by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
What Sidney Powell is saying about the DoJ and FBI is what I have been saying since 2011. Specifically, she says they should be hit with Clorox bleach and fire-hosed. I have said they should be prosecuted for their many obstruction-of-justice crimes, as well as their violent crimes.
I could not get attention, but luckily Powell is getting attention (partly of the negative type, but just ignore that). Her cause is one openly shared by the 74 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump on November 3, 2020. Thus, she has a power base. It’s wonderful that that issue is clear cut.
The following is my best guess as to what is happening:
- There was electronic fraud in 2020’a election, as there has been for decades. Jim Collier described it in his book Votescam. He blamed AT&T as the hackers, and League of Women Voters as participants in the coverup – in the old days.
- Powell apparently can’t get Atty General Wm Barr interested in prosecuting the meddlers. See? what did I tell you in Prosecution for Treason. Barr needs to be citizen-arrested (or dealt with militarily: see below).
- Trump is taking a much milder approach, emphasizing non-electronic cheating. He points to dead people voting, signatures not checked on the envelopes of mail-in ballots, and the hazards of across-the-board absentee voting.
- Powell’s “suspects” are the owners and employees of software companies (related to. Dominion), governors and secretaries-of-state who bought the software – she says as gifts were handed to their relatives. By contrast, Trump’s suspects are amorphous — “Democrats” and “China.”
- Trumps’ reticence is due to the fact (I’m guessing) that “they” have something on him. US presidents have been under that sort of control since J Edgar Hoover’s heyday.
- Rudi Giuliani is filing many district court cases and appeals to overturn the election, and this will arrive at the US Supreme Court soon. In fact, the November 3 vote count needs to be resolved before the Electors meet on December 14, 2020.
- Mainstream media (MSM) doesn’t miss any chance to mock Sidney Powell, including for typo’s she made on submissions to court this week. They like to say she is retailing a conspiracy theory about Venezuela. They ain’t gonna mention a more local one.
- US Attorney General Wm Barr (alumnus of the GHW Bush administration), even after hearing that a large batch of ballots gave “January 1, 1990” as every voter’s date of birth, stated on Dec 3, 2020 that there is no evidence of cheating that would alter the outcome of the election. (See #5 above).
- Nothing is happening in DoJ-land with regard to Joe Biden’s allegedly negotiating (filially, or directly) with China.
- The newly pardoned Michael Flynn may be the person who is egging Sidney Powell on to accept the constitutionally valid solution of martial law. (Mary Maxwell went further in her October 2015 video “Dear Massachusetts Governor”, floating the idea of Governor Charlie Baker leading his troops into battle against the FBI, per Article 5 of the state constitution.)
When Sidney Says Tribunal, She Means Tribunal
When I read, a few days ago, that Powell favored “military tribunals,” I thought that was a misreporting. I said she must mean military commissions. Tribunals are what soldiers and sailors get under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, when being court-martialed. I discussed the Military Commissions Act of 2009, and the case of Hamdi and Hamdan, at Gumshoe News.com on November 29, 2020.
We’ll now put that aside. We also won’t consider here some other desperate measures of the law: citizen’s arrest, the law of outlawry, the crime of mutiny, pre-emptive strike, and war. I will instead lay out what I take to be the Flynn/Powell plan (or maybe it is the Powell/Flynn plan), regarding martial law and military tribunals. In due course we will also need to discuss the Sedition Act of 1917 and constitutional provisions against insurrection.
What Is Martial Law?
Flynn said martial law should be issued temporarily to cover the election problem. I see it as having broader scope so I will speak generally of the concept of martial law.
You may recall articles on the use of martial law in 1942 that led to the Korematsu case. President FDR declared martial law in Executive Order 9066 – and got Congress to approve it. As a result, the young man, Korematsu, could not go visit his girlfriend during curfew. (The fact that the EO discriminated against Japanese did not seem to provoke concern.)
Later, in 1984, Mr Korematsu used a Writ of Error Coram Nobis to get acquitted. He pointed out that the government had exculpatory information in file and did not hand it over. The court obliged — he was acquitted. But the wording, about the right of the government to intern huge numbers of citizens, did not get changed.
When Korematsu was arrested – by military people, I believe – this was because the three Western states – California, Oregon, and Washington – were run by army officers (at least in regard to restraints on Japanese Americans). Those officers could enforce the law. They could use any part of normal law, and they could also “make it up as they went along” if there was no law tailored for the occasion.
You may think that is a terrible state of existence. But what if it had been the people of New York and New Jersey who were under martial law whilst the army was sorting out a flare-up of Mafia violence? The majority of Americans would find this hunky dory – even though, during martial law, if you don’t like what the army is doing, you cannot complain to a court.
The Constitutionality of Martial Law
The Framers of the Constitution, although they might be called “idealists,” were eminent realists. They would not have made a pie-in-the-sky arrangement forbidding all martial law. They knew human nature like the back of their hand. They expected bribery, corruption, and treason. They expected rebellion, selfishness, all the sins you can name.
They then attempted to counter these, especially by “checking interest against interest.” John Locke’s 1690 Treatises on Government had been an inspiration. During the Philadelphia convention of 1787 the Framers had to place into the Constitution some way to get tough against a domestic uprising. Mind you, Article II of the Constitution said that the President “must take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” But more could be needed.
The parchment does not include the words “martial law.” Rather, it is mentioned indirectly in Article I, section 9: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
The point of our beloved habeas corpus is that you can’t be thrown into jail for anything but suspected crime. So, you can be thrown into jail when that writ is revoked. The word martial means military, so it is rule by commanders. They will tell you what to do and you are legally bound to obey.
Military commanders won’t get a warrant from a court and thus the Fourth Amendment, like habeas corpus, will be effectively suspended. They can barge into your home, guns drawn. (Local police and others are doing that today with impunity. Of course it is unconstitutional.)
The final words of FDR’s executive Order 9066 were: “I further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said military commanders to take such other steps as they may deem advisable to enforce compliance.”
In 2020, can President Trump write an Executive Order to start martial law? No. When FDR did it, he carefully asked Congress to enact a law in support of this busines of interning and controlling persons of Japanese nationality or descent. By the way, Congress in the 1990s, passed another law to compensate those Japanese Americans for the fact that their property had been seized!
Naturally, the fact that in 1942 the nation was at war – WWII – made it easy for a president to override the Constitution. This can also happen if there is a natural disaster. Thus, during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, people were forcibly removed from their homes “for their own safety.” In other ways, too, they lost their dignity and rights.
Matthew S. Belser has written a 2007 article on martial law with respect to Hurricane Katrina that contains many useful points: “MARTIAL LAW AFTER THE STORM”: 35 S.U. Law Rev. Belser gives a full rundown of constitutional finagling, including for thousands of folks at the Superdome.
Note: the governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco (1942-2019), did not permit federalization of the National Guard in New Orleans, despite pressure from President George W Bush. Hooray for Blanco. She must have read the Constitution.
To repeat, a president does not have the power to suspend habeas corpus. The military cannot intervene in civilian life unless Congress says so and unless the criteria of Article I, section 9 are met: “when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” We can ask if any of the election crimes, or accompanying street violence, would qualify as rebellion or invasion, but now let’s hop over to a statute, the Sedition Act.
The Sedition Act of 1918
Amendments were made to the 1917 Espionage Act and together they are called the Sedition Act, as passed on May 2, 1918, during WWI, and signed by President Woodrow Wilson. We are all familiar with the Espionage Act today, as Australian journalist Julian Assange is awaiting extradition to the US for having published secrets at Wikileaks.
In 1798 Congress had passed a Sedition Act, but two states strenuously objected to its unconstitutionality. (Thank you, Virginia and Kentucky.) To find out what remains of the 1918 Sedition Act – for Sidney Powell’s use — it is best to go to the compendium of all federal law, at the USC – the United States Code. Treason and sedition are defined in the codified law, by category, with each having its own punishment.
Insurrection and Ex Parte Quirin
I think Sidney Powell has been referring to Insurrection, so here is 18 USC 2382:
“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
To punish sedition, one would use the normal “justice system.” I do not think there is a role for military; this is not martial law. But Powell has mentioned martial law and military tribunals. So let us recall for a moment the 1942 case known as Ex parte Quirin. The United States was warring with Germany when 6 saboteurs entered the US to commit sabotage. (Pardon my skepticism but I have always doubted that this is a real case. Sometimes cases are made up for effect.) Anyway, the men were arrested.
President FDR wrote a Proclamation, proclaiming that
“all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States …. attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, … shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals.”
The men sought help at the District court and finally at the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, it was ruled that the president, in his capacity of Commander in Chief of Armed Forces, could try them (during war) under military tribunal and carry out the punishment, which was execution. All six men were shot dead. The precedent from that ruling is still authoritative in 2020. And are we at war? See my November 29 article on the AUMF – the authorization for the Use of Military Force, since September 2001.
Let’s Get Serious
People don’t want to hear bad, frightening news., but the time has come. The DoJ routinely refrains from indicting “important” persons. They are not really important; rather, they have been given a promise of protection. They are our enemies and could be indicted for treason, as they “levy war” against us and/or they “give aid and comfort to our enemy.”
Trump’s reign for the last four years has been one of continued protection for many internal enemies. He is unlikely to step forward and pull an FDR. Sidney Powell wants to do it. She wants to go at the DoJ “with Clorox and fire-hosing.” She knows the DoJ’s sins well, and has recorded some of them in her book Licensed To Lie. I have recorded some of them in my civil RICO suit, Maxwell v FBI et al. They are not about to fade away – they will get worse.
As I explain in the podcast below, it is still possible to pick a new president – not Biden or Trump. On December 14, 2020 some of the 538 Electors may have in mind to “sneak” in a new name. In 18 of the 50 states they are legally free to do so. Then on January 6, 2021, the House of Reps will have to pick from the three top names.
I suppose two of the top names will be Biden and Trump. Either may withdraw, or die, or be arrested. But that’s unlikely, so we must think of naming a third and ask both Parties to take their eye off Party and consider the urgency of the situation.
Granted, if Trump does not want to be left out in the cold, he can smarten up now and declare martial law. Never thought I’d say that but now I say it. We are in extremely serious trouble. A new slogan may be appropos: Praise the Lord and pass the Clorox.
Here is my 25-minute podcast. Note: I did not stress the urgency factor. I merely explained how to insert a new name for choosing a president: