“Justice Official Clears Bush Lawyers in Torture Memo Probe,”By Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman, Newsweek, January 29, 2010, at:http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/01/29/holder-under-fire.aspx.

In reviewing the action of government attorneys, judges and the legal profession generally, we must always recall that, “[t]here is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice …”– U.S. vs. Jannottie, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982).   We must remember the sorry behavior of German judges and lawyers use of cronyism during Nazi era in allowing Hitler to power, because “[b]y the time the gas vans came and the human slaughter factories were built in Auschwitz and the other death camps, the murder of the six million Jews and other persecuted minorities was done completely within the framework of German law.” Yad Vshem The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes Remembrance Authority, 2004.

Therefore, in this context we must consider and review the U.S. Department of DOJ’s recent whitewash of the torture memos written by DOJ’s attorneys under the direction of political appointees.  The evidence confirms that prior discussion were entered into by DOJ and the Judicial Branch so to permit denial access to an impartial court and jury trial to deny any challenge to the acts of “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Also,  the evidence uncovered during my past 20 years of civil litigation against the malfeasance confirms that DOJ under Eric Holder and the Judicial Branch have a pattern and practice of  placing of government employees and attorneys above the law.  See Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995)(A FTCA  which I won before U.S. Supreme Court involving a negligent DEA agent who caused an accident while driving drunk and having sex.  DOJ under Holder argued that he was acting within his scope of employment.  This I described as beyond “James Bond’s licene to kill”); See also Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, 2nd Cir. No. 93-6019 and 96-6145; and, Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997)(Litigation to stop DOJ’s unlawful policy of violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Right to Financial Privacy Act by coercing the disclosing of bank information of  nonresident Hispanic surnamed accounts in the U.S., so to seize funds based on their Hispanic surname).

Thus, it is surreal that DOJ’s government attorney can assume away the prohibitions and limitation on the government imposed by our Constitution.  Furthermore, the notion that attorneys at DOJ will impartially investigate attorneys in DOJ is unreal. See, Criminal Collusion of Government Attorneys and Judicial Branch.

As Thomas Jefferson stated more than 200 years ago, “[t]he germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body – working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

Therefore citizens must demand that Congress review the issue of the use of legal sophistry of both Government Attorneys and the Judicial Branch to circumvent the limitations and prohibitions on the powers of government placed by we “the people” in the Constitution and the Rule of Law (http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror).

First, history has shown that Democracies such as ours are precarious institutions. Therefore, constant vigilance must be maintained to preserve our Constitution from undue government encroachment.

Second, we must make certain that as a Nation faced with the threat of terrorism, we do not transform ourselves into legal tyrannies by permitting the legal profession to utilize cronyism to immunize government employees and judges from accountability for negligent, or criminal acts outside of their scope of authority, judicial capacity, or jurisdiction.

This is what must be investigated, because “..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..” – Samuel Adams.