Antidotes to Powerlessness, Part 2: Inspecting the DoJ and the FBI

by Mary Maxwell, currently a candidate for US Senate

Members of governments often act ultra vires, beyond power. That is, they do things, in office, that they are not authorized by law to do. The proper response to an illicit extension of government’s authority is, of course, to make them stop.

You may recall that we did this via the Declaration of Independence, wresting power from the tyrannical British king.  The thinking of the time was John Locke’s claim that the authority of the government is derived from “the consent of the governed.”

Many state constitutions say so.  Section 2 of Alabama’s 1901 state Constitution holds:

“That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.”

No Worries

Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution says: “All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them.”

I once attended a hearing of the NH House of Representatives Committee on telecommunications. A young man wearing an orange laborer’s jacket and a ponytail got into the citizen-witness box and said to the legislators “I respectfully remind you that you are my substitutes and agents.”

By the way, the US Constitution’s Article IV, section 4 also promises to come to the aid of a state that has lost its republican form of government (if so invited by the Legislator or Executive of that state).

So don’t you worry your pretty little head about the moral legitimacy of rebelling; it is extremely well established.  Nevertheless, such a traumatic thing as overthrowing a government is highly undesirable. I’m entirely agin’ it. Furthermore, I think the current overlords are so well-equipped that a “militia” opposing them could not succeed.

Why Does the Nation Have an Attorney General?

George Washington appointed the first Attorney General in 1789. It’s reasonable to think of the AG as being like a corporation’s in-house lawyer who’s on hand to advise that corporation. The AG advises the nation. He also advises the president. I have always thought this is a bit of a conflict of interest.

Today we also have a “Solicitor General” who seems to be the attorney (“solicitor”) that acts as the nation’s lawyer in court. If, say, the Supreme Court is hearing the case of So-and-So versus the United States, the Solicitor General argues for the defendant, the US.

In a corporation, the in-house lawyer will alert the directors to the possibility of suing someone who has wronged the corporation. I doubt if she will attempt to have the wrong-doer arrested. In any case she herself will not go out and arrest the miscreant.

Should an AG Do LE?

Personally I find it odd that the Cabinet post of Attorney General is also a law enforcer.

Article II, section 3 of the Constitution says of the President: “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” So, yes, the president would have to set up an office for the enforcement of federal law (or maybe he’d contract with the states so that they would fulfil this task).

In my mind, the in-house lawyer should be the Attorney General, and he should not also do any capturing of the criminals. Comparing this to a state I’d say he shouldn’t be both police and District Attorney. Let him run the prosecutions. (I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on this!)

Things get tricky when you have LE (law enforcement) personnel in the same department as the prosecutors. For instance, the Department of Justice had within it the DEA – Drug Enforcement Agency. Such groups famously look for “success” – big catches of drug-dealers. Presumably the boss, the AG, wants success, too.

The FBI Is Highly Suspect

In today’s Department of Justice we also find a most peculiar entity, the FBI. I assume it was put there by organized crime. J Edgar Hoover was famously unwilling to address the problem of the mafia during his long occupation of the position of FBI Director – from 1924 to 1972.

A glance at website fbi.gov tells you that “By 1908, the time was right for a new kind of agency to protect America.” Oh really? I thought the army and navy protected America from outside enemies, and the states protected their people. How would an investigative body do any protecting?

You may think you have seen, on the TV news, FBI men going after baddies. I recall when I was a child my family did not have TV but we were occasionally invited to a neighbor’s house to watch TV. There were exciting stories about “G-men.” It seems the FBI had a large budget to devote to self-promotion. They are still going at it at full tilt.

They Have No Authority

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is a bureau of INVESTIGATION. It investigates. It has no authority to do anything else. You realize it would need legislation to endow it with police duties, right? Congress has never passed such a law.

So, surprising as it may be, when the FBI arrests someone it is doing so as a citizen’s arrest, just as you or I might do. No joke. (I pass over the occasions when an FBI man is deputized by local police – that person is then acting as police.)

But haven’t we seen the FBI doing some brutal “law enforcement”? Well, if you or I make a citizen’s arrest and we injure the person we are arresting we may get sued by that person. It is the same with an FBI man who makes a citizen’s arrest.

Something about Immunity Perhaps?

Officers have “qualified immunity” when they are performing official jobs.  What if a person sues an FBI man for rough arrest? Recall how Ibragim Todashev in Florida was arrested rather roughly. Fatally, in fact. Does the law provide relief for that? Yes. The Todashev family currently suing for $30 million, under the Civil Rights law. (See 18 USC 1983). If they win, it is the taxpayer who will compensate the family. Doesn’t seem fair does it? Many cases have already been paid out for FBI “mistakes.”

I am sure there should be indictments of those officers – they do not have immunity for committing crime, no one does! The murder of Todashev was simply murder. It got papered over with words about self-defense of the murderer but “actions speak louder than words.”

Today’s hot issue should be “Why isn’t that FBI man (Aaron McFarlane) being indicted for murder?”, not why isn’t President Trump being indicted for …er… oops I forget what the media is accusing him of, but it’s not murder. He’s no Aaron McFarlane.

The Murder of Tamerlan Tsarnaev

A few days after the Marathon bombing in Boston, in April 2013, Tamerlan Tsarnaev was arrested by the FBI in Watertown, taken into custody and killed. The media and the FBI put out a fantastic story of how Tamerlan and his brother Jahar had shot at police and then Jahar, age 19, had jumped into an SUV and ran over Tamerlan. But CNN had already shown the live, unharmed Tamerlan being out in an FBI car. The story is a crock.

I want to do something about this outrageous lawlessness of the FBI, and thereby of the DoJ, don’t you?  By the way, speaking of conflict of interest, the Attorney General in 2015, Eric Holder, used the US Attorney function to screw Jahar Tsarnaev (I think that’s the appropriate word).

Thus if the FBI committed a murder (of Tamerlan), the truth could have come out at Jahar’s trial — but the US Attorney Carmen Ortiz ran the trial dishonestly. See?

The Opera House Message

One day in October, 2015, I stationed myself at Sydney harbour in front of the famous Opera House to compose a message to the Governor of Massachusetts (as that state was then called). Not sure if I knew at that time of the FBI murder of Todashev but I was aware of, and furious about, the FBI murder of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. I sought to tell the governor how he could arrest the FBI.

The series of article at hand is called “Antidotes to Powerlessness.” There is absolutely nothing missing in the law we inherited form Mother England and further adapted in the US. I challenge you to show me any significant omission in how to deal with crime.

If I sound silly talking about arresting the FBI, you have missed the point. Government operatives CAN and DO commit crimes in the course of what appears to be their job.

Here is how you sort it out. Killing innocent persons (Tsarnaev was innocent of bombing the Marathon) is not in their job. It’s “extra-curricula.” The FBI appears to be carrying out that “contract hit” on behalf of an entity other than the US. My concern in this series is: how to be not powerless in the face of such crime.

Cracking Down on the FBI

The governor of Assachusetts (I have named the state that, until it cleans up the Marathon case) is well able to crack down on the criminals. At the simplest level he can order state police to arrest the relevant FBI persons. I would include Richard DesLauriers on the arrest warrant. He was the FBI chief in Boston that day, but has since gone to work for a security company. Natch.

The governor could also go to court seeking an injunction against what the FBI is doing, just as a person files for a restraining order against a violent spouse. His state attorney general could also file a RICO lawsuit in the prosecution mode. (See my Open letter to the Assachusetts Attorney Gen.) Note: citizens of Watertown can file RICO as a civil action if they suffered economic loss.

(Granted, the statute of limitations is up but I say wherever the force of government has prevented information from getting out, the tolling of the statute must be delayed.)

Beyond that, the governor can look to Article 8 of his state constitution. It says he can call out the militia against invaders. That is correct – he can do battle against the killers. The Lexington Green could light up once more!

The Media Is in On It

For weeks now the mass media has labored hard in the fields to bring us nonsense news about “Department of Justice matters.” They would never report my Opera House talk, would they? Well, actually they did — an Alabama news outlet making a spoof of it on Youtube. But even that shows they are in on it, and need to disrupt my message. As well, it was they who just about bludgeoned the people of Boston with emotional stories about the victims of the marathon bombing.

Is there a way to crack down on the media for crime? Sure is. Stay tuned for Part 3.

In the meantime, as that old saying goes: a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

–Mary Maxwell’s book, Marathon Bombing: Indicting the Players, is at Amazon for a tenner, and is a free download at her campaign website www.MaxwellForSenate.com