After seven years of over spending on wars, President Obam continues Bush’s war strategy, by surreally declairing the end of the combat mission in Iraq, “as
promised and on schedule.”  Yet, not only continuing to seek supplemental funding and increasing troop leavels in Afganistan.

Consequently, as a Nam Vet and based on my past 34 years federal litigation, I underscore that U.S. imperialism can only occur when the U.S. government is permitted by citizens to act in violation of the limitations and prohibitions of the Constitution.  However, the evidence in court records confirm that U.S. policy foreign policy-as it relates to both U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike- has been formulated in collusion with the Judicial Branch to assume away these Constitutional restrictions on government actions.

To permit the above the Judicial Branch has assumed away the stare decisis of all cases which confirm that the U.S. Government cannot act outside of the limitations on it under the Constitution. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1956), 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148; Kinsella v. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960), 80 S.Ct. 297, 4 L.Ed.2d 268. The evidence that the Rule of Law does not control the U.S. Government is confirmed upon the a summary review of its action, i.e. denying the right to jury trial, the use of summary judgement, the holding that the government absolutely immune form suit. Query, how else can it assert that the U.S. has the right to arsenate a U.S. citizen-without trial or indictment or decalcifying its evidence-based on the assertion that he is a terrorist. See, New York Times, Opinion, A Respect for World Opinion, August 10, 2010,

My argument is based both on my having been in harms way and on my past litigation against U.S. Government policy in violation of the statutory and Constructional rights of U.S. citizens and non-citizens. I note that Tony Mauro in an article entitled Testing the Limits of Sovereign Immunity, Legal Times’ March 30, 1995, reporting on my international law practice upon his prevailing in Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), that the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court confirmed that it was, “the only instance in recent memory that a lawyer with an address outside the United States ha[d] argued a case before the Court. . . . “

Therefore, during the Clinton Administration, my law office specialized in pro hoc vice representation of nonresident U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens to challenge the violations of the Right to Financial Privacy Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, by the unlawful interception and search without a warrant of their wire communications and bank records by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) under then Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, see Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Organization JD Ltda. v. Assist U.S. Attorney Arthur P. Hui and DOJ, 2nd Cir. No. 93-6019 and 96-6145; as well as the violation of the limitations and prohibitions under the U.S. Constitution, see Cooperative Multiactive de Empeados de Distribuidores de Drogas “Coopservir Ltda.” v. Newcomb, et al., D.C. Cir. No 99-5190, S Ct. No 99-1893 (litigation challenging DOJ’s issuance of a prohibitive bill of attainder against nonresident Hispanics surnamed U.S. citizens), see