Admissible: Statement Contrary To Interests

4. OVP has asserted that it is not an agency. We leave it for another day for OVP to prove this, whether it is true; or whether it is legally accurate. This discussion narrowly focuses on the OVP assertion, regardless its truth or falsity relative to evidence, law, or precedent.

5. There is an issue of admissible evidence. Once OVP asserts they are not an executive agency, it has arguably made an assertion contrary to interests, and is admissible, and the subject of discovery. A statement contrary to interest is something that is called a “fatal” assertion because it is freely made, and when examined compels the OVP to prove one way or the other things which must be attached with that assertion. Without a fair showing by the OVP on this position, the OVP legal counsel and leadership is, for the purposes of grand jury witness examination, impeached or discredited as a witness. A fatal assertion in this case opens the barn door to extensive discovery and inquiry into OVP legal counsel deliberations which must exist; or do not exist and indicate the assertion was falsely made to corruptly persuade other US government officials, violating 5 USC 3331.

6. The Vice President’s legal counsel are in a prosecutor’s trap.

Mandatory Reporting Of Evidence Related to Atty Misconduct, Alleged Illegal Activity

7. Once this evidence is disclosed to the Court, the Judicial Cannons compel court officers to forward evidence of criminal activity by OVP legal counsel to the DC Bar for review. US Attorneys may also receive information indicating OVP legal counsel have committed fraud upon the DC Court in re issues of State Secrets claims and false affidavits. This note outlines a line of inquiry for the public, DC-Bar Affiliated Attorneys, media, and Congress to examine the OVP fatal assertion in re its relationship with the Executive Branch and agencies.

OVP Legal Memoranda Discovery

8. Once OVP asserts it is not part of the Executive Branch, there are serious doubts about the legal foundation behind OVP filings in re state secret affidavits. Whether this OVOP assertion is or is not true is secondary to the subsequent legal analysis.

Audit Scope

9. These are issues subject to peer review, audit, self inspection, and review by the Grand Jury. These checklist exist; or they have been recklessly not used, ignored, or never created. Failure to develop these checklists is an actionable item under DC Bar Rules imposing on supervisory counsel the duty to insure subordinate counsel are adequately trained. The Grand Jury and Congress is encouraged to compel OVP to demonstrate compliance with admissible evidence with other applicable standards include Generally Accepted Auditing Standards [GAAS] and Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards [GAGAS] as they related to performance audits, records retention, and conduct of personnel during reviews.

10. Statement of Accounting Standards 99 compels auditors to increase audit scope when the following risk indicators exist, as they are with the OVP: Resignations, illegal activity, prior criminal convictions, and other misstatements before the court. The Grand Jury is encourage to examine any and all lines of evidence, inquiry, and investigative leads indicating how OVP blocked application of Statement of Accounting Standards to include: Blocking discovery of the indicators warranting audit scope; retaliating against government officials or outside contractors for attempting to audit OVP; or OVP-connected entities attempting to use civil subpoenas to identify, intimidate, and silence personnel discussing how OVP was thwarting enforcement of the law in contravention to 5 USC 3331.

Discovery: Burden on OVP Legal Counsel

11. OVP assertion, given its dubiousness, is one for OVP to assert based on evidence, and provide the public with justification that its legal assertion is linked with evidence and memoranda, policies, and working papers showing:

Questions

OVP EO 1. Is it the view of OVP that it may ignore all Executive Orders and may violate any Executive Order stating all unlawful activity cannot be classified?

OVP EO 2: Is it the view of OVP legal counsel that ORCON rules – prohibiting classification of illegal activity – do not apply to OVP because the ORCON Rules are an Executive Order?

OVP EO 3: Is it the view of OVP that all Executive Orders prohibiting classification of illegal activity do not have to be followed, but can be ignored, and that illegal activity can be classified despite statutes and guidance to the opposite?

OVP EO 4: Which guidance does the OVP view, on any given day, as being relevant or not relevant?

OVP EO 5: What is the basis for OVP to invoke any claim of state secrets when the precedent related to that claim applies to executive agencies, yet OVP claims it is not an executive agency?

OVP EO 6: Why would anyone want to work in an organization where, on any given day, legal counsel is asserting publicly to the court one legal standard as a basis for an affidavit; yet privately, they have an opposite legal conclusion which states these precedents, presented to the court, have no force because the OVP is not related to any entity in any of the precedents OVP legal counsel claim?

OVP EO 7: Do the personnel in OVP enjoy working in an organization where legal counsel recklessly pick and choose from the statute?

OVP EO 8: Do OVP legal counsel enjoy invoking legal standards to create an independent judiciary within OVP, and administer justice outside the court view; and must rely on legal precedents related to executive agencies; yet, OVP counsel publicly asserts the opposite – that Executive Agencies are not related to OVP and OVP should not be able to invoke precedent which relate to agencies and entitles which OVP asserts are unrelated to OVP?

OVP EO 9: What is it like working in the OVP where legal counsel use convoluted non-sense: Does anyone in OVP have any confidence in any of the legal counsel?

OVP EO 10: How does the staff at the entry level have any confidence that the legal counsel in OVP knows what they’re doing; or has any clue about the Attorney Standards of Conduct which compel legal counsel to engage in some sort of legal competency, not this legal sophistry which appears to contradict the basis educational standards entry level clears are required to demonstrate to maintain an entry level staff job?

OVP EO 11: With this kind of convoluted logic permeating the OVP legal counsel’s office, how do they credibly resolve simple issues of: Who buys coffee; how does the copier contract get monitored; and whose turn is it to call the maintenance department to inspect the unusual marks on the wall?

Discovery

11. Let’s presume for the moment that the “rule” which Addington, OVP, and legal counsel have asserted is a fair statement of the OVP position; and shall be uniformly applied both prospectively and retroactively. Consider the record: OVP has substantially complied with some legal requirements, not all. If the OVP is not subject to “any” Executive Agency requirement, why did OVP bother to assert that it did comply with some requirements which were not applicable?

OVP EO 12: If the OVP is not required to comply with a standard – as they assert in 2007 – would it not be an issue of fraud waste and abuse to have spent valuable time, resources, and “scarce” staff to fill out reports, publicize the compliance with standards that “did not apply”?

12. Consider the record in re OVP records on entry exit logs. Somewhere within the bowels of the argument is a claim that to comply with this requirement would require excessive time, manpower, and the OVP apparently “doesn’t” have the resources to comply.

OVP EO 13: How does the OVP explain the inconsistency, which matches Gonzalez arguments in re FISA requirements: They have “no resources” to comply with the statute; they have no time to comply with a requirement; but they do have time to track that they were complying with a standard that did not apply. That makes no sense.

OVP IP Numbers Connected With Unofficial Business

13. However, there is a problem. Once again, we have evidence EOP Staff counsel connected with the legal community has been spending time on non-official business, indicating they have been poorly overseen; and that there “was” sufficient time to comply with the reporting requirements, if the weather was favorable. If you look at all OVP IP numbers, and do an open search for them, you will find the OVP IP numbers are connected with websites that have nothing to do with official OVP business.

A. Check the White House IT department to find the Microsoft Outlook-related file sharing software used to transfer data between EOP, OVP, and contractors;

B. Ask Sidley Austin about their knowledge of the WH IT Administrative Area.

OVP EO 13: Or is Sidley Austin no longer an “expert” in the “records retention” area as it once said it was; and why is Sidley Austin commenting on White House IT Department procedures?

14. Once OVP makes an assertion that is contrary to interests, we take that contrary assertion to its logical conclusion. Whether the assertion is really true is a separate issue. Focus only on what the OVP is saying with respect to rules in re the Executive Orders. Executive Orders prohibit the classification of illegal activity; and outlaw the classification of any piece of information used to advance an unlawful objective. Yet, the record is clear: Scooter Libby was prosecuted and has been sentenced for engaging in illegal activity. How does OVP explain the problem OVP has:

A. Illegal activity by its former Chief of Staff and a subsequent resignation – as would be reasonably expected of someone who no longer satisfies the legal requirements to hold the position; – yet

B. OVP would have us believe the very legal standards used to question the integrity of Libby are not relevant and that these Executive Orders prohibiting unlawful conduct do not apply.

15. This is fantasy: Standards cannot both “apply” and “not apply” at the same time.

16. OVP must make consistent legal arguments; and these arguments must be documented. Either the documents exist showing where OVP standards on agency relationship to OVP; or there is no documentation showing OVP is “not” an agency. Let’s take the OVP at its word: That it “concludes” that the OVP is not an agency:

Executive Privilege For Non-Executive Entities?

17. If it is not an agency nor in the Executive Department, then OVP may not claim executive privilege, nor rely on any precedent related to any case law that relates to any Executive Agency.

18. Note the similarity with FISA violations. The President attempted to invoke “privilege” on issues which asserted Judicial Power – asserting illegally that his non-delegated assertion of Article III judicial powers was protected by “executive attempted to invoke “privilege” on issues which asserted Judicial Power – asserting illegally that his non-delegated assertion of Article III judicial powers was protected by “executive” privilege.

19. In the case of the VP, he’s doing essentially the same: Despite asserting he’s not with the executive branch, that he can invoke Executive Privilege. There is no “OVP Privilege”; the courts only recognize Executive Privilege as it relates to Executive Branch communications; if OVP says it is not an agency of the Executive Branch, it may not invoke Executive Privilege.

OVP Must Disclose Memoranda Showing When OVP Counsel Concluded It was not an Executive Agency, yet Still Could In “good faith to the court” Invoke Executive Privilege

20. OVP is on unstable legal ground, supported by two contradictory premises:

21. By invoking contradictory premises, only the court can adjudicate whether the OVP has or has not correctly invoked Executive Privilege. The court requires memoranda which OVP should have, indicating when OVP counsel concluded the OVP was “not” an agency under the Execute Branch; and “discovered” that OVP was “not” able to invoke “Executive” privilege; but did so despite this legal conclusion.

22. Either:

23. These records must be provided to determine whether OVP legal counsel have or have not committed fraud upon the District Courts in re state secrets, executive privilege, and other legal matters OVP counsel knew, or should know, could not rely on any Executive Branch precedent because the OVP is “not” in the Executive Branch nor an agency.

24. Either:

A. The memoranda exists showing OVP counsel have concluded that OVP was or was not subject to Executive Privilege; and there was or was not a problem with invoking Exertive Privilege by entities unrelated to the Executive Branch; or

B. The memoranda -- as related to this supposed “concern” OVP had that it was “not” an agency under the Executive branch -- was never reconciled with the legal counsel duty to explain how its affidavits were being submitted using precedent related to Executive Branch agency precedent which it “knew” did not apply; or

C. Legal counsel has retroactively fabricated legal positions and memoranda about original invocation of Executive Privilege for OVP relying on “something else” other than an agency connection when invoking “Executive’ privilege. [Echoes of DOJ Legal positions on FISA: Retroactive creation of legal positions, never formally documented, dubious]

25. Rather, it is the job of legal counsel to explain why it is invoking a legal claim of privilege for things it – apparently has concluded in writing – says is not linked with any agency activity, as required by Executive Privilege.

26. OVP cannot have it both ways. Yet, it asserts that OVP is entitled to assert privilege relying on “precedent” which – in the words of OVP – are only applicable to Executive Agencies, which OVP is “not” one.

OVP EO 18: How does the OVP explain the invocation of provide when that privilege only applies to Executive Agencies?

OVP EO 19: Which “precedent” is OVP relying on to claim executive privilege when all precedent relates to agencies which are linked with executive agencies, which OVP now claims it is not a part?

OVP EO 20: How can OVP rely on any case law, precedent, or legal rule from any federal court when OVP has asserted publicly, and in writing -- with the intent that Congress rely on that assertion -- that the OVP is not an agency under the Executive Branch; yet, all case law OVP “relies” on to block oversight relates to precedent about executive privilege which – in OVP words – only applies to agencies not to the OVP?

OVP EO 21: How can OVP be both an agency for purposes of executive privilege, but “not” an agency for purposes of a statute or executive order?

27. It defies reason for OVP to assert that it can rely on precedents relating to executive agencies in blocking oversight or hiding information; yet when it comes to establishing that OVP shall comply with the law or Executive Order under the Unitary Theory of Executive power, OVP would have us believe the opposite: That it is not an agency; not under the Executive Branch.

OVP EO 22: Perhaps OVP may wish to enlighten the world: How can it claim it is “not” an agency, yet invoke “agency” precedent to block [a] oversight and [b] review of entry access data?

OVP EO 23: How does OVP justify blocking “all” records related to entry-exit data in the OVP secret service logs; yet some non-OVP legal counsel has disclosed in the Scooter Sentencing Letters the subject, timing, and discussion topics of the very things OVP claims it wants to protect?

28. Once any legal counsel outside OVP discloses any information, OVP may not credibly assert that it is keeping information secret to “protect” a client, source, or other provider of counsel. Rather, the adverse inferences:

29. OVP has a problem: When legal counsel have a “good faith” basis to invoke executive privilege, that is relied on by the courts. OVP assertions are stunning: By undermining its own arguments on precedent in re executive agencies and privilege, OVP legal counsel and other agency heads under OVP can no longer assert that they have a “good faith” belief of anything.

30. Rather, the reasonable conclusions are the opposite:

OVP has asserted a legal standard which does not apply; and

All legal counsel under OVP do not have a “good faith” belief that the motions filed with any district court are consistent with their understanding of the law.

OVP Staff Counsel Recklessness

31. Whether the OVP legal counsel have been reckless does not appear to be in dispute: The laws clearly establish that all US government personnel shall comply with the law; and Youngstown is precedent for showing that agency personnel, OVP staff, and the President’s discretion to avoid oversight is at its lowest when the statute is specific, as it is with the laws clearly establishing OVP is required to comply with the records retention act. Even during times of war.

Specific Statute Related to Vice President Records Trumps Debate on Applicability of Executive Orders

32. It is a red herring to debate whether Executive Orders are or are not pre-emptory; or whether their “lack of applicability” means OVP does not have to comply with the requirement. This is the same non-sense we heard with the AUMF in re FISA: The court and precedent is clear: When the statue is specific it trumps the generalized law and authorization, regardless the order, timing, and dates of the passage of the rule, law, statute, or governing regulation. The Congress establishes rules which OVP may not unilaterally abrogate by suggesting it is “not” covered by an irrelevant Executive Order. Congressional statutes are different creatures than Executive Orders, although they may overlap. Executive Orders which defy Congress are not lawful, unenforceable, and attach to all contractors, outside counsel, and US government employees serious consequences. [See Libby in re Perjury]

33. In this case, the clearly established Congressional intent was to compel OVP to comply with the records act [Hatch Act] through a specific statute targeted at OVP. Whether OVP argues that Executive Orders do or do not apply are, as the case with the FISA-AUMF non-sense, irrelevant. The specific law targeting OVP trumps the generalized red herring over whether OVP is or is not under any Executive Order.

Electronic Evidence Stored in Common File Drives Outside OVP Office, Connected with Microsoft Outlook, Not Disclosed To Congress As Required By Subpoena and Statute

34. However, once legal counsel in OVP asserts this non-sense, the reasonable adverse inference is that the OVP has not invoked this standard to protect a secret – because there is no secret, according to precedent, that falls under the agency head discretion to protect – it means the opposite: The invocation of state secrets, Executive Privilege, and other things by anyone is not a good faith assertion of belief, but with the opposite: Only hide evidence of illegal activity:

Dubious OVP Counsel Affidavit Preparation in re State Secrets

OVP EO 24: Look at the precedents of ORCON and Executive Privilege: You will see that the agency head must sign an affidavit asserting that the claim of state is a good faith assertion; however, once OVP asserts that it is not an agency, how can OVP or anyone assert a “good faith” anything when it – apparently in private – has held the opposite opinion?

35. No legal counsel can credibly assert, advise any agency head that the claim of Executive Privilege or state secrets is a “good faith” invocation once OVP has a policy of exempting itself from Executive Orders, and by inference, establishing that some Executive Orders and case law which are precedent for OVP are not applicable

Missing Evidence Is Probative, Grand Jury May For Adverse Inferences

OVP EO 27: Where is the memoranda that is being the OVP assertion of “State secrets” or any OVP legal counsel memoranda establishing that OVP is or is not a separate entity outside the Executive Branch?

36. If there is no memoranda, the Grand Jury may reasonably conclude:

- Assertions that OVP was “not” an Executive Branch entity were not made in good faith;
-
- OVP counsel assertions to the court that the affidavits were made in “good faith” were recklessly asserted without regard to attorney standards of conduct; and supervisory counsel had no plan in place to ensure subordinate DC Counsel Bar under OVP Counsel remain in compliance with their attorney standards of conduct;

OVP EO 28: Where is the legal memoranda which OVP counsel must have produced establishing that agency heads are not subject to any Executive Orders; but despite this legal conclusion, have asserted through agency head memoranda, that the Executive Orders and precedents do apply to OVP?

OVP Legal Position Raises Doubts About Claims of Privilege and State Secrets in re NSA, FISA, and Rendition

37. There must be documents supporting the OVP legal position: OVP counsel filed agency heads affidavits to support the invocation of state secrets. Yet, the affidavit contains language, precedent, and other things which only apply to the Executive Branch. If OVP establishes, as it asserts in writing to Congress, that it is not subject to the Executive Orders and outside the entities, then the OVP must have concluded this at some point, yet knowingly directed and advised Agency heads to invoke a “good faith” belief in something that OVP knew, or should have known was contrary to the OVP legal position on whether those specific precedents in that agency heads’ state secret claim was bonafide.

38. There must be memoranda discussing this inconsistency; or laying out a clear case for agency heads that the precedents relating to the Executive Branch support the agency head invocation of their statements and case law in that affidavit. Congress needs to subpoena the following:

SUMMATION

39. OVP has fatally asserted a legal position contrary to the interests of the President and Vice President.

40. Asserting the OVP is not subject to Agency oversight or Executive Order is moot: Statutes directly controlling OVP conduct on records retention makes the debate about whether the OVP shall or shall not comply with EOs irrelevant.

41. Once the OVP asserts a dubious legal foundation on applicability of requirements to the OVP, this opens the barn door to review whether claims of privilege have or have not been dubious, not just on Vice Presidential records, but the expansive issues ranging from FISA, NSA, DoJ NSLs, and Rendition.

Expansive Implications of OVP Claim in re Rendition, GTMO, Prisoner Abuse, FISA Violations, Illegal Warfare, Unlawful Detention of American Citizens, Warrantless Interrogations of American Civilians, Unlawful Gag Orders To Be silent About Unlawful US Government Activity

42. Each of these legal issues has been repeatedly asserted to be as issue which cannot be discussed. Yet, the only way that OVP can invoke this privilege is to assert e legal position which contradicts precedent: The OVP cannot be in the Executive Branch for purposes of hiding evidence; but outside the Executive Branch to avoid review. OVP data is always subject to legal review, especially when it is linked with unlawful activity, and US Government policies to ignore the law or retaliate against those who attempt to investigate and enforce the law.

43. OVP cannot rely on any claim of privilege because to rely on on that claim would contradict their current position. All current OVP claims of execute privilege rely on precedent linking OVP claims to precedents of agency heads.

44. If we take OVP at its word – that it is not an agency under the executive branch – then the primary purpose of the affidavits on state secrets was not to hide any national security objective, but to hide evidence of illegal activity. This falls outside the protections of Reynolds which requires that the “substantial” objective of the classification is to protect a secret. OVP dubious assertions belie the criteria in Reynolds.

45. If there was a bonafide claim of “national security”, agency heads would not have had to lie when they falsely claimed that they had a “good faith” belief that the assertions were true, when they knew, or should have known, that the reliance on executive Branch precedent was irrelevant to the OVP staff.

46. Either OVP counsel

47. Questions

OVP EO 29. Which legal counsel is not concluding the objective of Vice President is to achieve an unlawful purpose?

OVP EO 30. Where are the memoranda showing OVP counsel have reservations about these legal conclusions; when will the DC Bar, US Atty, and Congress have a chance to review these concerns of DC-Bar Affiliated counsel in re OVP legal compliance?

OVP EO 31. Where is the memoranda and concerns of OVP legal counsel showing there is a tremendous amount of anguish about OVP legal opinions being used to hide illegal activity? Lack of any “other view” suggest OVP legal counsel either has defectively ignored all other views; or it has no comprehension of the legal problem it, as counsel, finds itself.

OVP EO 32. Where is the OVP legal counsel memoranda outlining their reservations that their legal claims in the affidavit – which agency heads have signed – is not linked with a “good faith” belief in anything; but a false assertion that the precedents in the affidavit are relevant; but they have concluded in writing that the OVP cannot rely on any executive branch precedent related to state secrets?

OVP EO 33: How does OVP legal counsel explain how it is “not” an agency for purposes of the statute or executive order; but it “is” an agency for purposes of legal precedent to hide illegal activity? [Please provide a copy of the OVP Legal counsel “On’ and “Off” switch used to communicate to subordinate OVP legal counsel when to follow or not follow the rules of reason, one thought to be the foundation of American Rule of Law.]

OVP EO 34: Why should anyone believe that the OVP is invoking state secrets for anything other than a dubious reason, which the courts strike down as unlawful, and all statutes and executive orders prohibit?

OVP EO 35: How does OVP legal counsel justify asserting a claim of “privilege” on something that OVP legal counsel knows, or should know, is not justifiably linked with OVP legal conclusions in writing to the opposite.?

48. If OVP assertions are linked with credible legal analysis, the following OVP Legal counsel must exist and Congress has the authority to review in establishing whether OVP legal counsel have or have not been reckless; or whether they have nor have not issued false affidavits from agency heads to the court:

The affidavit is not linked with precedent which OVP can rely on;

All Executive Branch and agency precedents are not controlling; and

All legal precedents and case law related to agency privilege have not force or authority for OVP legal counsel to rely on when asserting the OVP is not an agency under the Executive Branch.

49. Either OVP legal counsel has the memoranda; or the memoranda do not exist where they should be; or the memoranda has been destroyed, in volition of the Hatch Act which bars destruction of evidence when counsel knows, or should know, the records would be subpoenaed in re allegations of war crimes, illegal activity, and other matters the OVP remains accountable for.

OVP EO 36: Which legal counsel can explain how their legal memoranda asserting that the OVP is not an agency can be reconciled with the opposite conclusion that the OVP is going to rely on precedent linked with Executive Agencies?

OVP EO 37: How can any legal counsel submit to any agency head or court any affidavit that its claim of state secrets or any legal motion is credible; when the legal precedents linked with that invocation of state secrets is linked with precedents associated with legal entities and agencies which are, in the words of OVP, [paraphrasing] “irrelevant” and “unrelated” to the OVP; how was this documented; where are the Continuing Legal Education [CLE] training reports related to this DC Bar Rule 1.16 rule?

OVP EO 38: How can OVP counsel justify continuing service for the OVP when it is clear that the only basis for the OVP invocation of state secrets is not to protect any information or national security secret, but to hide evidence of illegal activity?

OVP EO 39: When did OVP legal counsel last review DC Bar Rule 1.16 compelling counsel to resign when they learn their legal services are being used to advance illegal activity? [“Shall” in the rule is a mandatory requirement. Explain in action. Convince Grand Jury Counsel is not so reckless and oblivious to reality that they are not feigning false, misleading, or dubious “beliefs.”]

Recommendation: Language must explicitly prohibit President form issuing any signing statement that permits detailing of any EOP personnel to OVP unless provided for by statute; or if the President notifies in writing to Congress that he plans to detail these personnel. Failure to comply shall be an illegal act which the State Attorney Generals may prosecute should US Attorneys not prosecute within 30 days of notification of this violation by the President or any budgeting or contracting officer working for any contractor, US government, or any outside entity.

Recommendation: Remind the Congress that the existing legal requirements prohibit payments for unlawful purposes. Any EOP-WH transfer for funds to the OVP for unlawful reasons violates Article 1 Section 9 and is punishable by 5 USC 3331. Additionally, language must explicitly delegate to the States the authority for States to prosecute any federal official in federal court who refuses to permit US Attorneys to enforce this requirement. All contracting officers working for any government entity, outside intermediary, or other entity may be prosecuted if they transfer any funds to programs, OVP, or any other entities which Congress has prohibited. The President has no power to block the States from enforcing their right to have the Constitution enforced. A threat of a veto is meaningless.

Recommendation: Remind contracting officers at the paying stations, contractors, and outside entities that any funds used to support any unlawful Executive Order permitting funds transferred to OVP cannot be enforced; and are illegal contracts. The contracting personnel transferring funds for these unlawful objectives may be prosecuted for fraud, false claims, and illegal expenditures of public money outside what is permitted under the Constitution. The President has no power to direct any funding for illegal purposes which Congress expressly prohibits. All Presidential or OVP orders to defy this requirement, ignore it, or encourage work arounds are not lawful and have no force. Anyone following these illegal orders may be prosecuted, 5 USC 3331.

Recommendation: 5 USC 3331 is a legal duty on all government employees. Contractors may not lawfully spend funds for things Congress prohibits; and they may not request reimbursement. Congress may direct all DoD overseas entities to be banned from providing any direct or indirect funding to OVP; and prohibit all foreign nationals from transferring any funds to OVP through any direct or indirect method. Congress has the power to use the SWIFT system to ensure OVP is not provided any direct or indirect funds; and may direct the Department of Justice to enforce this statute, assigning FBI agents to monitor the warrants issued to review all funds send through the SWIFT system to support OVP or overseas entities.

Recommendation: Congress may direct immediate impound of all funds used for any unlawful purpose. Bounties may be awarded to any OVP personnel who reports evidence that the Vice President or anyone in OVP has received any funds from any black program to circumvent the Congressional ban on funds to OVP.

Recommendation: Congressional committees may subpoena SWIFT records to review any funds going into any OVP-related entity; and direct all OVP-related entities to provide a regularly accounting of all money received, funds directed, and accounts debited.

Recommendation: Congress may issue subpoenas for all records of funds transferred from any entity to the OVP; any activity which supports the OVP may be declared illegal and issue arrest warrants to compel witnesses to explain why funds have been used in contravention to Article 1 Section 9.

Recommendation: Congress alone has the power to impeach. However, Congress may through legislation direct the State Attorney Generals to prosecute a sitting President when the US Attys refuse to enforce the law, or when Grand juries have been blocked from reviewing this evidence of illegal OVP/POTUS conduct.

Recommendation: Congress may direct OMB to provide quarterly accounting of all personnel transfers. All OMB personnel who refuse to comply with this reporting requirement may be issued with subpoenas and, if warranted, prosecuted 5 USC 3331.