH Counsel Mikva that explained the implementation of the Jackson and Ruppert “nonacquiescence” policies. He will know why one-third of the monthly federal SSI amount of benefits of millions of 1994-2011 Ford class members have been reduced. He will know why AAG of the Civil Division Ogden (1999-2001) approved the October, 2000 litigation decision not to perfect EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch’s Ford v Shalala Notice of Appeal. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ C, E-G, P-U, Z, YY, ZZ.

47 MM. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to secure from OPR Director Brown the list of OPR “nonacquiescence” cases to which OPR applied the “Thornburgh-Giuliani” acquiescence policy “exception” after the 2002 enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 530D

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to secure from OPR Director Brown the list of OPR “nonacquiescence” cases to which OPR applied the “Thornburgh-Giuliahi” acquiescence policy “exception” after the 2002 enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 530D. These are cases in which DOJ attorneys have a “good faith” belief that Judges had “incorrectly” decided a case which their clients should not follow in other cases. See §§ A, C, D, J above and § GGG below.

On May 6, 1988, AAG of the Civil Division John Bolton in a letter to ACUS, explained the DOJ “silent nonacquiescence policy” cases. This was a DOJ “secret law” protected by the work product privilege. “In particular the work of an acquiescence review board, or of attorneys charged with such functions, would seem to be a virtual textbook example of the reasons why a work product privilege exists.” http://www.snowflake5391.net/aagbolton.pdf.

On January 9, 1989, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Attorney Michael Shaheen responded to Ruppert-Gordon counsel’s complaint that the “silent nonacquiescence policy” of AAG Bolton had resulted in the HHS and SSA duly promulgated regulations not being equally enforced by AG Thornburgh. He explained that the DOJ’s "Thornburgh- Giuliani" policy was to acquiesce to federal court decisions, unless there was a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law:

Because this Office reviews allegations of misconduct brought against Department of Justice employees, your letter to Assistant United States Attorney Charles B. La Bella, dated April 2, 1988, was referred to us by U.S. Attorney Rudolph A. Giuliani for consideration. Your letter to Mr. LaBella dealt with the alleged misconduct of several Assistant United States Attorneys and other Department of Justice employees by virtue of their continued assertion of "non-acquiescence' in defending Health and Human Services cases brought by Supplemental Security Income recipients.

Although, in our view, the position adopted by Mr. Giuliani's office -- not to defend the Secretary of Health and Human Service's non-acquiescence policy -- is the correct legal formulation, we do not accept the proposition that espousal of non-acquiescence by other U.S. Attorneys' offices constitutes misconduct. We believe that non-acquiescence is a defense that can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law and, thus, does not violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. Emphasis added. .http://www.snowflake5391.net/1-9-89Shaheen.pdf.

AAG of the OLC Seitz should know whether OPR Director Brown determined whether 28 U.S.C. § 530D applies to Jackson and Ruppert, or whether they continue to be 2011 DOJ “silent nonacquiescence” cases. If the latter, then AG Holder should decide whether the “secret law” of AAG Bolton’s 1988 DOJ “silent nonacquiescence policy” should continue in 2011.

48 NN. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of EOUSA Director Jarrett whether the 93 U.S. Attorneys he supervises applied the 1989 “Thornburgh-Giuliani” acquiescence policy to the application of the Jackson and Ruppert “nonacquiescence” policies to Ford nationwide class members who do not reside in the Seventh Circuit states

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of EOUSA Director H. Marshall Jarrett, whether the 93 U.S. attorneys he supervises applied the 1989 “Thornburgh-Giuliani” acquiescence policy to the application of the Jackson and Ruppert “nonacquiescence” policies to the Ford class members who do not reside in the Seventh Circuit states. Upon information and belief, AAG of the OLC Seitz will learn that EOUSA Director Jarrett does not know that the 93 U.S. Attorneys that he is tasked to supervise, are implementing the 1982 Jackson, 1990 Ruppert, 2000 Christensen, and 2007 Ford “nonacquiescence” policies. This is because of the existence of an EOUSA “stovepipe” that prevents him from learning of the existence of the classified OLC “nonacquiescence” cases not reported to Congress pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D. See § E above.

EOUSA Director H. Marshall Jarrett was the 1998-2008 Chief Counsel and Director of the OPR who succeeded OPR Director Shaheen. As a result, he knows how he had implemented the 1988 “silent nonacquiescence policy” of AAG of the Civil Division Bolton after OPR Director Shaheen had adopted the “Thornburgh-Giuliani” acquiescence policy. See § MM above.

As the former-OPR Director, EOUSA Director Jarrett has a duty to know whether EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch will comply with her April 1, 2009 NYS Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3) duty to cure misrepresentations of fact and law her AUSAs made to Judges. This includes when she was the 1999-2001 EDNY U.S. Attorney during the Ford v Shalala, Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), and Robert v DOJ, 2001 WL 34077473 (EDNY), 26 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2002).. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ C-G, P-U, V, W, GG-XX.

As the former-OPR Director, EOUSA Director Jarrett knows whether he has his own 2011 ethical duty to take affirmative action to end the denial of due process rights of the millions of Ford v Shalala class members who have never received Ford remedy Notices that cite to the duly promulgated SSI regulations. Upon information and belief, EOUSA Director Jarrett will be shocked to learn of the continued denial of the due process and equal protection rights of millions of 1994-2011Ford class members twelve (12) years after the Ford decision and during the 2009-2011 Constitutional watch of President Obama without the President’s knowledge.

It is because EOUSA Director Jarrett, like President Obama, possesses the Chilicky v Schweiker “normal sensibilities” of human beings, that the Robert VIII appellant believes that an EOUSA “stovepipe” exists that bypasses EOUSA Director Jarrett. As a result, he does not know of the OLC “secret law” that includes the de jure or de facto 2011 Mitchell, Barrett, Jackson, Ruppert, Christensen, and Ford “nonacquiescence” policies. Hence, the importance of the de novo September 13, 2011 OLC FOIA request for the September 15, 2010 OLC documents that OLC Special Counsel Colborn was ordered not to process. See § CC above, § BBB below.

If AAG of the OLC Seitz informs EOUSA Director Jarrett there are no de jure Jackson Ruppert, Christensen, and Ford “nonacquiescence” policies, then EOUSA Director Jarrett will inform the 93 U.S. Attorneys. This will lead to the end of the Ford equal protection violations.

49 OO. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch whether she will comply with her April 1, 2009 NYS Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3) duty to cure misrepresentations of fact and law made to Judges in the Robert FOIAs

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch whether she will comply with her April 1, 2009 NYS Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3) duty to cure misrepresentations of fact and law made to Judges in the Robert FOIAs. This ethics issue will occur when she files the USG’s response to Robert’s 2012 Motion for a pre-clearance Order to file a FOIA complaint. That Motion will seek documents to prove that she had breached NYS Judiciary Law § 487 by deceiving Judge Wexler, Judge Mishler, and the Second Circuit in Robert v NARA, Robert v DOJ, and Ford v Shalala when she was the 1999-2001 EDNY U.S. Attorney and knew the 1985-2001 FISA “secret law.” See 7-27-11 DOJ WP §§ E-G, V, W, Z.

EDNY U.S. U.S. Lynch had been the 1994-1998 EDNY Chief of the Long Island Office. As a result, she was AUSA Bruce Nims’ supervising attorney in Gordon v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. den, 517 U.S. 1103 (1996). She knows she has breached her supervising attorney’s K & A Radiologic Technology Services, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Department of Health and of the State of New York, 189 F. 3d 273 (2d Cir. 1999), duty. “(2) failed to remedy the alleged deprivation after learning of it.” Id. 276. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ B, T, Z, ZZ.

She was a 2009 Member of the New York State Commission on Public Integrity. As a result, she knows her April 1, 2009 NYS Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(3) duty to cure the misrepresentations of fact and law made to tribunals when she was the 1999-2001 EDNY U.S. Attorney. She knows the misrepresentations occurred from reading the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA “Robert v Holz” and “Ruppert” documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5. These are not classified documents for which she does not have clearance to read. She also knows FBI General Counsel Caproni is bound by NYS ethics rule 3.3. See § PP below.

EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch knows from the “known-known” facts she learned from reading the Robert VIII “Robert v Holz” documents that 2011 USG attorneys know the facts contained in the Robert “Fraud Against the Government” investigation documents and NSA TSP wiretap transcripts, remain as “unknown-unknown” facts to Judge Wexler, Judge Garaufis, and the Second Circuit. As a result, she knows that the “Robert v Holz” documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5 contain “smoking gun” evidence that Robert has Amnesty v Clapper standing to file a Bivens complaint. She knows his First Amendment right of access to the Courts will be violated as long as DOJ attorneys withhold documents he needs to oppose AG Holder’s Iqbal Motion to dismiss Robert’s “implausible” complaint. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP § AAA.

EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch also knows AG Holder’s answers to the how-could-this- have-ever-happened questions of investigative reporters. They will file their own “follow the money” FOIAs to learn whether Robert VIII appellant’s almost incredible allegations are true that 1984-2011 faux “Commanders in Chief” diverted 1984-2011 unaudited “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” nonacquiescence policy funds of to pay for the “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the 1984-2011 “Top Secret America” NSA TSP data banks that were not paid for with classified OMB funds. She knows AG Holder’s answer to the follow up how-could-this-have-ever happened-Ford -12-years-and-no-remedy question. § CCC below.

50 PP. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of FBI General Counsel Caproni whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FBI FOIA requested documents reveal that FBI Director Webster knew in 1985 that a NSA TSP was conducted in violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, and an illegal CIA-DIA-FBI “black operation was conducted at IMC in violation of the Boland Amendment without the knowledge of President Reagan

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of FBI General Counsel Caproni whether the de novo September 13, 2011 FBI FOIA requested document reveal that FBI Director Webster knew in 1985 that a NSA TSP was conducted in violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, and a CIA-DIA-FBI “black operation was conducted at IMC in violation of the Boland Amendment without the knowledge of President Reagan. If so, then FBI General Counsel Caproni’s “known known” facts confirm the implementation of the 1985 Mitchell v Forsyth and 1986 Barrett “nonacquiescence policies in violation of § 413 of the National Security Act.

FBI General Counsel Caproni was a 1985-1989 EDNY AUSA in the Criminal Division. She knew why Robert was the target of the “Fraud Against the Government” initiated by HHS General Counsel del Real and whether he was a CIA covered agent. She knew what “fraud” Robert was to have committed and why in June, 1987 AAG of the Criminal Division William Weld ended the “Fraud Against the Government” investigations of both Robert and IMC.

In August 2003 she became FBI Director Mueller’s General Counsel. She knows the content of the Robert VII “FISC Robert” documents that OIPR Counsel Baker had read on March 1, 2004 and affirmed the CIA’s FOIA Officer’s decision to withhold the documents based on FOIA Exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense. She knows whether FBI Director Mueller knew on March 10, 2004 at the infamous confrontation with WH Counsel Gonzales in AG Ashcroft’s hospital room, whether a pre-9/11 NSA TSP had been conducted without the knowledge of the FISC in violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA. She knows from reading AAG of the OLC Goldsmith’s May 6, 2004 Memorandum to AG Gonzales why on December 22, 2005 AG Gonzales limited his retroactive § 413 (a) of the National Security Act Notification to the “Gang of Eight” to the post-9/11 NSA TSP. See DOJ WP §§ K, M, N, Y.

The de novo September 13, 2011 FBI FOIA request seeks the following FBI documents:

1) FBI Abshire documents-third request 2) FBI copy of joint FBI-DOJ-HHS “IMC Final Investigative Report” 3) FBI copy of February 25, 1987 “Perot” documents 4) FBI copy of Robert v National Archives “FBI Agent Allison” documents 5) FBI unredacted copy of Robert v DOJ “62-0 file” documents 6) FBI Robert III v DOJ “Recarey extradition” documents 7) FBI Robert VII v DOJ “FISC Robert” documents 8) FBI Charles Robert documents including NSLs sent to banks and ISP

Hence, the importance of the Mitchell and Barrett “nonacquiescence” policy documents. If these de jure documents exist, then this was the legal basis for the “black operations” at the NSA and IMC. If they do not exist, then this means that FBI General Counsel Caproni has acted in concert with EDNY DOJ attorneys and violated NYS Judiciary Law § 487. See § I above.

51 QQ. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to provide CIA General Counsel Preston accurate OLC FISA “secret law” facts in order that he can cure the false facts provided Judge Seybert by the Robert II v CIA and DOJ CIA General Counsels, and not provide false “Curveball” facts to CIA Director Petraeus which he then provides to President Obama

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to provide CIA General Counsel Preston accurate OLC FISA “secret law” facts in order that he can cure any false facts provided Judge Seybert by the Robert II v CIA and DOJ, 02-6278 (Seybert, J), CIA General Counsels. With accurate November, 2011 OLC FISA “secret law” facts, CIA General Counsel Preston will not provide CIA Director Petraeus with false “Curveball” facts which CIA Director Petraeus then unwittingly provides to President Obama. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ K, AA, 1-4-11 PIAB WP, 3-18-11 ODNI ISCAP WP, 4-11-11 OLC MDR WP, 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP, 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP, 5-9-11 NARA MDR, 7-25-11 CIA General Counsel WP, and 8-12-11 ISCAP ODNI MDR.

CIA General Counsel Preston was the 1993-1995 DOD Principal Deputy General Counsel. As a result, he knows whether 1992-1995 DIA Director Lt. General Clapper data mined the 1984-1995 NSA TSP data banks in violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA and the PCA limitations on domestic military law enforcement. He knows whether 1993-1994 DOD General Counsel Gorelick, who succeeded 1992-1993 DOD General Counsel Addington, constructed the 1995 DOJ “wall” to prevent FISA violations by DOJ attorneys withholding facts from the FISC re the 1984-1995 NSA TSP that was based on the OLC 1985 Mitchell and 1986 Barrett “nonacquiescence” policies. See undocketed 4-11-11 OLC MDR WP §§ D, G, I, J, K, M.

CIA General Counsel Preston was the 1995-1998 Civil Division DAAG responsible for appellate litigation. As a result, he read the 1995 “Gordon” memo from Associate AG Schmidt to WH Counsel Mikva. He knows whether WH Counsel Mikva knew that SG Days’ Gordon Brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari defended the Jackson and Ruppert “nonacquiescence” policy applied in Gordon and now to 1994-2011 Ford class members.

CIA General Counsel Preston knows the content of the de novo September 13, 2011 CIA FOIA requested documents that had first been requested in the July 27, 2010 CIA FOIA request:

1. 9/3/85 North-FBI Revell “North Notebook” log entry. 2. 9/6/85 North-CIA-FBI Exemptions 1, 3 and NHAO 3. 9/16/85 North-Call to Perot Exemptions 1 and 3 4. 10/1/85 CIA-DOD FOIA Exemption 1 and 3 and reference to medivac helos 5. All Robert II v CIA “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations

CIA General Counsel Preston knows whether these documents corroborate the Robert II v CIA and DOJ complaint allegations. He knows whether CIA General Counsels Muller (2002- 2004) and Rizzo (2004-2009) filed “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declarations with Judge Sifton and implemented the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” by withholding material facts to deceive Judge Seybert in violation of NYS Judiciary Law § 487. Hence, the importance of AAG of the OLC Seitz providing accurate OLC “secret law” facts to CIA General Counsel Preston. Then he can provide these facts to CIA Director Petraeus who will provide these facts to President Obama when he decides whether to file a § 413 (b) “corrective action” plan. See § JJJ below.

52 RR. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to provide NARA General Counsel Stern accurate OLC “secret law” facts in order that he can provide accurate facts to NARA Archivist Ferriero, his client, when the NARA Archivist renders his NARA ADR decision re the four Robert II v CIA and DOJ “North Notebook” documents that are more than 25 years old

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to provide NARA General Counsel Gary Stern accurate OLC “secret law” facts in order that he can provide accurate facts to NARA Archivist Ferriero, his client, when the NARA Archivist renders his NARA ADR decision re the four Robert II v CIA and DOJ “North Notebook” classified documents more than 25 years old. Those four “North Notebook” documents are connect-the-dots documents with the de novo FOIA FBI requested “FBI Abshire”, “FBI Agent Allison” documents, and Robert VII v DOJ “FISC Robert” documents. They reveal how the “Unitary Executive” theory was implemented by CIA Director Casey for the IMC and NSA “black operations” that NARA General Counsel Stern knows were not reported to the “Gang of Eight.” See the 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP §§ A-G.

NARA General Counsel Stern has been the NARA General Counsel from 1998-2010. As a result, he has an institutional memory as to how President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526 § 3.3 Automatic Declassification 25 year rule applies to § 4.3 Special Access Programs (SAPs) documents that are archived within the NARA Special Access Room. “These officials shall keep the number of these programs at an absolute minimum, and shall establish them only when the program is required by statute or upon a specific finding.” Emphasis Added.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows that on September 23, 2010, a CIA FOIA Officer advised that the following four Robert II v CIA and DOJ “North Notebook” CIA FOIA requested classified documents, were in NARA’s custody. He knows appellant’s de novo September 13, 2011 NARA FOIA request seeks the October 29, 2010 NARA FOIA requested documents that are subject to the appellant’s still undocketed 5-9-11 NARA ADR request:

1. 9/3/85 North-FBI Revell “North Notebook” log entry. 2. 9/6/85 North-CIA-FBI Exemptions 1, 3 and NHAO 3. 9/16/85 North-Call to Perot Exemptions 1 and 3 4. 10/1/85 CIA-DOD FOIA Exemption 1 and 3 and reference to medivac helos

NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether these documents reveal that in 1985 Vice President Bush’s Task Force on Terrorism Operational Sub-Group (OSG) knew that CIA Director Casey was conducing a “black operation” at IMC in violation of the Boland Amendment and funded with off-OMB Budget unaudited HHS funds. He knows whether NARA Archivist Ferriero knows whether an E.O. 13526 § 4.3 Finding has ever been made.

Hence, the importance of the AAG of the OLC Seitz rendering a FOIA decision whether the Mitchell and Barrett “nonacquiescence” documents are 28 U.S.C. § 530D “exception” national security decisions by application of President Bush’s November 2, 2002 Presidential Finding Statement. If so, then President Obama’s ISCAP Members should know whether AG Meese’s “Unitary Executive” theory was the “secret law” basis for the 1) 1985 OLC FISA Mitchell “nonacquiescence” policy and 2) the 1985 OLC opinion that the Boland Amendment was an “unconstitutional” statute because it encroached upon the President’s Article II authority.

53 SS. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to provide NARA General Counsel Stern accurate OLC “secret law” facts so that he can provide accurate facts to NARA Archivist Ferriero, when the NARA Archivist renders his decision as to the de novo FOIA requested “Perot” and “Peter Keisler Collection” documents withheld by the President Ronald Reagan Library Archivist based on a former-President’s executive privilege decision

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to provide NARA General Counsel Stern accurate OLC “secret law” facts so that he can provide accurate facts to NARA Archivist Ferriero, when the NARA Archivist renders his decision as to the de novo FOIA requested “Perot” and “Peter Keisler Collection” documents withheld by the President Ronald Reagan Library Archivist based on a former-President’s executive privilege decision. If NARA Archivist Ferriero decides to release these documents, then that decision is subject to review by President Obama. If there is a review by President Obama, then NARA General Counsel Stern knows the historical importance of President Obama knowing whether FBI Agent Allison was a CIA covered agent as the FBI liaison to IC Walsh’s investigation of the Iran-Contras Affair. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ AA, BB, 1-4-11 PIAB WP, 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP, 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP, and §§ JJJ-KKK below.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows why the appellant never received any of the following September 13, 2011 requested July 27, 2010 NARA FOIA requested documents:

1) NARA “Perot” documents 2) NARA Peter Keisler Collection documents 3) NARA Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’ documents

NARA General Counsel Stern knows from Robert’s certified letters to him that Robert never received any alleged released “responsive” NARA documents from NARA Deputy Archivist Thomas re the # 3 “NARA Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File’ documents. This is a critical NARA General Counsel Stern mens rea fact because he was NARA General Counsel in Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), in which the plaintiff sought the release of the “FBI Agent Allison” documents. Those documents reveal whether FBI Agent Allison, the FBI liaison to IC Walsh, withheld facts from IC Walsh re allegations that CIA Director Casey conducted a “black operation” at IMC where unaudited HHS funds paid for Contras medical supplies and treatment in violation of the Boland Amendment.

NARA General Counsel Stern knows whether USG attorneys in Robert v National Archives implemented the “Barrett nonaquiesence policy” and withheld material facts to protect the CIA sources and methods used at IMC. He also knows whether USG attorneys, including himself, violated NYS Judiciary Law § 487 by deceiving Judge Wexler and Second Circuit in order to conceal the illegal CIA-DIA-FBI “black operation” conducted at IMC. See § I above.

Hence, the importance of the OLC “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” document. If President Obama has to make a decision as to application of the President’s January 21, 2009 E.O. 13489 Presidential Records re the release of the “Perot” and “Peter Keisler Collection” documents, then President Obama should know the legal basis for the de jure Barrett nonacquiescence policy. This is a timely issue if President Obama does not know that this policy was based on the “Unitary Executive” theory of AG Meese. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ V, W.

54 TT. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of OMB General Counsel Bershteyn whether the de novo September 13, 2011 OMB FOIA requested “1982-2010 OMB Jackson” documents reveal that unaudited OMB SSI funds had been diverted to pay for the “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the 1984-2010 NSA TSP data banks . AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of OMB General Counsel Bershteyn whether the de novo September 13, 2011 OMB FOIA requested “1982-2010 OMB Jackson” documents” reveal that unaudited OMB SSI funds had been diverted to pay for the “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the 1984-2010 NSA TSP data banks that were not funded with classified OMB funds. This is an OLC issue because SSA Commissioner Astrue continues to “rig” the SSA computer to apply the 1982 “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” to compute 2011 Ford class members October, 2011 benefits. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ Z, ZZ and § FFF below.

OMB General Counsel Boris Bershteyn was the 2009-2010 OMB Deputy General Counsel for OMB Director Peter Orszag. As a result, he knows who ordered the OMB FOIA Officer not to docket the August 5, 2010 FOIA request for the “1982-2008 OMB Jackson” documents and to use a “Glomar Response” defense in the OMB FOIA decision. He became the 2010-2011 Associate WH Counsel for President Obama. He knows whether a WH “stovepipe” bypasses the WH Counsels re the funding source for the NSA TSP data banks.

He replaced OMB General Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor Preeta Bansal, the ACUS Vice Chair. She knew the 1989 ACUS Report, Estreicter & Revesz, Nonacquiescence by Federal Administrative Agencies, 98 Yale L.J. 679, 681 (1989), is “smoking gun” evidence that SSA Commissioner Astrue’s January 24, 2007 Senate Finance Committee testimony that the “nonacquiescence policy had ended prior to his becoming the HHS General Counsel in 1989, remains as uncured false testimony. She knew investigative reporters who file their own “follow the money” FOIAs seeking the 1982-2009 “Jackson OMB” documents that have been withheld pursuant to the use of the “Glomar Response” defense, will learn whether “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” SSI funds have been the funding source for the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance data banks not paid for with classified OMB Budget funds. She also knew that the “OMB Jackson” documents provide the investigative reporters with an answer to the how-could-this-have-ever-happened Ford v Shalala-12 years-and-no-remedy question.

The de novo September 13, 2011 FOIA request for the “1982-2010 OMB Jackson” documents adds 2010 to the undocketed August 5, 2009 request for the “1982-2008 OMB Jackson” documents and the undocketed March 11, 2010 request for the “2009 OMB Jackson” documents. These documents reveal the annual amount of federal SSI monies appropriated by Congress for SSI recipients that were not paid to the SSI recipients because of the application of either the de jure 28 U.S.C. § 530D “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” document or the OLC “secret law” classified “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” by application of President Bush’s November 2, 2002 Presidential Signing Statement. See §§ D, E, T, U, W, X above.

Given the gravity of the allegations, AAG of the OLC Seitz should contact OIRA Director Cass Sunstein for his analysis as to whether the “Jackson” regulation, 20 C.F.R. §416.1130 (b), was properly promulgated. He is President Obama’s friend and will warn the President if his enforcement of the “Jackson” regulation is an impeachable Article II breach.

55 UU. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of DOD General Counsel Johnson, a 1989- 1991 SDNY AUSA, whether he knows whether the source of the 1984-2011 off-OMB Budget “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the NSA TSP not funded with classified OMB Budget funds, had been “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” SSI funds

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of DOD General Counsel Johnson, a 1989- 1991 SDNY AUSA, whether he knows whether the source of the 1984-2011 off-OMB Budget “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the NSA TSP not funded with classified OMB Budget funds, had been “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” SSI funds. He knows former-NSA General Counsel Olsen is now the NCTC Director and knows the off-OMB Budget source for the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks not funded with classified OMB Budget funds. See 7-27- 10 DOJ WP §§ K, CC, DD, and the certified 9-7-11 letter to DOD General Counsel Johnson.

The fact that DOD General Counsel Jeh Johnson was a 1989-1991 SDNY AUSA is important because in 1989 AG Thornburgh adopted 1983-1988 SDNY U.S. Attorney Giuliani’s “acquiescence” policy whereby he refused to enforce HHS-SSA “nonacquiescence” policies of the HHS General del Real and AAG of the Civil Division Willard. Upon information and belief, 1981-1983 Associate AG Giuliani knew that 1981-1984 Counsellor to President Reagan Ed Meese, who coordinated and developed domestic policy issues and programs, had approved AAG of the OLC Ted Olson’s 1982 “Jackson nonacquiecensce policy” decision. See § T above.

The de novo 9-13-11 FOIA request is for the July 27, 2010 NSA FOIA requested “NSA TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” document. See NSA # 62557. In 2010 NSA General Counsel Olson knew the NSA Appeals Authority used the “Glomar Response” defense so that the FISA “secret law” would not become public “known-known” fact. He knew that if the NSA Access Guidelines became a “known-known” fact, then appellant could argue that this was a de facto admission of the existence of the pre-9/11 NSA TSP data banks which he knew had been an “unknown-unknown” fact to the1980s FISC and to Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court in Robert VII v DOJ. §§ GG above and § GGG below

This NSA de novo request is also made to determine whether DOD Secretary Panetta knows of the existence of the “NSA TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” as the civilian “chain of command” officer of 2005-2011 DOD Cyber Commander-NSA Director Lt. General Alexander. This is a critical DOD Secretary Panetta mens rea and NSA TSP time line fact because he had been the 1969 Assistant to HHS Secretary Robert Finch, 1970 President Nixon’s Director of Office for Civil Rights, 1979-1985 Member of House Budget Committee before becoming 1989-1993 Chairman, 1993-1994 OMB Director, 1994-1997 WH Chief of Staff for President Clinton, 2006 Member of the Iraq Study Group, and 2009-2011 CIA Director. If DOD Secretary Panetta does not know the 1984-2011 off-OMB Budget funding source for the “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks not funded with classified OMB Budget funds, then this is cumulative evidence of PCA violations that 1984-2011 faux “Commanders in Chiefs” made decisions without their Presidents’ knowledge.

Hence, the importance of AAG of the OLC Seitz knowing whether DOD General Counsel Johnson knows the FISA “secret law” of the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo. If not, then DOD Secretary Panetta, AG Holder, and President Obama should know this fact.

56 VV. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of NSA General Counsel Olson’s successor whether he/she knows whether the 1984-2011 off-OMB Budget funding source for the “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the NSA TSP not funded with classified OMB Budget funds, has been “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” SSI funds

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of NSA General Counsel Olson’s successor whether he/she knows whether the 1984-2011 off-OMB Budget funding source for the “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the NSA TSP not funded with classified OMB Budget funds, has been “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” SSI funds. DOD Secretary Panetta should know whether his new Acting NSA General Counsel knows the FISA “secret law” explained in the May 6, 2004 reclassified OLC FISA Memo because his former-NSA General Counsel Olsen is now the NCTC Director and knows whether ODNI Director Clapper knows the FISA “secret law” applied from 1985-2011. §§ TT, UU above and §§ DDD below.

DOD Secretary Panetta’s 2011 NSA General Counsel Olsen had been AG Holder’s 2010 Associate DAG and knew whether AG Holder knew the FISA “secret law” that is explained in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo. He was the 2006-2009 DAAG of the National Security Division and knew whether EDNY AUSA Mahoney on behalf of AG Gonzales had filed a false April 3, 2006 Robert VIII v DOJ letter Brief that Robert was not a FISA “aggrieved person” by application of 50 U.S.C. § 1806 (f). http://www.snowflake5391.net/RobertvDOJbrief.pdf.

Former-NSA General Counsel Olsen was the 2005-2006 National Security Division Chief. He knew why AAG of the Office of Legislative Affairs Moschella, on behalf of AG Gonzales, sent the December 22, 2005 § 413 (a) of the National Security Act letter to the “Gang of Eight that provided retroactive Notification of the 2002-2005 post-9/11 NSA TSP, but not Notification of the 1984-2001 pre-9/11 NSA TSP that was conducted by the 1984-2001 NSA Directors. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/doj122205.pdf. See §§ AAA-EEE below.

Former-NSA General Counsel Olsen was the 2004-2005 Special Counsel for FBI Director Mueller. He knew whether OIPR Baker implemented the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” in his Robert VII v DOJ “corrected” October 1, 2004 Declaration and withheld from Judge Garaufis the material facts from the FISA “secret law” as explained in the May 6, 2004 classified OLC FISA Memo to AG Ashcroft. See the 4-11-11 OLC MDR WP §§ A, B.

Because he was FBI Director Mueller’s Special Counsel, former-NSA General Counsel Olsen knew how the December, 2008 AG Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations were different from the NSA access Guidelines. http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/guidelines.pdf This is an important fact because the public will be notified in October, 2011 of the new AG’s FBI Guidelines. The public will not know whether the tens of thousands of NSA domestic surveillance program analysts identified in the Washington Post July 19, 2010 series, are bound by the AG’s FBI Guidelines or the “unknown-unknown” NSA Access Guidelines.

DOD Secretary Panetta is an attorney and knows the duty of his NSA General Counsel to provide him with accurate information re the FISA “secret law” that DOD Cyber Commander- NSA Director Lt. General Alexander is applying. Hence, the importance of AAG of the OLC Seitz making sure that the new Acting NSA General Counsel knows the FISA “secret law.”

57 WW. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of ODNI General Counsel Litt whether he knows the whereabouts of the September 13, 2011 de novo FOIA requested “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” that are being used in 2011 when NCTC analysts access the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance data banks

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of ODNI General Counsel Litt whether he knows the whereabouts of the September 13, 2011 de novo FOIA requested “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” that are being used in 2011 when NCTC analysts access the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance data banks. He knows whether he informed ODNI Director Clapper, the 1992-1995 DIA Director, that the FISA “secret law” explained in the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo continues in 2011 to be the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy. See 8-16-11 certified letter to ODNI Gen. Cou. Litt.

ODNI General Counsel Litt knows where the September 13, 2011 de novo FOIA requested “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” are located. He also knows that NARA ISOO Director Fitzpatrick knows whether he had instructed the ODNI FOIA Officers to use the “Glomar Response” defense, when he rendered his September 27, 2011 ISOO ISCAP Orwellian Double Speak decision that no “responsive” documents could be located. “That Office has repeatedly attempted to identify the materials responsive to your appeal, and these efforts have failed to locate the responsive records.” Emphasis Added. See §§ K-O above.

ODNI General Counsel Robert Litt was a 1978-1984 SDNY AUSA. He knows why 1983-1988 SDNY U.S. Attorney Giuliani, the 1981-1983 Associate AG, refused to defend the “nonacquiescence” policies of HHS General Counsel del Real and AAG of the Civil Division Willard, including the 1982 “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” decision. See § T above.

He was the 1994-1997 DAG of the Criminal Division. He knows the answer to the “Gordon riddle” whether SG Days February, 1996 Gordon Brief in opposition to the Gordon petition for a writ of certiorari defending the “nonacquiescence” policy was false, or whether SSA Commissioner Nominee Astrue’s January 24, 2007 Finance Committee testimony that the “nonacquiescence” policy ended prior to his becoming 1989 HHS General Counsel was false.

He was the 1997-1999 Principal Associate DAG. He knows whether DAG Holder knew the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence policy was being implemented as the FISA “secret law” upon which the 1984-1999 NSA TSP was based. If so, then he knows the “Past is Prologue” fact whether DAG Holder knew that the NSA TSP was being implemented pursuant to the “Unitary Executive” theory of AG Meese without the knowledge of President Clinton, and whether this 1984-1999 intelligence activity had not been reported to the “Gang of Eight as required by § 413 (a) of the National Security Act. See §§ L, M above and § GGG below.

Therefore, AAG of the OLC Seitz should be providing a “heads up” memo to AG Holder that discusses the mens rea of ODNI General Counsel Litt. AG Holder should know whether ODNI General Counsel Litt had ordered the ODNI FOIA Officers not to locate the July 27, 2011 FOIA requested “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” document. If so, then AG Holder should know whether ISOO Director Fitzpatrick bootstrapped this fact to prevent President Obama’s ISCAP from having jurisdiction of the 8-12-11 ISCAP ODNI MDR appeal.

58 XX AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of ODNI IG Mazur, the 1995-2001 ISCAP Chair, whether she knows the whereabouts of the September 13, 2011 FOIA requested “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” that are being used when NCTC analysts access the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance data banks

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of ODNI IG Mazur, the 1996-2001 ISCAP Chair, whether she knows the whereabouts of the September 13, 2011 FOIA requested “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” that are being used when NCTC analysts access the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance data banks. AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that appellant’s 8-26-11 ODNI complaint filed with ODNI IG Mazur against ODNI General Counsel Litt, has not been docketed or acknowledged. This is an important fact because President Obama has nominated her to be the Homeland Security IG. See certified 8-26- 11 letter to IG Mazur, 8-26-11 ODNI IG complaint, and TV Showtime “Homeland” series.

ODNI IG Mazur was President Clinton’s 1996-2001 ISCAP Chairman. She knows that the pre-9/11 NSA TSP existed. She knows whether a WH “stovepipe” bypassed President Clinton in order that he would have a “plausible deniability” defense to the serial impeachable violations of § 413 (a) of the National Security Act, the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, the PCA limitations on military domestic law enforcement, and the Social Security Act. See the 7- 27-10 OLC WP §§ M, N, 3-18-11 ISCAP ODNI MDR §§ E-G, §§ C-J above, and § EEE below.

ODNI IG Mazur was DAG Holder’s 1999-2001 Associate DAG. She knows whether a DOJ “stovepipe” bypassed DAG Holder so that he would not know of the 1984-2001 NSA TSP that was being conducted without § 413 (a) of the National Security Act Notification to the “Gang of Eight.” She also knows whether DAG Holder knew that NSA Director General Hayden had data-mined the data banks with the Thin Thread algorithm. See §§ DDD, GGG below.

ODNI IG Mazur was the 2002-2009 DOJ IG Investigative Counsel. As a result, she knows whether AG Gonzales had violated § 413 (a) of the National Security Act with his retroactive December 22, 2006 Notification of the “Gang of Eight” of the post-9/11 NSA TSP, but without retroactive Notification of the pre-9/11 NSA TSP. See §§ AAA-CCC below.

ODNI IG Mazur knows whether the Intelligence Committees were notified of the pre- 9/11 NSA TSP in the July 10, 2009 Classified Report on the President’s Surveillance Program. Report of the five IC IGs: CIA IG Helgerson, DOJ IG Fine, NSA IG Ellard, and ODNI ID Mazur, re the post-9/11 NSA PSP. The Unclassified Report posted on the internet was limited to the post-9/11 PSP and did not cover “Other” Intelligence Activities. “The specific details of the Other Intelligence Activities remain highly classified, although the Attorney General publicly acknowledged the existence of such activities in August, 2007.” Id. 6. Emphasis Added. http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0907.pdf. She knows whether one of the “Other” Intelligence Activities was the pre-9/11 NSA TSP that had not been reported to the “Gang of Eight.”

AAG of the OLC Seitz should contact ODNI Deputy IG Charles McCullough because he is President Obama’s ODNI IG Nominee. He was the NSA/Central Security Service Assistant IG for Investigations. He held various positions at the FBI, including Supervisory Special Agent (1999-2001), Associate Division Counsel (1997-1999), and Special Agent (1991-1997).

59 YY. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of Acting HHS General Counsel William Schultz whether he will be informing HHS Secretary Sebelius whether any of the HHS FOIA requested documents reveal that an HHS “stovepipe” had bypassed the 1984- 2011 HHS Secretaries re the diversion of HHS funds to pay for the NSA domestic intelligence program data banks not paid for with classified OMB Budget funds

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of Acting HHS General Counsel William Schultz whether he will be informing HHS Secretary Sebelius whether any of the HHS FOIA requested documents reveal that an HHS “stovepipe” had bypassed the 1984-2011 HHS Secretaries re the diversion of HHS funds to pay for the NSA domestic intelligence program data banks not paid for with classified OMB Budget funds. Acting HHS General Counsel Schultz has a duty to inform HHS Secretary Sebelius if HHS General Counsel del Real was a CIA covered agent because this would trigger the Bowen v City of New York “clandestine” policy as applied to the millions of 1994-2011 Ford v Shalala class members. See § X above.

Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant’s de novo September 13, 2011 HHS FOIA request, docketed as 2011-1399KE, sought the July 27, 2010 FOIA requested documents

1. Ford-Ruppert-Jackson” nonacquiescence policy documents 2. 1982-1986 “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” documents 3. 1982-1990 Ruppert remand” documents 4. 1984-1988 “Robert v Holz “Fraud Against the Government” documents 5. April 21, 1986 public comments” for the amendment of the “Jackson” regulation 6. 1987 HHS copy of “IMC Investigation Final Report” document 7. January 12, 1990 public comments” for the SSI nonacquiescence policy 8. June 14, 1991 unredacted June 14, 1991 “Rental Subsidies Decision” and Tabs 9. 1991 “Navarro nonacquiescence policy” documents 10. 1992-2009 NYS reimbursement of 50% federal share of recovered funds” documents 11. 1996-2007 “CMS Jackson” and “Ahlborn nonacquiecence policy” documents

Acting HHS General Counsel Schultz has a duty to read the # 3 “1982-1990 Ruppert remand” documents and # 4 “1984-1988 “Robert v Holz “Fraud Against the Government” documents because the companion DOJ documents were withheld in Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA based on FOIA Exemption 5 and not any classified Exemption. HHS Secretary Sebelius, his client, should know whether HHS and DOJ “Ruppert” and “Robert v Holz” documents are connect-the-dots documents that trigger the ”fraud” exception to the attorney- client privilege. HHS Secretary Sebelius, SG Verrelli’s Robert VIII client, should know how SG Verrelli handles appellant’s “fraud” argument to the FOIA Exemption 5 defense in SG Verrelli’s Brief in opposition to appellant’s Robert VIII petition for a writ of certiorari. See § GGG below.

Acting HHS General Counsel Schultz will learn from reading these documents whether HHS Regional Counsel Blum was working in concert with EDNY AUSA Nocenti to implement the Jackson nonacquiescence policy. This is an important fact because AUSA Nocenti would become AG Spitzer’s General Counsel and knows whether government attorneys seeking Robert’s disbarment provided false facts to the NYS Grievance Committee. If so, then Acting HHS General Counsel Schultz has a NYS Rule 3.3 duty to cure the misrepresentations.

60 ZZ. AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of SSA General Counsel Black whether he will be informing SSA Commissioner Astrue whether any of the de novo 9-13-11 SSA FOIA requested documents prove that SSA Commissioner Nominee Astrue’s January 24, 2007 Senate Finance Committee that the “nonacquiescence” policy had ended prior to his becoming HHS General Counsel in 1989, remains as uncured false testimony

AAG of the OLC Seitz has a duty to inquire of SSA General Counsel Black whether he will be informing SSA Commissioner Astrue whether any of the de novo 9-13-11 SSA FOIA requested documents prove that SSA Commissioner Nominee Astrue’s January 24, 2007 Senate Finance Committee that the “nonacquiescence” policy had ended prior to his becoming HHS General Counsel in 1989, remains as uncured false testimony in October, 2011. AAG of the OLC Seitz will learn from reading the Robert VIII DOJ, HHS, and SSA “Ruppert” documents withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5, that SSA Commissioner Astrue had “rigged” the 2009- 2011 SSA computer to apply the “Ruppert nonacquiescence” standard to the millions of 1994- 2011 Ford v Shalala class members without President Obama’s knowledge. See §§ KKK below.

SSA Commissioner Astrue was the 1985 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Legislation, 1986 Legal Counsel to the SSA Deputy Commissioner for Programs, 1986-1988 Counselor to the SSA Commissioner, 1988 Associate White House Counsel for President Reagan, 1989 Associate White House Counsel for President Bush, 1989-1992 HHS General Counsel, before becoming the 2007- SSA Commissioner. He knows whether he lied to the January 24, 2007 Senate Finance Committee hearing that the HHS “nonacquiescence” policy had ended prior to his becoming HHS General Counsel in 1989. “I am particularly proud of having led the effort to terminate the agency’s longstanding “nonacquiescence” policies, an achievement highlighted by Chairman Moynihan when I was last before you in 1989 during my confirmation hearing for General Counsel of HHS.” S.Hrg. 110-222. Emphasis Added. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ R-U, 1-4-11 PIAB WP, 4-11-11 OLC MDR WP , and 6-27-11 Senate Judiciary Com. WP.

Appellant’s de novo 9-13-11 FOIA request sought the same 7-27-10 SSA documents:

1. Ford-Ruppert-Jackson nonacquiescence policy documents 2. 1982-1986 “Jackson nonacquiescence policy” documents 3. 1982-1990 Ruppert remand documents 4. April 21, 1986 public comments for the amendment of the “Jackson” regulation 5. January 12, 1990 public comments for the SSI nonacquiescence policy 6. June 14, 1991 unredacted June 14, 1991 “Rental Subsidies Decision”and Tabs 7. 1991 “Navarro nonacquiescence policy” documents 8. 1996 SSA General Counsel Fried SSR-96-1p supporting documents 9. SSA v Robert “Blum exculpatory” documents, case file notes, and e-mails

SSA General Counsel David Black knows that EDNY AUSA Mahoney, the AG’s 1999- 2011 lead counsel in Ford v Shalala, knows that SSA Commissioner Astrue continues to apply the 1982 Jackson and 1990 Ruppert “nonacquiescence” policies to reduce by one-third the federal SSI benefits of the 1994-2011 Ford class members because the due process violations have not been cured. He knows whether SSA Commissioner Astrue is applying the FISA “secret law” to continue to fund the 1984-2011 NSA TSP domestic data banks. §§ T, U, W, X above.

61 AAA. AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo focuses the issue of AG Holder’s credibility as to his knowledge of the FISA “secret law” not provided to the Article I “Gang of Eight,” to Article II President Obama, and to Article III Judges including the FISC and Supreme Court

AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo focuses the issue of AG Holder’s credibility as to his knowledge of the FISA “secret law” facts not provided to the Article I “Gang of Eight,” to Article II President Obama, and to Article III Judges including the FISC and Supreme Court. If the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA “secret law” Memo reveals violations of § 413 (a) of the National Security Act, the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, and PCA limitations on military domestic law enforcement, than AG Holder has a duty to cure facts withheld from the “Gang of Eight”, President Obama, and Article III Judges including the FISC and the Supreme Court. See §§ EEE-III below.

As to AG Holder’s credibility with Congress, House Members could use the March 18, 2011 reclassified Memo as a pinata to discredit AG Holder. If the House Judiciary Committee requests that AG Holder produce the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo that explains the “secret law” that is the basis of the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance program revealed in the Washington Post July 19, 2019 series, then AG Holder will be asked to produce the document when his credibility is already under attack by that Committee. “Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to President Obama asking him to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether Mr. Holder committed perjury in testimony about the investigation, known as Operation Fast and Furious, at a hearing in May.” Savage, G.O.P.Accuses Holder of Misleading Congress, NY Times, 10-5-11.

As to AG Holder’s credibility with President Obama, if Congress requests the “secret law” May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo, then AG Holder will advise President Obama whether the President should assert executive privilege. However, President Obama will not make that executive privilege decision without first reading the FISA “secret law” document. President Obama will learn from reading this March 18, 2011 reclassified document, whether AG Holder knew the FISA “secret law” was the legal basis for the NSA domestic surveillance program revealed in the July 19, 2010 Washington Post series and did not inform the President of this fact and the President’s duty to file a § 413 (b) “corrective action” plan. See § JJJ below.

As to AG Holder’s credibility with Article III Judges including the FISC and Supreme Court, the “secret law” May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo reveals the mens rea of AG Holder on March 18, 2011 when the “secret law” reclassification decision was made. The Supreme Court and the FISC will know whether AG Holder took any action to cure the fact that AGs Edwin Meese (1985-1988), Richard Thornburgh (1988-1991), William Barr (1991-1993), Janet Reno (1993-2001), John Ashcroft (2001-2005), Judge Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), Acting AG Peter Keisler (2007), Judge Michael Mukasey (2007-2008), and Eric Holder (2009-), did not inform the 1985-2011 FISC that the “secret law” was based on AG Meese’s “Coordinate Branches of Government” theory and the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy. AG Holder’s Article III credibility will be tested if he files an Amnesty v Clapper petition for a writ of certiorari and does not inform the Supreme Court of the FISA “secret law” and instructs SG Verelli not to file a Brief in opposition to the Robert VIII petition for a writ of certiorari.

62 BBB. AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo reveals whether AG Holder’s Chief of Staff Grindler is withholding facts from AG Holder to provide him with a “plausible deniability” defense

AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo reveals whether AG Holder’s Chief of Staff Grindler is withholding facts from AG Holder to provide him with a “plausible deniability” defense. AG Holder’s Chief of Staff Grindler was the 2010 Acting DAG who succeeded DAG Ogden. He knew that the FISA “secret law” explained in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo was a “known-known” fact intentionally withheld from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court in Robert VII v DOJ, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39616, 193 Fed. Appx. 8 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. den. 127 S.Ct. 1133 (2007), and from Judge Garaufis and the Second Circuit in Robert VIII. See § C above.

AG Holder’s Chief of Staff Gary Grindler was DAG Holder’s Principal Associate DAG after being the Counselor AG Reno. He was a DAAG in the Civil Division during Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001) and Robert v DOJ, 2001 WL 34077473 (EDNY), 26 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2002). He knew why in October, 2000 DAG Holder had approved the Ford v Shalala decision not to perfect EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch’s appeal. He had been a SDNY AUSA and knew why SDNY U.S. Attorney Giuliani had refused to defend the “nonacquiescence” policies of HHS General Counsel del Real and AAG of the Civil Division Willard. In 2000, he received the Edmund J. Randolph Award in recognition of his outstanding contributions to DOJ. He became Acting DAG on February 5, 2010. DOJ “chain of command” attorneys placed him on Notice of the Robert VIII appellant’s allegation that DOJ attorneys had committed a “fraud upon the court” by withholding facts from Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court in Robert VII. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ E-G, N, M, V, W, AAA.

AG Holder’s Chief of Staff Grindler is now the focal point of the dispute between Chairman Darrell Issa of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and AG Holder as to the information that Chief of Staff Grindler had provided AG Holder re Operation Fast and Furious. In his October 7, 2011 letter to Chairman Issa, AG Holder explained how he received information from his staff who culled information re sensitive cases. “Attorneys in my office and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General review these weekly reports and bring to my attention only those matters deemed to require my consideration or action.” Id. 3. http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Letters/Letter_from_the_Attorney_General_10_7_11.p df. In his October 10, 2011 responding letter to AG Holder, Chairman Issa informed AG Holder that he presumed Chief of Staff Grindler had provided accurate information to AG Holder as his Chief of Staff and when he had been Acting DAG. “It is fair to infer from the fact that Grindler remains as your Chief of Staff that he did not engage in gross dereliction of his duties and told you about the program as far back as March, 2010.” http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/10/10/full- text-rep-darrell-issa-sends-letter-to-ag-eric-holder-you-own-fast-and-furious/.

The October, 2011 issue is now whether 2010 Acting DAG Grindler and 2011 Chief of Staff Grindler ever informed AG Holder of the FISA “secret law” that is the basis for the NSA domestic surveillance program. AAG of the OLC Seitz has an affirmative duty to warn AG Holder that House Oversight Committees will learn whether Chief of Staff Grindler has withheld from AG Holder the March 18, 2011 OLC decision to reclassify the 1985 FISA “secret law.”

63 CCC. AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that AG Holder’s credibility will be tested by investigative reporters who file their own OLC FOIA request for the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 FISA “secret law” memo and ask AG Holder how-could- this-have-ever happened questions for which AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the answers

AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that AG Holder’s credibility will be tested by investigative reporters who file their own OLC FOIA request for the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 “secret law” FISA memo and ask AG Holder how-could-this-have-ever happened questions for which AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the answers. These how-could-this-have- ever-happened questions will be based on the public’s “known-known” knowledge of the existence of the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance program and their “known- unknown” knowledge that there was an off-OMB Budget funding source of the 1985-2011 NSA TSP data banks that were not funded with classified OMB Budget funds. See § TT above.

AAG of the OLC Seitz has read investigative reporters Priest and Arkin Washington Post July 19, 2010 “Top Secret America” series explaining the NSA domestic surveillance program, and knows what the public learned from viewing the eye-opening and jaw-dropping Locator Map. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/map/ AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that the reclassified May 6, 2004 “secret law” memo provides the answer for investigative reporters who ask AG Holder the how-could-this-have-ever happened question as to the legal basis for the thousands of USG and private contractor work locations hidden in plain sight and manned by tens of thousands of analysts using NCTC Access Guidelines that ODNI Director Clapper’s General Counsel Litt and IG Mazur cannot locate. See §§ WW, XX below.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows from de jure Jackson and Ruppert “nonacquiescence” policy documents, the answer to the investigative reporters how-could-this-have-ever-happened question as to whether unaudited SSI monies were the off-OMB Budget HHS-SSA funding source for the “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks not funded with classified OMB Budget funds. She knows the answer to the how-could- this-have-ever-happened Ford v Shalala-12-years-and-no-remedy question, is found in the OLC Christensen and Ford de jure “nonacquiescence” policy documents. See §§ W, X above.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the public has a general understanding of the Orwellian scope of the 2011 NSA-ODNI-FBI domestic surveillance program. The public knows that the CBS TV show Person of Interest is fiction. “According to CBS, Person of Interest received the highest test ratings of any drama pilot in 15 years, what one CBS executive called ‘crazy broad appeal you don't usually see.’”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_Interest_(TV_series). She knows the movie “J Edgar” to be released in November, 2011, will tell the not-so- fictionalized story of how FBI Director Hoover leveraged information secured from illegal FBI wiretaps. She knows investigative reporters asking AG Holder questions also know the non-fiction FBI “known-known” facts that subsequent FBI Directors illegally spied on U.S. citizens. See A Review of the FBI’s Investigations of Certain Domestic Advocacy Groups, IG Fine, September, 2010. “The FBI does not operate under a general statutory charter that identifies permitted investigative activities or places limitations on the use of particular investigative techniques.” Id. 5. http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s1009r.pdf. These investigative reporters will learn that FBI Directors were never held accountable for illegally spying on U.S. citizens. See § PP above.

64 DDD AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that because of the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA “secret law” memo, investigative reporters who file their own FOIAs will not be fooled by General Counsels’ deceptive use of “Glomar Response” defenses

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that because of the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA “secret law” memo, investigative reporters who file their own FOIAs will not be fooled by agencies’ General Counsels’ deceptive use of “Glomar Response” defenses. If FOIA Officers try to fool the investigative reporters with “Glomar Response” defenses, then they will “walk back the cat” and learn the names of the General Counsels’ faux “Commanders in Chief” who made the “Glomar Response” decisions without the knowledge of their Presidents.

President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526 continued the prior National Security E.O.s use of the “Glomar Response” at § 3.6 Processing Requests and Review:

a) An agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of requested records whenever the fact of their existence or nonexistence is itself classified under this order or its predecessors. Emphasis Added.

OLC Special Counsel Colborn did not use the “Glomar Response” defense in his September 30, 2011 decision denying the release of the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 9, 2004 OLC Memo to AG Holder, but FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, 5. Special Counsel Colborn knew that because a prior “Glomar Response” order did not exist for this document, he could not deny the FOIA request based on a prior classification order that classified the “fact” of the “existence or nonexistence” of this FOIA requested OLC document. See §§ H-J above and § JJJ below.

This is an important September 30, 2011 decision because agencies’ General Counsels who advise their FOIA Officers to use variations of “Glomar Response” to deny the de novo 9- 13-11 FOIA requests, will have established a paper trail for investigative reporters who appeal the “cannot locate responsive documents” decisions. The investigative reporters know that if an agency General Counsel uses a “Glomar Response” defense, then a classified Order should exist that authorized the “existence or nonexistence” FOIA defense for a classified document.

The investigative reporters will know that if in a FOIA action AG Holder defends the “Glomar Response” decision, then he will have a duty to file a “c (3) exclusion” ex parte Declaration with the Article III Judge explaining the national security risk if the FOIA plaintiff learned of “existence or nonexistence” of the FOIA requested document. They will know that AG Holder is to apply AG Meese’s December, 1987 Attorney General’s Memorandum on the 1986 Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. “Where an exclusion was not in fact employed, the in camera declaration will simply state that fact, together with an explanation to the judge of why the very act of its submission and consideration by the court was necessary to mask whether that is or is not the case.” Id. 20. http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/86agmemo.htm.

If investigative reporters receive “Glomar Response” denials, then they will know the agency General Counsel is complying with a “Glomar Response” order. They will know a “reclassification” decision was made by a designated FOIA Officer whose “chain of command” officer is supposed to be Commander in Chief Obama. See 3-18-11 ISCAP ODNI WP §§ C, H.

65 EEE. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the answer to the 2012 putative House Judiciary Committee impeachment question: What did President Obama know about the NSA domestic surveillance program and the illegal intelligence activity that was revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo, and when did he know it?

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the answer to the 2012 putative House Judiciary Committee impeachment question: What did President Obama know about the NSA domestic surveillance program and the illegal intelligence activity that was revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo, and when did he know it? AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether in October, 2011 President Obama continues to breach his 50 U.S.C. § 413 (b) of the National Security Act duty to file a “corrective action” plan to cure the illegal intelligence activities that are revealed in the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo.

Like Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, President Obama had a “plausible deniability” defense to the serial violation of the § 413 (a) of the National Security Act, the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, the PCA limitations on military domestic law enforcement, and the Social Security Act. President Obama did not know of the 1985-2011 serial federal law violations because of the existence of the 2009-2011 daisy-chain of “shadow government” attorney-patriots who implemented the “Unitary Executive” theory of AG Meese and reported to the 2009-2011 faux “Commander in Chief ” who was not President Obama. See § BB above.

However, after the March 18, 2011 reclassification decision was made as to the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo, President Obama should have known that the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy was the illegal basis for the “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance program, and begin the process of gathering facts to fulfill his § 413 (b) duty to file the “corrective action” plan to cure the serial violations of federal laws. If President Obama did not know of the March 18, 2011 reclassification decision because AG Holder withheld this fact from the President, then he learned of the illegal data mining from the media frenzy that resulted from the pre-publication of Jane Mayer’s May 23, 2011 The New Yorker The Secret Sharer article re NSA “whistleblower” Drake, the 60 Minutes May 22, 2011 U.S. v Whisteblower Tom Drake segment, and the rounds of subsequent “talking heads” analyses. See §§ CCC above.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that for conservative House Intelligence Committee Members, an Orwellian-Hooveresque NSA domestic surveillance program is evidence of a “Big Brother” government.. This is especially true if there are tens of thousands analysts data mining the 1985-2011 NSA TSP data banks acting as the “Thought Police” when they use algorithms to harvest the 1985-2011 digital telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens that are now under the “command and control” of DOD Cyber Commander-NSA Director Lt. General Alexander. This will become an impeachment issue if Chairman Smith requests that AG Holder produce the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 document. See §§ BB, BBB above.

AAG of the OLC Seitz also knows whether in October, 2011 President Obama is breaching his Article II “take Care” duty by violating the due process and equal protection rights of Ford class members by application of the OLC Jackson and Ruppert “nonacquiescence” policies. For House Members, President Obama’s breach of his Article II “take care” duty to millions of 2012 SSI recipients is both an impeachment and an election issue. §§ M, N above.

66 FFF. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo proves the serial impeachable violation of §413 (a) of the National Security Act

AAG of the OLC Seitz know s whether the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo proves the serial impeachable violation of §413 (a) of the National Security Act. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether May 6, 2004 OLC Memo to AG Ashcroft explains the FISA “secret law” that was never reported to the “Gang of Eight” as required by § 413 (a) of the National Security Act. She knows whether any President filed a § 413 (a) Notification as to the existence of the pre-9/11 NSA TSP, because she knows AG Gonzales’ December 22, 2005 § 413 (a) letter to the “Gang of Eight” was retroactive Notification of the post-9/11 NSA TSP, but not retroactive Notification of the 1984-2001 pre-9/11 NSA TSP. She knows when NSA Directors data mined the NSA domestic surveillance data banks, this was not reported to the “Gang of Eight.”

50 U.S.C. § 413, Reports to Congressional committees of intelligence activities and anticipated activities, establishes a straight forward standard:

(a) Reports to Congressional committees of intelligence activities and anticipated activities (1) The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this subchapter. (2) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as requiring the approval of the congressional intelligence committees as a condition precedent to the initiation of any significant anticipated intelligence activity.

On June 30, 2011, AAG of the OLC Seitz was confirmed by the Senate. She technically succeeded AAG of the OLC Goldsmith who resigned on June 30, 2004. On March 18, 2011, former-AAG of the OLC Goldsmith commented on his blog as to the release of the May 6, 2004 OLC Memo and the importance of reading the entire memo and other classified documents:

An understanding of my views and actions requires reading the memorandum and other classified documents in their entirely, which is not possible today. I continue to believe that the memorandum provides a sound analysis of a difficult set of legal issues encountered in a difficult context. Emphasis Added. http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/03/doj- releases-redacted-version-of-2004-surveillance-opinion/

If AAG of the OLC Seitz read the “memorandum and other classified documents in their entirely,” then she knows whether AG Holder knows whether the FISA “secret law” has not been reported to the Congress as required by 50 U.S.C. § 413 (a). If AG Holder knows that the FISA “secret law” has not been reported to the “Gang of Eight” by any President, then AG Holder knows he has an affirmative duty to inform President Obama that there has been a serial impeachable violation of 50 U.S.C. § 413 (a) because Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama had not reported to Congress the fact that the NSA has been data mining the 1984- 2001 NSA TSP data banks not reported in AG Gonzales December 22, 2005 § 413 (a) letter.

67 GGG. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether the reclassified May 6, 2004 Memo proves that there are uncured serial impeachable violations of “exclusivity provision” of the FISA

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether the reclassified May 6, 2004 Memo proves that there are uncured impeachable violations of “exclusivity provision” of the FISA of 1978. She knows whether the FISA “secret law” May 6, 2004 OLC Memo to AG Ashcroft explains that the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA was an encroachment on the President’s unlimited Article II Commander in Chief authority to take what ever action was necessary to protect the nation from terrorists. She knows that until AG Gonzales provided the § 413 (a) Notification to the “Gang of Eight” on December 22, 2005, that the 1984-2004 NSA domestic surveillance program was conducted in violation of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA of 1978. See §§ A-C above.

The “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f), provides:

procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted. Emphasis added.

AAG of the OLC Goldsmith wrote the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo to AG Ashcroft after the infamous March 10, 2004 confrontation between WH Counsel Gonzales and AG Ashcroft, DAG Comey, and FBI Director Mueller in AG Ashcroft’s hospital room. As a result, this May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo is “smoking gun” evidence of the serial impeachable FISA “secret law” violations of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA. Appellant will argue in his Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA petition for a writ of certiorari, the May 6, 2004 OLC Memo is a connect-the-dots document with the withheld Robert VIII “Robert v Holz” and Robert VII “FISC Robert” documents that on March 1, 2004 OIPR Baker had read when he affirmed the CIA’s use of FOIA Exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense. He will argue these documents prove that AG Meese had targeted a U.S. citizen for illegal NSA TSP wiretapping.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether in his May 6, 2004 FISA Memo to AG Ashcroft, AAG of the OLC Goldsmith discussed the classified June, 1985 Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy decision of AAG of the OLC Cooper. If so, then she also knows AAG of the OLC Bybee made the November, 2002 reclassification decision as to the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy, pursuant to President Ford’s November 2, 2002 Presidential Signing Statement establishing the national security exception to the duty of AG Ashcroft to report Mitchell v Forsyth as a 28 U.S.C. § 530D “nonacquiescence case. See §§ D, E above.

House Members who have read investigative reporters Priest and Arkin’s Washington Post “Top Secret America” explaining the NSA domestic surveillance program, and who viewed the Locator Map identifying thousands of government and private work locations manned by tens of thousands of analysts, know that Congress intended that the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA was to be an Article I check and balance on Article II domestic wiretapping of U.S. citizens without Article III warrants. Hence, the impeachment significance of FISA “secret law” admissions in the May 6, 2004 Memo and DOJ wiretap transcripts of Robert’s telephone calls.

68 HHH. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo proves serial impeachable violations of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 limitations on military domestic law enforcement when the military NSA Directors data mined the NSA data banks

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo proves serial impeachable violations of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 limitations on military domestic law enforcement when the military NSA Directors data mined the NSA data banks. This is a timely issue because of 535 Members of Congress knowledge of the Orwellian “Top Secret America” domestic surveillance program explained in the July 19, 2009 Washington Post series. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP § K, 1-4-11 PIAB WP §§ 1-13 , 6-27-11 Sen. Jud. Com. WP. §§ A-E, Z.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, provides:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Emphasis Added.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether the FISA “secret law” explained in AAG OLC Goldsmith’s FISA Memo to AG Ashcroft, was the basis for the pre-9/11 NSA data mining with the Thin Thread algorithm that NSA “whistleblower” Drake described in Jane Mayer’s 5-23-11 New Yorker article “The Secret Sharer.” AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether AG Holder knows of NSA Directors’ military data mining the NSA TSP data banks from his U.S.A. v Drake, CIPA Notice and approval of the Drake plea bargain. “Wow,” he said. “There is a third branch of government.” Shane, No Jail Time in Trial Over N.S.A. Leak, NY Times, 7-16-11.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether the FISA “secret law” explained in AAG OLC Goldsmith’s May 6, 2004 OLC Memo was the “secret law” that AAG of the OLC Dellinger relied upon when he issued the April 5, 1994 OLC opinion that established a “passive-active participation” test that was to limit the military participation in domestic “law enforcement” to monitoring electronic surveillance. “We conclude that military personnel are presently authorized to perform such monitoring operations under a proper reading of the pertinent statutes. Although clarifying legislation on this issue could be considered desirable in the sense that it always is when a statute’s interpretation is not entirely free from doubt, we do not believe that such legislation is necessary in this instance.” Id. 1. Emphasis Added. Memorandum for Jo Ann Harris Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Re: Use of Military Personnel for Monitoring Electronic Surveillance.http://www.snowflake5391.net/OLC%204-5-94.pdf.

The issue of 2011 impeachable PCA violations has been made timely by ISCAP Executive Secretary Fitzgerald’s September 27, 2011 decision that ISCAP does not have jurisdiction to consider the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA appellant’s 8-12-11 ISCAP ODNI MDR request, because of ODNI General Counsel Litt’s use of the “Glomar Response” defense with the knowledge of ODNI IG Mazur. “That Office has repeatedly attempted to identify the materials responsive to your appeal, and these efforts have failed to locate the responsive records.” A House PCA impeachment issue may be why there are no NCTC Guidelines to limit 2011 military data mining of NSA domestic data banks. See §§ WW, XX above.

69 III. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether the reclassified May 6, 2004 Memo proves the serial impeachable violation of the Social Security Act by the diversion of HHS-SSA funds

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether the reclassified May 6, 2004 Memo proves the serial impeachable violation of the Social Security Act by the diversion of HHS-SSA funds. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether the Jackson, Ruppert, Christensen, and Ford are classified “nonacquiescence” cases. If so, then she knows whether the 1984-2011 “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the NSA TSP data banks have been funded with off-OMB Budget HHS/SSA funds because the data banks could not be funded with OMB classified funds. If so, then AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that the diversion of SSI funds to pay for the NSA TSP data banks is a 2011 impeachable violation of the Social Security Act. See §§ T,U, W, X above.

AAG of the OLC Seitz was appointed by the Majority and Minority leaders of the Congress to be a 1995-2000 Member of the Board of Directors of the Congressional Office of Compliance. As a result, she is sensitive to Article I and Article II Separation of powers issues as to the President fulfilling his Article II “take Care that the laws are faithfully executed” duty.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether President Obama has breached his Article II “take Care” duty to the millions of 2009-2011 Ford v Shalala class members who do not reside in the Seventh Circuit states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. She knows that President Obama is violating the Social Security Act because she knows that Congress intended that the SSI program have uniform federal standards equally applied in all 50 States. She knows whether President Obama knows that he is not equally enforcing the SSI “Jackson regulation” 20 C.F.R. § 416 1130 (b), income regulation for SSI recipients who do not reside in the Seventh Circuit.

AAG of the OLC Seitz also knows the answer to the how-could-this-have-ever-happened Ford v Shalala-12-years-and-no-remedy question. She knows that the answer is based on AAG of the OLC Bybee’s November, 2002 decisions to reclassify the 1982 Jackson, 1990 Ruppert, 2000 Christensen, and 2007 Ford “nonacquiescence” policy decisions because the unaudited ”Jackson nonacquiescence policy” HHS/SSA funds continued to be needed to pay for the “immaculate construction” and maintenance of the 1984-2011 NSA TSP data banks that he knew could not be funded with classified OMB Budget funds because Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush did not file any § 413 (a) Notification with Congress. See §§ C-E above.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that the 2011 faux “Commander in Chief” who is not President Obama, will be unable to provide a “straight face” answer to why President Obama is at risk of impeachment because he is violating the Social Security Act by not equally enforcing the “Jackson” regulation in all States. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows there is a faux Commander in Chief because she knows President Obama possesses the Schweiker v. Chilicky, 108 S. Ct. 2460 (1988), “normal sensibilities” of human beings as applied to the millions of 1994-2011 SSI recipients who are Ford class members. “The trauma to respondents, and thousands of others like them, must surely have gone beyond what anyone of normal sensibilities would wish to see imposed on innocent disabled citizens. Id. at 2470. See 7-27-10 DOJ WP §§ C, O-U, Z, ZZ

AAG of the OLC Seitz should use the impeachable SSI violation to reverse bully the faux “Commander in Chief” who is not President Obama. This will end this legal nightmare in 2011.

70 JJJ. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that President Obama has a 50 U.S.C. § 413 (b) of the National Security Act duty to file a “corrective action” plan to cure all illegal intelligence activities revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 FISA “secret law” memo

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that President Obama has a 50 U.S.C. § 413 (b) of the National Security Act duty to file a “corrective action” plan to cure the illegal intelligence activities revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 FISA “secret law” memo. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows that if President Obama files a 2011 § 413 (b) “corrective action” plan that cures the illegal intelligence activities that occurred during the Constitutional watches of Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, then this would preempt a 2012 House impeachment proceeding re his failure to file a § 413 (b) plan when he learned that none of the former-Presidents had filed a § 413 (a) Notification of the existence of the pre-9/11 NSA TSP and the NSA Directors’ data-mining of these data banks without FISC Orders. § EEE above.

50 U.S.C. § 413, Reports to Congressional committees of intelligence activities and anticipated activities, establishes a “shall” standard for filing a “corrective action” plan:

(b) Reports concerning illegal intelligence activities The President shall ensure that any illegal intelligence activity is reported promptly to the congressional intelligence committees, as well as any corrective action that has been taken or is planned in connection with such illegal activity. Emphasis Added.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows from reading the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA “secret law” memo whether this reclassified document contains admissions of illegal intelligence activity that was conducted in violation of § 413 (a) of the National Security Act, the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA, and PCA military limitations. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows whether any AG filed a § 413 (a) Notification with the “Gang of Eight” that reported the existence of the pre-9/11 NSA TSP data banks and the NSA data mining that was not reported by AG Gonzales in his December 22, 2005 § 413 (a) retroactive Notification of the post-9/11 NSA TSP, but not of the pre-9/11 NSA TSP as revealed in the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA memo.

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows from reading AG Holder’s April 8, 2011 U.S.A. v Drake CIPA Notice upon which AG Holder approved the “gray mail” plea agreement with NSA whistleblower Drake, that AG Holder knew “whistleblower” Drake’s allegations were true because NSA Director Hayden had conducted illegal data-mining without § 413 (a) retroactive Notification. This is an important time-line fact if AG Holder knew of the illegal data-mining when he first approved the indictment of Drake, and when he filed his May 12, 2011 Amnesty v Clapper petition to rehear en banc the Second Circuit’s March 21, 2011 decision which was after the March 18, 2011 decision to reclassify the May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo. §§ I, J above.

Therefore, AAG of the OLC Seitz can use her knowledge that AG Holder knows that NSA Director Hayden’s used the Thin Thread algorithm to data-mine the pre-9/11 “Top Secret America” NSA domestic surveillance data banks, in a “heads up” memo for AG Holder re the May 6, 2004 FISA Memo’s admissions of illegal intelligence activity. In this memo, she can advise Holder to advise President Obama to file a § 413 (b) “corrective action” plan in 2011.

71 KKK. AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA ongoing quiet settlement offer is consistent with the suggested 2011 § 413 (b) of the National Security Act “correction action” plan for President Obama to file to cure the illegal intelligence activities revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified March 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo

AAG of the OLC Seitz knows the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA quiet settlement offer is consistent with the suggested 2011 § 413 (b) of the National Security Act “correction action” plan for President Obama to file to cure the illegal intelligence activities revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified March 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo. Appellant’s suggested § 413 (b) “corrective action” plan was presented to Chairman Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee. See the 6-27-11 letter to Chairman Feinstein and Senate Intelligence Committee. WP § Z.

Appellant’s ongoing quiet settlement offer includes the same elements as the respectfully suggested 2011 President Obama § 413 (b) “correction action” plan:

1. An ODNI “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” that was a Universal Access Guideline that applied to data mining the universe of USG and private company data banks.

2. An Order that AG Holder cure the misrepresentations of the “exclusivity provision” of the FISA made to Article III Judges and to provide a remedy for illegally targeted U.S. citizens.

3. An Order that SSA Commissioner Astrue “make true” his January 24, 2007 testimony that the “nonacquiescence” policy ended prior to his becoming HHS General Counsel in 1989.

If accepted, this quiet settlement offer would eliminate the § 413 (b) impeachment issue. The March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 Memo would be declassified. See § EEE above.

If accepted, this quiet settlement offer would eliminate the need for appellant to file the November, 2011 petition for a writ of certiorari. There would be no need for a Motion seeking Judge Garaufis’ pre-clearance Order to file a FOIA complaint seeking the mosaic of documents to prove to Judge Garaufis that DOJ attorneys had violated NYS Judiciary Law § 487 by intentionally implementing the “Barrett nonacquiescence policy” and withholding material facts that would prove that in Robert VII v DOJ DOJ attorneys had made Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court the “handmaiden” of the DOJ attorneys. See §§ H-K above.

If accepted, this quiet settlement offer would eliminate the need for AG Holder to use the litigation strategy of threatening USG attorneys with Espionage Act violations if they indirectly revealed the existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program that is a public “known- known” fact because of the Washington Post series. This would result in USG attorneys fulfilling their NYS Rule 3.3 duty to cure misrepresentations of fact and law that they know have been made to Article III Judges including the FISC and Supreme Court. See §§ F, J, L, M, N above.

If accepted, this quiet settlement offer would eliminate President Obama’s ongoing breach of his Article II “take care that the law are faithfully enforced” as to due process and equal protection rights the millions of 1994-2011 Ford v Shalala class members. This would prove President Obama possesses the “normal sensibilities” of human beings. §§ W, X above.

72 LLL. AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that if the quiet settlement offer is rejected, then 2012 litigation will seek documents to prove the 24 USG attorneys identified above knew SG Verrelli had committed Supreme Court déjà vu "fraud upon the court” by withholding the FISA "secret law" explained in the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo

AAG of the OLC Seitz is placed on Notice that if the quiet settlement offer is rejected, then 2012 litigation will seek documents to prove that the 24 USG attorneys identified above knew SG Verrelli had committed Supreme Court déjà vu "fraud upon the court” by withholding the FISA "secret law" explained in the reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC Memo. This Notice is in order that AAG of the OLC Seitz provides SG Verrelli with the tandem 9-13-11 FOIA requested OLC documents in order that SG Verrelli provides accurate facts to the Supreme Court in the USG’s Brief in opposition to the Robert VIII petition for a writ of certiorari. See §§ H-J above.

If the quiet settlement offer is rejected, then after the Supreme Court decides the Robert v DOJ, HHS, SSA petition for a writ of certiorari, appellant will file his Robert VIII Motion seeking Judge Garaufis' pre-clearance Order for appellant to file his FOIA complaint. He will inform Judge Garaufis that he seeks the release of the tandem September 13, 2011 OLC FOIA requested mosaic of documents to prove to Judge Garaufis that SGs Clement and Verrelli had committed a "fraud upon the court" Robert VII and Robert VIII in concert with other USG attorneys, This was to cover up what the USG attorneys knew were serial impeachable violations of § 413 of the National Security Act, the "exclusivity provision” of the FISA, the Posse Comitatus Act limitations on military domestic law enforcement, the Social Security Act, and President Obama's December 29, 2009 E.O. § 1.7, Classification Prohibitions and Limitations,

After EDNY U.S. Attorney Lynch files AG Holder's Motion to Dismiss Robert’s FOIA Motion, he will file his Bivens action alleging that USG attorneys have violated his First Amendment right of access to the Courts by committing serial "fraud upon the court" to the FISC, Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court. His complaint will cite to the mosaic of connect-the-dots of the 9-13-11 FOIA requested documents that will prove what SGs Clement and Verrelli knew and when they knew it. He will allege that the SGs had made the Justices of the Supreme Court the "handmaiden" of AGs Gonzales and Holder and their "clients " the faux "Commander and Chiefs" who were not Presidents Bush and Obama. “Under no circumstances should the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive.” Doe, et. al. v Mukasey, Mueller, and Caproni, 549 F 3d 861, 870 (2d Cir. 2008). See §§ K, BB above.

Appellant intends to serve this White Paper by certified RRR mail on all 24 attorneys. In this way, if SG Verrelli commits a déjà vu "fraud upon the court " in Robert VIII, then President Obama's Special Counsel and Congressional Oversight Committees can later learn whether these 24 attorneys had ratified SG Verelli's Supreme Court "fraud upon the court" litigation decision, or whether "fifth column" agency "stovepipes" lead to the faux "Commander in Chief" who is not President Obama and who makes FISA "secret law" decisions re the 1984- 2012 NSA TSP without President Obama's knowledge. In order to prevent USG attorneys’ "fraud upon the court" in the Bivens action, he will cite investigative reporters to the DOJ's FRCP 11 pleadings posted on line along with a mosaic of 1982-2011 documents which identify the "Past is Prologue" attorney-patriots who know the names of their faux Commanders in Chief who made 1985-2011 FISA "secret law" decisions without the knowledge of their Presidents.

73 MMM. Summary

2012 will be a very ugly election year. Therefore, out of courtesy and respect for President Obama, November, 2011 is the time for AAG of the OLC Seitz to stand up to the bullying by the faux “Commander of Chief” who is not President Obama. AAG of the OLC Seitz should review OLC Special Counsel Colborn’s September 30, 2011 decision not to release the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memo and not to decide the de novo 9- 13-11 request for OLC documents. These OLC documents reveal whether a FISA “secret law” has been implemented without the knowledge of the Article I “Gang of Eight”, Article II Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and Article III FISC and Supreme Court.

November, 2011 is not the time for AAG of the OLC Seitz to implement a “conscious avoidance” of facts Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA litigation strategy. “Conscious avoidance occurs when a person deliberately closes his eyes to avoid having knowledge of what would otherwise be obvious to him.” U.S. v. Reyes, 302 F.3d 48, 49-50 (2d Cir. 2002). In November, 2011, AG Holder and SG Verrelli will be deciding whether to file an Amnesty v Clapper petition for a writ of certiorari and a Brief in opposition to the Robert VIII petition for a writ of certiorari, with the knowledge that the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 “secret law” OLC FISA Memo reveals whether the 1985-2011 Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy is based on AG Meese’s Catch 22 “Coordinate Branches of Government” theory.

The OLC documents are “Past is Prologue” documents because they reveal how USG attorneys had intentionally withheld material facts from President Reagan in order to provide President Reagan with a “plausibility defense” to the implementation of the “secret law” of the Mitchell v Forsyth “nonacquiescence” policy and the serial impeachable violations of § 413 (a) of the National Security Act, “exclusivity provision of the FISA, PCA limitation on military domestic law enforcement, and the Social Security Act. These are “Past” facts which are a “Prologue” to the “plausibility defense” the 2009-2011 daisy-chain of “shadow government” attorney-patriots are providing President Obama as revealed in the March 18, 2011 reclassified May 6, 2004 OLC FISA Memorandum to AG Ashcroft now in the custody of AAG of the OLC Seitz. “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana.

Therefore, AAG of the OLC Seitz should instruct OLC Special Counsel Colborn to timely process the 9-13-11 de novo request for the 9-15-10 OLC FOIA requested documents that reveal whether the Robert VIII appellant’s almost incredible allegation is true that AG and WH “stovepipes” continue to exist in 2011. If so, then a faux “Commander in Chief” continues to be making 2011 FISA “secret law” decisions without the knowledge of Article I “Gang of Eight”, the Article II President Obama, and the Article III FISC and Supreme Court.

However, in 2012 the FISC, Judge Garaufis, the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court, the public, investigative reporters, and 435 House Members, will know that the 1984-2012 Orwellian-Hooveresque NSA domestic surveillance program is being conducted by DOD Cyber Commander-NSA Director Lt. General Alexander. He is applying the 2012 “NCTC TSP and PSP data banks access guidelines” that President Obama’s ISCAP Executive Director Fitzgerald could not locate. “I think I should understand that better,' Alice said very politely, `if I had it written down: but I can't quite follow it as you say it.” Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland.

74