Yesterday, on August 3, 2010, the New York Times reported that the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights filed a suit to allow their “uncompensated legal representation” to challenge the Executive Branch’s permit requirement prior to allowing an an attorney to represent any U.S. citizen in a suit against said regulation, see Lawyers Seeking Terror Suspect’s Case Sue U.S., by Charlie Savage,

Although I applaud these nonprofit organizations litigation, I assert that the issue is much broader then the relief they seek. They should be challenging the on going policy of the Executive Branch in collusion with the Judicial Branch to deny U.S. citizens of their right to independent attorneys and access to an impartial court by the promulgation of bill of attainder regulations.
Despite my observation, I seek citizens support for this litigation, as well as during this campaign season prior to the November election, citizens placing pressure on their members of Congress to investigate the on going violation of separation of power, denial of access to an impartial court, and their right to independent legal counsel, which are a real danger to our Republic and the Rule of Law, see
As background to my position, I acknowledge that recently the Supreme Court did confirm the limited right of access to an impartial court on habeas corpus petitions, see Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. (2008), but it did so only after more than seven years of permitting the Executive Branch to disregard the limitations under the Constitution and not addressing the larger issue of the Executive Branch denial of the right to access to the courts.
This total disregard of controlling stare decisis of 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 Supreme Court ruled during the Cold War that the U.S. Government cannot act internationally outside of the limitations on it under the Constitution to deprive a citizens of their right to access to an Article III Court), relate to various cases I litigated during the Clinton Administration on behalf of nonresident U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens.
These cases involved challenges to the unlawful interception and search without a warrant of all Hispanic surname wire communications and bank records in violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, by the U.S. Department of Justice under then Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, 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 also 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.
Consequently, based on the above litigation, I allege that under the stewardship of Chief Justice Rehnquist-and now Chief Justice Robert-judges in the Federal courts have conspired with attorneys in the Executive Branch to disregard the limitations and prohibitions under the Constitution,
Furthermore, I allege that the Executive and Judicial Branch have surreally placed themselves above the law by holding that government attorneys and judges cannot be held accountable for tortious or criminal acts in and/or outside of the U.S. In support of this allegation on March 30, 1995, Mr. Tony Mauro in an article entitled Testing the Limits of Sovereign Immunity, Legal Times, reported on my international practice and my prevailing in Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995). There Mr. Mauro confirmed 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. . . . “

In Martinez, a Federal Tort Claim was filed for the negligent driving of a DEA agent while under the influence of alcohol and having sex in Barranquilla, Colombia. The issue before the Court was whether or not the U.S. Attorney General certification finding the agent acted within his “scope of employment” was subject review by an Article III court. Associate Justice Ginsburg for the five four majority, held that it was. But, on remand the District Court summarily dismissed the action without permitting discovery or a bench trial.

For these reasons and other, I assert that the evidence is that Judicial Branch has conspired through secret meetings with the Executive Branch during the U.S. Judicial Conference, to deprive citizens of their ability to retain independent legal counsels and access to an impartial court to hold government accountable for malfeasance. In closing, in retaliation for challenging the above malfeasance the government has entered into an interstate criminal enterprise to conspire to deprive me of my right to employment as an independent attorney,