1047: Congrats Canada

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Jun 2018 22:27

Dit kan u ook interesseren Buitenlandpolitiek EU-censuurwatch: sociale media gaan zich houden aan 'Europese code tegen desinformatie' Twitter, FB, Google moeten 'maatregelen nemen om betrouwbaar nieuws een duidelijk podium te geven'...

Buitenlandpolitiek Europese Rekenkamer start onderzoek naar miljarden voor Turkije Geld voor Turkije-deal en toetredingssteun onder de loep...

Buitenlandpolitiek Spanje krijgt geharde Eurofiel Nadia Calvi±o als minister van Financin Oud-voorzitter Europees Parlement Josep Borrell minister van Buitenlandse Zaken...

Buitenlandpolitiek Coalitiegenoten D66 en CDA zijn het in Europa oneens over EU-internetfilter Marietje Schaake (D66): Dit voorstel zet de deur open voor een geprivatiseerde Big Brother...

Buitenlandpolitiek Noord-Afrika heeft geen interesse in opvangen dobberende vluchtelingen opgepikt uit de Middellandse Zee Maar de EU blijft hoop houden...

Buitenlandpolitiek Commissie Europees Parlement wil dat Hongarije wordt aangepakt wegens 'bedreiging voor de rechtstaat' Judith Sargentini (Groen Links): 'Viktor Orbn brengt de Hongaarse democratie om zeep'...

Buitenlandpolitiek EU-despoten Tusk en Junker feliciteren Turkse despoot Erdogan met verkiezingsoverwinning 'We zien er naar uit nauw te blijven samenwerken, Turkije is kandidaat-land en sleutelpartner EU'...

Buitenlandpolitiek U betaalt 375 miljoen euro voor het 'Europese Solidariteitskorps' (lol), de Komsomol EU-jeugd 'Solidariteitskorps' (lol) enorm populair, vooral vanwege lekker goedkoop reizen en wonen in warme landen...

Buitenlandpolitiek EU-buitenlandchef noemt vluchtelingendetentiecentra buiten EU 'ontschepingsplatforms' En er wordt gewerkt aan een 'duurzaam raamwerk' ...

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 29 Jun 2018 16:20

Jarrod Ramos, the man who allegedly killed five staff members of the Annapolis Capital-Gazette, is sadly, terrifyingly typical, at least to anyone who ever worked at a newspaper of any size. Court records available online paint a picture of an angry misogynist of the classic type, the angry reader of the classic type, and the angry online presence of the newly classic type. Then, he picked up his shotgun and went for a ride.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

The run-up was sad. The denouement is terrifying. The whole thing is typical.

It all starts on July 26, 2011, when Ramos pleaded guilty on a charge of criminal harassment. On duty was Eric Hartley of the Capital-Gazette. Five days later, he wrote this item under the regular feature, ''Anne Arundel Report.''

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

From the court records:

The article was entitled, "Jarrod wants to be your friend." The article, in its entirety, read:"If you're on Facebook, you've probably gotten a friend request or message from an old high school classmate you didn't quite remember.

"For one woman, that experience turned into a yearlong nightmare.

"Out of the blue, Jarrod Ramos wrote and thanked her for being the only person ever to say hello or be nice to him in school.

"She didn't remember him, so he sent pictures. She Googled him, found a yearbook picture and realized they apparently did go to Arundel High together.

"He was having some problems, so she wrote back and tried to help, suggesting a counseling center.

"'I just thought I was being friendly,' she said.

"That sparked months of emails in which Ramos alternately asked for help, called her vulgar names and told her to kill herself. He emailed her company and tried to get her fired.

"She stopped writing back and told him to stop, but he continued. When she blocked him from seeing her Facebook page, he found things she wrote on other people's pages and taunted her with it, attaching screenshots of the postings to some of his emails.

"She called police, and for months he stopped. But then he started again, nastier than ever.

"All this without having seen her in person since high school. They never met until they came to court a couple of months ago.

"Last week, Ramos, a 31-year-old federal employee, pleaded guilty in District Court to a misdemeanor harassment charge.

"Judge Jonas Legum, who called his behavior 'rather bizarre,' suspended a 90- day jail sentence and placed him on probation, ordering him to continue in therapy and not contact the victim or her family in any way.

"The case is extreme. But it provides a frightening look at the false intimacy the Internet can offer and the venom that can hide behind a computer screen.

"'I read about this all the time, where Facebook conversations, email conversations, start out fine and then take a turn where they become nastier over the course of time,' said Ramos' lawyer, Christopher Drewniak, 'And this is apparently one of those situations.'

"The victim, who asked that her name not be printed, said she lived in fear for her safety for months.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

The piece went on to detail the harassment in which Ramos engaged, predominantly online. The woman he was harassing believed that he somehow was involved in her having lost a job. Again, from Hartley's courthouse account:

"His messages rambled, calling her 'a bipolar drunkard leading a double life' and saying 'Expletive you, leave me alone' though she hadn't written him in months. He told her she was afraid to let a man get close to her and discussed her family, friends, job and Rotary Club involvement''all information gleaned from the Internet."In January, the victim went to court to get a peace order and file charges. Finally, he stopped for good. Ramos, a tall, thin man with long hair he wears in a ponytail, did not speak at the hearing and did not return a call for comment left with his attorney.

"He has a degree in computer engineering and has worked for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for six years, Drewniak said. He had no previous criminal record.

This kind of thing is the meat on which local newspapers feed. There are always stories to be found in the local courthouse, and Hartley was sharp enough to notice that there were larger issues to be explored in Ramos's case. It's one you put in your notebook, and then you put it in the paper, and feel good about how you did your job that day.

Anyone who's ever worked at a newspaper in any department has a Jarrod Ramos story to tell.

Except for the fact that Jarrod Ramos was one of those readers who can't let anything go. Anyone who has worked on a daily newspaper in any era is familiar with them, and the smaller the newspaper, the more intense the confrontation. Ramos sued the newspaper and Hartley, personally, for defamation. He represented himself pro se, which is rarely a good idea, as a variety of judges in the Maryland courts made clear to him.

At the motion hearing, Judge Lamasney probed the appellant to point out a single statement in the article that was actually false or to give a single example of how he had been harmed by the article. He could not do so. Judge Lamasney's ruling was clear:

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Ramos, I'm going to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss this case. And it will be dismissed with prejudice. And I'm going to grant it for the following reasons: You are required in your complaint to state a claim with sufficient specificity.MR. RAMOS: Your Honor ''

THE COURT: I'm talking now.

MR. RAMOS: Yes, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: And dismissal is proper only if the facts and inferences, even if proven, would not entitle the plaintiff to relief. And that is what I am finding in your case, that you do not lay out a prima facie case for defamation or for invasion of privacy, or being placed in the false light.

And the reason I'm finding that is that there is absolutely not one piece of evidence, or an assertion by you that the statement was false.

The one statement you refer to concerning the rambling and referring to messages that you answered when there had been no contact comes directly from the statement of charges, where she writes, most of his messages are just pages of ramblings regarding my friends, family, job, Rotary Club involvement.

And it goes on to say that you tell her to leave you alone, and you haven't responded for months. That comes right out of a public document'...Correct, both that the article was simply not defamatory, that it was based on public record, that you haven't alleged that it was false, and that the article appears to be substantially accurate, and it would fall into the privilege which would make any complaint unsustainable, because they reported a criminal case. They reported a matter of public interest.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Judge Charles Moylan, Jr. of the Maryland Court of Public Appeals read these transcripts with interest and proceeded respectfully to pile on.

A discussion of defamation law would be an exercise in futility, because the appellant fails to come close to alleging a case of defamation. In his five-page brief, the appellant devotes two and one-half pages to legal argument. He never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false. He claims only that "Hartley's column fails the test of fairness because he editorialized on the story's meaning." There is no allegation of any specific harm that he suffered as a result of the article. He simply described the harm as "incalculable, unforeseen, and potentially unknowable." That does not do it. The appellant is pro se. A lawyer would almost certainly have told him not to proceed with this case.It reveals a fundamental failure to understand what defamation law is and, more particularly, what defamation law is not. The appellant is aggrieved because the newspaper story about his guilty plea assumed that he was guilty and that the guilty plea was, therefore, properly accepted. He is aggrieved because the story was sympathetic toward the harassment victim and was not equally understanding of the harassment perpetrator. The appellant wanted equal coverage of his side of the story. He wanted a chance to put the victim in a bad light, in order to justify and explain why he did what he did. That, however, is not the function of defamation law.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

(Yes, even in a story like this one, BOTH SIDES!)

Ramos apparently then took to the electric Twitter machine to rage against his victim, Hartley, the newspaper, and Judge Moylan for a few months. Then he allegedly loaded his shotgun and went downtown.

Capital Gazette reporter Chase Cook, right, and photographer Joshua McKerrow, left, work on the next day's newspaper while awaiting news from their colleagues. Getty Images

The story of a shooter with a grudge against a newspaper is getting a lot of run, and it's easy to see why. Anyone who's ever worked at a newspaper in any department has a Jarrod Ramos story to tell'--the ringing phone you don't want to pick up, the letters with the alarming spelling, and, now, the many platforms of social media. Most of those people never pick up a gun. Jarrod Ramos did.

However, it's essential, I believe, to take this story back to its origins'--an angry misogynist who engaged in a vicious campaign of slander and harassment of a woman who just tried to be nice to him. Misogyny is the one thing that's part of too many of these stories. Well, that and the guns.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:30

A former CNN producer took to Twitter on Friday to blast Jim Acosta, the network's White House correspondent, for what he called Acosta's ''self-serving antics,'' saying they ''give all good journalists a bad name.''

The posts by Steve Krakauer, a former senior digital producer for the network who is now is a top executive at Commerce House, a Dallas-based advertising firm, were prompted by a question that Acosta shouted to President Donald Trump on Friday during a White House event on the economy and tax cuts.

Trump used the event as an opportunity to extend condolences to the victims and survivors of Thursday's tragedy at the offices of the Capital Gazette, where five employees were slain by a gunman who was later taken into custody.

Acosta tried to link the shooting to past criticisms that Trump had leveled toward members of the media, including calling them ''the enemy of the people.''

As the audience applauded at the end of the president's speech, Acosta shouted from the back of the room:

''Mr. President, will you stop calling us the enemy of the people, sir? Will you stop calling the press the enemy of the people, sir? Mr. President, will you stop calling the press the enemy of the people, sir?''

The question drew no response from Trump.

''Truly an embarrassment, on multiple levels,'' Krakauer tweeted about Acosta's performance.

He continued in a subsequent tweet: ''On a day journalists could honor the memory of fellow reporters tragically killed due to a deranged person with a vendetta going back years, Acosta tries to shift the blame to Trump,'' Krakauer wrote.

After the White House event, Acosta tweeted about his own performance: ''I tried to ask the president if he would stop calling us the enemy of the people. He did not respond,'' Acosta wrote.

He added: ''We also had a few folks who shushed is in the audience. Of course we are not going to be shushed.''

Acosta is no stranger to controversy. Earlier in the week, the reporter drew shouts of ''Go home!,'' and ''Fake news, Jim!'' at a Trump rally in South Carolina.

One rallygoer, identified as Maria Rojas, personally confronted Acosta, telling him he doesn't respect the country.

''I do respect the United States, yes I do," Acosta told the woman in videos posted by an Associated Press reporter.

Anyone wanting more opportunity to make up their minds about Acosta can tune in Sunday to CNN's ''Reliable Sources'' program, where host Brian Stelter is scheduled to interview his CNN colleague, Jim Acosta.

Fox News' Nicole Darrah contributed to this story.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:14

Opinion

By Michael Goodwin

July 1, 2017 | 11:58am

Since President Trump was elected, the media landscape has divided and hardened more than ever. Even the once-unimpeachable New York Times has been guilty of ''fake news,'' while on Tuesday CNN had to retract an article that slimed a Trump aide based on flimsy reporting. In April, The Post's Michael Goodwin delivered this speech at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Atlanta, analyzing how we got here '-- and how journalism can survive.

I've been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn't always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year's election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale '-- that most of what you read, watch and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.

It's not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at the New York Times, so I'm familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and '70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government '-- and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in ''All the President's Men.'' Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That's because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.

During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was ''to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.'' I'm not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do. Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news, and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, ''Government is what we do together.'' From there, it's a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.

The rest of that journalistic ethos '-- ''afflict the comfortable'' '-- leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

A new dimensionI knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not na¯ve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics. No one in modern times had seen anything like it. As with grief, there were several stages. In the beginning, Donald Trump's candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn't a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: The more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.

As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press, and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.

Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media's tone grow more serious.

The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters.

One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion. The realization that they had helped Trump's rise seemed to make many executives, producers and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that. The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August, I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline ''American journalism is collapsing before our eyes,'' I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was ''engaged in a naked display of partisanship'' designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.

The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction '-- toward Clinton and away from Trump.

For the most part, I blame the New York Times and the Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.

On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided (and continues to provide) lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds. But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a ''D'' after its name. Think of it '-- George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And the Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.

But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:

''If you're a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation's worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?''

I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that's actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn't cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn't be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you've already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was ''normal'' and Trump was not.

New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet New York TimesI found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I'll tell you what happened to them. The Times' top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump ''challenged our language,'' he said, and Trump ''will have changed journalism.'' Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: ''I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.''

Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He's the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.

With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where and why, he added the reporter's opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper '-- all the tools that writers and editors have '-- were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.

Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as ''you can keep your doctor'' and ''the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.'' Indeed, the Times and the Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty. They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as ''I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,'' ''I turned over all the government emails,'' and ''I never sent or received classified emails.'' All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.

As we know now, most of the media totally missed Trump's appeal to millions upon millions of Americans. The prejudice against him blinded those news organizations to what was happening in the country. Even more incredibly, I believe the bias and hostility directed at Trump backfired. The feeling that the election was, in part, a referendum on the media gave some voters an extra incentive to vote for Trump. A vote for him was a vote against the media and against Washington. Not incidentally, Trump used that sentiment to his advantage, often revving up his crowds with attacks on reporters. He still does.

If I haven't made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially the New York Times, was a disgrace. I don't believe it ever will recover the public trust it squandered.

The Times' previous reputation for having the highest standards was legitimate. Those standards were developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to gain public trust. The commitment to fairness made the New York Times the flagship of American journalism. But standards are like laws in the sense that they are designed to guide your behavior in good times and in bad. Consistent adherence to them was the source of the Times' credibility. And eliminating them has made the paper less than ordinary. Its only standards now are double standards.

Abe Rosenthal API say this with great sadness. I was blessed to grow up at the Times, getting a clerical job right out of college and working my way onto the reporting staff, where I worked for a decade. It was the formative experience of my career where I learned most of what I know about reporting and writing. Alas, it was a different newspaper then. Abe Rosenthal was the editor in those days, and long before we'd ever heard the phrase ''zero tolerance,'' that's what Abe practiced toward conflicts of interest and reporters' opinions. He set the rules and everybody knew it.

Here is a true story about how Abe Rosenthal resolved a conflict of interest. A young woman was hired by the Times from one of the Philadelphia newspapers. But soon after she arrived in New York, a story broke in Philly that she had had a romantic affair with a political figure she had covered, and that she had accepted a fur coat and other expensive gifts from him. When he saw the story, Abe called the woman into his office and asked her if it was true. When she said yes, he told her to clean out her desk '-- that she was finished at the Times and would never work there again. As word spread through the newsroom, some reporters took the woman's side and rushed in to tell Abe that firing her was too harsh. He listened for about 30 seconds and said, in so many words, ''I don't care if you f''k an elephant on your personal time, but then you can't cover the circus for the paper.'' Case closed. The conflict-of-interest policy was clear, absolute, and unforgettable.

As for reporters' opinions, Abe had a similar approach. He didn't want them in the news pages. And if you put them in, he took them out. They belonged in the opinion pages only, which were managed separately. Abe said he knew reporters tended to lean left and would find ways to sneak their views into the stories. So he saw his job as steering the paper slightly to the right. ''That way,'' he said, ''the paper would end up in the middle.'' He was well known for this attitude, which he summed up as ''keeping the paper straight.'' He even said he wanted his epitaph to read, ''He kept the paper straight.'' Like most people, I thought this was a joke. But after I related all this in a column last year, his widow contacted me and said it wasn't a joke '-- that, in fact, Abe's tombstone reads, ''He kept the paper straight.'' She sent me a picture to prove it. I published that picture of his tombstone alongside a column where I excoriated the Times for its election coverage. Sadly, the Times' high standards were buried with Abe Rosenthal.

Looking to the futureWhich brings us to the crucial questions. Can the American media be fixed? And is there anything that we as individuals can do to make a difference? The short answer to the first question is, ''No, it can't be fixed.'' The 2016 election was the media's Humpty Dumpty moment. It fell off the wall, shattered into a million pieces, and can't be put back together again. In case there is any doubt, 2017 is confirming that the standards are still dead. The orgy of visceral Trump-bashing continues unabated.

But the future of journalism isn't all gloom and doom. In fact, if we accept the new reality of widespread bias and seize the potential it offers, there is room for optimism. Consider this: The election showed the country is roughly divided 50-50 between people who will vote for a Democrat and people who will vote for a Republican. But our national media is more like 80-20 in favor of Democrats. While the media should, in theory, broadly reflect the public, it doesn't. Too much of the media acts like a special interest group. Detached from the greater good, it exists to promote its own interest and the political party with which it is aligned.

Ronald Reagan's optimism is often expressed in a story that is surely apocryphal, but irresistible. He is said to have come across a barn full of horse manure and remarked cheerfully that there must be a pony in it somewhere. I suggest we look at the media landscape in a similar fashion. The mismatch between the mainstream media and the public's sensibilities means there is a vast untapped market for news and views that are not now represented. To realize that potential, we only need three ingredients, and we already have them: first, free speech; second, capitalism and free markets; and the third ingredient is you, the consumers of news.

Free speech is under assault, most obviously on many college campuses, but also in the news media, which presents a conformist view to its audience and gets a politically segregated audience in return. Look at the letters section in the New York Times '-- virtually every reader who writes in agrees with the opinions of the paper. This isn't a miracle; it's a bubble. Liberals used to love to say, ''I don't agree with your opinion, but I would fight to the death for your right to express it.'' You don't hear that anymore from the Left. Now they want to shut you up if you don't agree. And they are having some success.

An expanded media landscape that better reflects the diversity of public preferences would, in time, help create a more level political and cultural arena.

But there is a countervailing force. Look at what happened this winter when the Left organized boycotts of department stores that carried Ivanka Trump's clothing and jewelry. Nordstrom folded like a cheap suit, but Trump's supporters rallied on social media and Ivanka's company had its best month ever. This is the model I have in mind for the media. It is similar to how FOX News got started. Rupert Murdoch (who owns the New York Post) thought there was an untapped market for a more fair and balanced news channel, and he recruited the late Roger Ailes to start it more than 20 years ago. Ailes found a niche market, all right '-- half the country!

Incredible advances in technology are also on the side of free speech. The explosion of choices makes it almost impossible to silence all dissent and gain a monopoly, though certainly Facebook and Google are trying.

As for the necessity of preserving capitalism, look around the world. Nations without economic liberty usually have little or no dissent. That's not a coincidence. In this, I'm reminded of an enduring image from the Occupy Wall Street movement. That movement was a pestilence, egged on by President Obama and others who view other people's wealth as a crime against the common good. This attitude was on vivid display as the protesters held up their iPhones to demand the end of capitalism. As I wrote at the time, did they believe Steve Jobs made each and every Apple product one at a time in his garage? Did they not have a clue about how capital markets make life better for more people than any other system known to man? They had no clue. And neither do many government officials, who think they can kill the golden goose and still get golden eggs.

Which brings me to the third necessary ingredient in determining where we go from here. It's you. I urge you to support the media you like. As the great writer and thinker Midge Decter once put it, ''You have to join the side you're on.'' It's no secret that newspapers and magazines are losing readers and money and shedding staff. Some of them are good newspapers. Some of them are good magazines. There are also many wonderful, thoughtful, small publications and websites that exist on a shoestring. Don't let them die. Subscribe or contribute to those you enjoy. Give subscriptions to friends. Put your money where your heart and mind are. An expanded media landscape that better reflects the diversity of public preferences would, in time, help create a more level political and cultural arena. That would be a great thing. So again I urge you: Join the side you're on.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:10

U.S. Supreme CourtUnited States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)United States v. Martinez-Fuerte

No. 74-1560

Argued April 26, 1976

Decided July 6, 1976*

428 U.S. 543

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 428 U. S. 556 -564.

(a) To require that such stops always be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car necessary to identify it as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. Such a requirement also would largely eliminate any deterrent to the conduct of well disguised smuggling operations, even though smugglers are known to use these highways regularly. Pp. 428 U. S. 556 -557.

(b) While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited, the interference with legitimate traffic being minimal and checkpoint operations involving less discretionary enforcement activity than roving patrol stops. Pp. 428 U. S. 557 -560.

(c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 428 U. S. 560 -562.

(d) With respect to the checkpoint involved in No 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it. Pp. 428 U. S. 563 -564.

2. Operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387

Page 428 U. S. 544

U.S. 523, distinguished. The visible manifestations of the field officers' authority at a checkpoint provide assurances to motorists that the officers are acting lawfully. Moreover, the purpose of a warrant in preventing hindsight from coloring the evaluation of the reasonableness of a search or seizure is inapplicable here, since the reasonableness of checkpoint stops turns on factors such as the checkpoint's location and method of operation. These factors are not susceptible of the distortion of hindsight, and will be open to post-stop review notwithstanding the absence of a warrant. Nor is the purpose of a warrant in substituting a magistrate's judgment for that of the searching or seizing officer applicable, since the need for this is reduced when the decision to "seize" is not entirely in the hands of the field officer and deference is to be given to the administrative decisions of higher ranking officials in selecting the checkpoint locations. Pp. 428 U. S. 564 -566.

No. 74-1560, 514 F.2d 308, reversed and remanded; No. 75-5387, affirmed.

POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 428 U. S. 567 .

Page 428 U. S. 545

MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases involve criminal prosecutions for offenses relating to the transportation of illegal Mexican aliens. Each defendant was arrested at a permanent checkpoint operated by the Border Patrol away from the international border with Mexico, and each sought the exclusion of certain evidence on the ground that the operation of the checkpoint was incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. In each instance, whether the Fourth Amendment was violated turns primarily on whether a vehicle may be stopped at a fixed checkpoint for brief questioning of its occupants even though there is no reason to believe the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. We reserved this question last Term in United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891 , 422 U. S. 897 n. 3 (1975). We hold today that such stops are consistent with the Fourth Amendment. We also hold that the operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a Judicial warrant.

IA

The respondents in No. 74-1560 are defendants in three separate prosecutions resulting from arrests made on three different occasions at the permanent immigration checkpoint on Interstate 5 near San Clemente, Cal. Interstate 5 is the principal highway between San Diego and Los Angeles, and the San Clemente checkpoint is 66 road miles north of the Mexican border. We previously have described the checkpoint as follows:

""Approximately one mile south of the checkpoint is a large black on yellow sign with flashing yellow lights over the highway stating ALL VEHICLES, STOP AHEAD, 1 MILE.' Three-quarters of a

Page 428 U. S. 546

mile further north are two black on yellow signs suspended over the highway with flashing lights stating "WATCH FOR BRAKE LIGHTS." At the checkpoint, which is also the location of a State of California weighing station, are two large signs with flashing red lights suspended over the highway. These signs each state `STOP HERE -- U.S. OFFICERS.' Placed on the highway are a number of orange traffic cones funneling traffic into two lanes where a Border Patrol agent in full dress uniform, standing behind a white on red "STOP" sign checks traffic. Blocking traffic in the unused lanes are official U.S. Border Patrol vehicles with lashing red lights. In addition, there is a permanent building which houses the Border Patrol office and temporary detention facilities. There are also floodlights for nighttime operation.""

United States v. Ortiz, supra at 422 U. S. 893 , quoting United States v. Baca, 368 F.Supp. 398, 410-411 (SD Cal.1973).

The "point" agent standing between the two lanes of traffic visually screens all north-bound vehicles, which the checkpoint brings to a virtual, if not a complete, halt. [Footnote 1] Most motorists are allowed to resume their progress without any oral inquiry or close visual examination. In a relatively small number of cases, the "point" agent will conclude that further inquiry is in order. He directs these cars to a secondary inspection area, where their occupants are asked about their citizenship and immigration status. The Government informs us that, at San

Page 428 U. S. 547

Clemente, the average length of an investigation in the secondary inspection area is three to five minutes. Brief for United States 53. A direction to stop in the secondary inspection area could be based on something suspicious about a particular car passing through the checkpoint, but the Government concedes that none of the three stops at issue in No. 74-1560 was based on any articulable suspicion. During the period when these stops were made, the checkpoint was operating under a magistrate's "warrant of inspection," which authorized the Border Patrol to conduct a routine stop operation at the San Clemente location. [Footnote 2]

We turn now to the particulars of the stops involved in No. 74-1560, and the procedural history of the case. Respondent Amado Martinez-Fuerte approached the checkpoint driving a vehicle containing two female passengers. The women were illegal Mexican aliens who had entered the United States at the San Ysidro port of entry by using false papers and rendezvoused with Martinez-Fuerte in San Diego to be transported northward. At the checkpoint, their car was directed to the secondary inspection area. Martinez-Fuerte produced documents showing him to be a lawful resident alien, but his passengers admitted being present in the country unlawfully. He was charged, inter alia, with two counts of illegally transporting aliens in violation

Page 428 U. S. 548

of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2). He moved before trial to suppress all evidence stemming from the stop on the ground that the operation of the checkpoint was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. [Footnote 3] The motion to suppress was denied, and he was convicted on both counts after a jury trial.

Respondent Jose Jiminez-Garcia attempted to pass through the checkpoint while driving a car containing one passenger. He had picked the passenger up by prearrangement in San Ysidro after the latter had been smuggled across the border. Questioning at the secondary inspection area revealed the illegal status of the passenger, and Jiminez-Garcia was charged in two counts with illegally transporting an alien, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2), and conspiring to commit that offense, 18 U.S.C. § 371. His motion to suppress the evidence derived from the stop was granted.

Respondents Raymond Guillen and Fernando Medrano-Barragan approached the checkpoint with Guillen driving and Medrano-Barragan and his wife as passengers. Questioning at the secondary inspection area revealed that Medrano-Barragan and his wife were illegal aliens. A subsequent search of the car uncovered three other illegal aliens in the trunk. Medrano-Barragan had led the other aliens across the border at the beach near Tijuana, Mexico, where they rendezvoused with Guillen, a United States citizen. Guillen and Medrano-Barragan were jointly indicated on four counts of illegally transporting

Page 428 U. S. 549

aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2), four counts of inducing the illegal entry of aliens, § 1324(a)(4), and one conspiracy count, 18 U.S.C. § 371. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to suppress.

Martinez-Fuerte appealed his conviction, and the Government appealed the granting of the motions to suppress in the respective prosecutions of Jiminez-Garcia and of Guillen and Medrano-Barragan. [Footnote 4] The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit consolidated the three appeals, which presented the common question whether routine stops and interrogations at checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment. [Footnote 5] The Court of Appeals held, with one judge dissenting, that these stops violated the Fourth Amendment, concluding that a stop for inquiry is constitutional only if the Border Patrol reasonably suspects the presence of illegal aliens on the basis of articulable facts. It reversed Martinez-Fuerte's conviction, and affirmed the orders to suppress in the other cases. 514 F.2d 308 (1975). We reverse and remand.

B

Petitioner in No. 75-5387, Rodolfo Sifuentes, was arrested at the permanent immigration checkpoint on U.S. Highway 77 near Sarita, Tex. Highway 77 originates in Brownsville, and it is one of the two major highways running north from the lower Rio Grande valley. The Sarita checkpoint is about 90 miles north of Brownsville,

Page 428 U. S. 550

and 65-90 miles from the nearest points of the Mexican border. The physical arrangement of the checkpoint resembles generally that at San Clemente, but the checkpoint is operated differently, in that the officers customarily stop all north-bound motorists for a brief inquiry. Motorists whom the officers recognize as local inhabitants, however, are waved through the checkpoint without inquiry. Unlike the San Clemente checkpoint, the Sarita operation was conducted without a judicial warrant.

Sifuentes drove up to the checkpoint without any visible passengers. When an agent approached the vehicle, however, he observed four passengers, one in the front seat and the other three in the rear, slumped down in the seats. Questioning revealed that each passenger was an illegal alien, although Sifuentes was a United States citizen. The aliens had met Sifuentes in the United States, by prearrangement, after swimming across the Rio Grande.

Sifuentes was indicated on four counts of illegally transporting aliens. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2). He moved on Fourth Amendment grounds to suppress the evidence derived from the stop. The motion was denied, and he was convicted after a jury trial. Sifuentes renewed his Fourth Amendment argument on appeal, contending primarily that stops made without reason to believe a car is transporting aliens illegally are unconstitutional. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction, 517 F.2d 1402 (1975), relying on its opinion in United States v. Santibanez, 517 F.2d 922 (1975). There, the Court of Appeals had ruled that routine checkpoint stops are consistent with the Fourth Amendment. We affirm. [Footnote 6]

Page 428 U. S. 551

IIThe Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and the Fifth Circuits are in conflict on the constitutionality of a law enforcement technique considered important by those charged with policing the Nation's borders. Before turning to the constitutional question, we examine the context in which it arises.

A

It has been national policy for many years to limit immigration into the United States. Since July 1, 1968, the annual quota for immigrants from all independent countries of the Western Hemisphere, including Mexico, has been 120,000 persons. Act of Oct. 3, 1965, § 21(e), 79 Stat. 921. Many more aliens than can be accommodated under the quota want to live and work in the United States. Consequently, large numbers of aliens seek illegally to enter or to remain in the United States. We noted last Term that

"[e]stimates of the number of illegal immigrants [already] in the United States vary widely. A conservative estimate in 1972 produced a figure of about one million, but the Immigration and Naturalization Service now suggests there may be a many as 10 or 12 million aliens illegally in the country."

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 , 422 U. S. 878 (1975) (footnote omitted). It is estimated that 85% of the illegal immigrants are from Mexico, drawn by the fact that economic opportunities are significantly greater in the United States than they are in Mexico. United States v. Baca, 368 F.Supp. at 402.

Page 428 U. S. 552

.Interdicting the flow of illegal entrants from Mexico poses formidable law enforcement problems. The principal problem arises from surreptitious entries. Id. at 405. The United States shares a border with Mexico that is almost 2,000 miles long, and much of the border area is uninhabited desert or thinly populated arid land. Although the Border Patrol maintains personnel, electronic equipment, and fences along portions of the border, it remains relatively easy for individuals to enter the United States without detection. It also is possible for an alien to enter unlawfully at a port of entry by the use of falsified papers or to enter lawfully but violate restrictions of entry in an effort to remain in the country unlawfully. [Footnote 7] Once within the country, the aliens seek to travel inland to areas where employment is believed to be available, frequently meeting by prearrangement with friends or professional smugglers who transport them in private vehicles. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra at 422 U. S. 879 .

The Border Patrol conducts three kinds of inland traffic-checking operations in an effort to minimize illegal immigration. Permanent checkpoints, such as those at San Clemente and Sarita, are maintained at or near intersections of important roads leading away from the border. They operate on a coordinated basis designed to avoid circumvention by smugglers and others who transport the illegal aliens. Temporary checkpoints, which operate like permanent ones, occasionally are established in other strategic locations. Finally, roving patrols are maintained to supplement the checkpoint system. See Almeida-Sanchez v. United

Page 428 U. S. 553

States, 413 U. S. 266 , 413 U. S. 268 (1973). [Footnote 8] In fiscal 1973, 175,511 deportable aliens were apprehended throughout the Nation by "line watch" agents stationed at the border itself. Traffic-checking operations in the interior apprehended approximately 55,300 more deportable aliens. [Footnote 9] Most of the traffic-checking apprehensions were at checkpoints, though precise figures are not available. United States v. Baca, supra at 405, 407, and n. 2.

B

We are concerned here with permanent checkpoints, the locations of which are chosen on the basis of a number of factors. The Border Patrol believes that, to assure effectiveness, a checkpoint must be (i) distant enough from the border to avoid interference with traffic in populated areas near the border, (ii) close to the confluence of two or more significant roads leading away from the border, (iii) situated in terrain that restricts vehicle passage around the checkpoint, (iv) on a stretch of highway compatible with safe operation, and (v) beyond the 25-mile zone in which "border passes," see n 7, supra, are valid. United States v. Baca, supra at 406.

Page 428 U. S. 554

The record in No. 74-1560 provides a rather complete picture of the effectiveness of the San Clemente checkpoint. Approximately 10 million cars pass the checkpoint location each year, although the checkpoint actually is in operation only about 70% of the time. [Footnote 10] In calendar year 1973, approximately 17,000 illegal aliens were apprehended there. During an eight-day period in 1974 that included the arrests involved in No. 74-1560, roughly 146,000 vehicles passed through the checkpoint during 124 1/6 hours of operation. Of these, 820 vehicles were referred to the secondary inspection area, where Border Patrol agents found 725 deportable aliens in 171 vehicles. In all but two cases, the aliens were discovered without a conventional search of the vehicle. A similar rate of apprehensions throughout the year would have resulted in an annual total of over 33,000, although the Government contends that many illegal aliens pass through the checkpoint undetected. The record in No. 75-5387 does not provide comparable statistical information regarding the Sarita checkpoint. While it appears that fewer illegal aliens are apprehended there, it may be assumed that fewer pass by undetected, as every motorist is questioned.

IIIThe Fourth Amendment imposes limits on search and seizure powers in order to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy and personal security of individuals. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 878 ; United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 895 ; Camara v. Municipal Court,

Page 428 U. S. 555

387 U. S. 523 , 387 U. S. 528 (1967). In delineating the constitutional safeguards applicable in particular contexts, the Court has weighed the public interest against the Fourth Amendment interest of the individual, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra at 422 U. S. 878 ; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 , 392 U. S. 20 -21 (1968), a process evident in our previous cases dealing with Border Patrol traffic-checking operations.

In Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, supra, the question was whether a roving patrol unit constitutionally could search a vehicle for illegal aliens simply because it was in the general vicinity of the border. We recognized that important law enforcement interests were at stake, but held that searches by roving patrols impinged so significantly on Fourth Amendment privacy interests that a search could be conducted without consent only if there was probable cause to believe that a car contained illegal aliens, at least in the absence of a judicial warrant authorizing random searches by roving patrols in a given area. Compare 413 U.S. at 413 U. S. 273 , with id. at 413 U. S. 283 -285 (POWELL, J., concurring), and id. at 413 U. S. 288 (WHITE, J., dissenting). We held in United States v. Ortiz, supra, that the same limitations applied to vehicle searches conducted at a permanent checkpoint.

In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, however, we recognized that other traffic-checking practices involve a different balance of public and private interests, and appropriately are subject to less stringent constitutional safeguards. The question was under what circumstances a roving patrol could stop motorists in the general area of the border for brief inquiry into their residence status. We found that the interference with Fourth Amendment interests involved in such a stop was "modest," 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 880 , while the inquiry served significant law enforcement needs. We therefore held that a roving patrol stop need not be justified by probable

Page 428 U. S. 556

cause and may be undertaken if the stopping officer is "aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion" that a vehicle contains illegal aliens. Id. at 422 U. S. 884 . [Footnote 11]

IVIt is agreed that checkpoint stops are "seizures" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The defendants contend primarily that the routine stopping of vehicles at a checkpoint is invalid because Brignoni-Ponce must be read as proscribing any stops in the absence of reasonable suspicion. Sifuentes alternatively contends in No. 75-5387 that routine checkpoint stops are permissible only when the practice has the advance judicial authorization of a warrant. There was a warrant authorizing the stops at San Clemente, but none at Sarita. As we reach the issue of a warrant requirement only if reasonable suspicion is not required, we turn first to whether reasonable suspicion is a prerequisite to a valid stop, a question to be resolved by balancing the interests at stake.

A

Our previous cases have recognized that maintenance of a traffic-checking program in the interior is necessary because the flow of illegal aliens cannot be controlled effectively at the border. We note here only the substantiality of the public interest in the practice of routine stops for inquiry at permanent checkpoints, a practice which the Government identifies as the most important of the traffic-checking operations. Brief for United States in No. 74-1560, pp. 19-20. [Footnote 12] These checkpoints

Page 428 U. S. 557

are located on important highways; in their absence, such highways would offer illegal aliens a quick and safe route into the interior. Routine checkpoint inquiries apprehend many smugglers and illegal aliens who succumb to the lure of such highways. And the prospect of such inquiries forces others onto less efficient roads that are less heavily traveled, slowing their movement and making them more vulnerable to detection by roving patrols. Cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 883 -885.

A requirement that stops on major routes inland always be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car that would enable it to be identified as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. In particular, such a requirement would largely eliminate any deterrent to the conduct of well disguised smuggling operations, even though smugglers are known to use these highways regularly.

B

While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited. The stop does intrude to a limited extent on motorists' right to "free passage without

Page 428 U. S. 558

interruption," Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 , 267 U. S. 154 (1925), and arguably on their right to personal security. But it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which

"'[a]ll that is required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.'"

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra at 422 U. S. 880 . Neither the vehicle nor its occupants are searched, and visual inspection of the vehicle is limited to what can be seen without a search. This objective intrusion -- the stop itself, the questioning, and the visual inspection -- also existed in roving patrol stops. But we view checkpoint stops in a different light because the subjective intrusion -- the generating of concern or even fright on the part of lawful travelers -- is appreciably less in the case of a checkpoint stop. In Ortiz, we noted:

"[T]he circumstances surrounding a checkpoint stop and search are far less intrusive than those attending a roving patrol stop. Roving patrols often operate at night on seldom-traveled roads, and their approach may frighten motorists. At traffic checkpoints, the motorist can see that other vehicles are being stopped, he can see visible signs of the officers' authority, and he is much less likely to be frightened or annoyed by the intrusion."

422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 894 -895.

In Brignoni-Ponce, we recognized that Fourth Amendment analysis in this context also must take into account the overall degree of interference with legitimate traffic. 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 882 -883. We concluded there that random roving patrol stops could not be tolerated, because they

"would subject the residents of . . . [border] areas to

Page 428 U. S. 559

potentially unlimited interference with their use of the highways, solely at the discretion of Border Patrol officers. . . . [They] could stop motorists at random for questioning, day or night, anywhere within 100 air miles of the 2,000-mile border, on a city street, a busy highway, or a desert road. . . ."

Ibid. There also was a grave danger that such unreviewable discretion would be abused by some officers in the field. Ibid.

Routine checkpoint stops do not intrude similarly on the motoring public. First, the potential interference with legitimate traffic is minimal. Motorists using these highways are not taken by surprise, as they know, or may obtain knowledge of, the location of the checkpoints, and will not be stopped elsewhere. Second, checkpoint operations both appear to and actually involve less discretionary enforcement activity. The regularized manner in which established checkpoints are operated is visible evidence, reassuring to law-abiding motorists, that the stops are duly authorized and believed to serve the public interest. The location of a fixed checkpoint is not chosen by officers in the field, but by officials responsible for making overall decisions as to the most effective allocation of limited enforcement resources. We may assume that such officials will be unlikely to locate a checkpoint where it bears arbitrarily or oppressively on motorists as a class. And since field officers may stop only those cars passing the checkpoint, there is less room for abusive or harassing stops of individuals than there was in the case of roving patrol stops. Moreover, a claim that a particular exercise of discretion in locating or operating a checkpoint is unreasonable is subject to post-stop judicial review. [Footnote 13]

Page 428 U. S. 560

The defendants arrested at the San Clemente checkpoint suggest that its operation involves a significant extra element of intrusiveness in that only a small percentage of cars are referred to the secondary inspection area, thereby "stigmatizing" those diverted and reducing the assurances provided by equal treatment of all motorists. We think defendants overstate the consequences. Referrals are made for the sole purpose of conducting a routine and limited inquiry into residence status that cannot feasibly be made of every motorist where the traffic is heavy. The objective intrusion of the stop and inquiry thus remains minimal. Selective referral may involve some annoyance, but it remains true that the stops should not be frightening or offensive, because of their public and relatively routine nature. Moreover, selective referrals -- rather than questioning the occupants of every car -- tend to advance some Fourth Amendment interests by minimizing the intrusion on the general motoring public.

C

The defendants note correctly that, to accommodate public and private interests, some quantum of individualized suspicion is usually a prerequisite to a constitutional search or seizure. [Footnote 14] See Terry v. Ohio, 392

Page 428 U. S. 561

U.S. at 392 U. S. 21 , and n. 18. But the Fourth Amendment imposes no irreducible requirement of such suspicion. This is clear from Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 (1967). See also Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. at 413 U. S. 283 -285 (POWELL, J., concurring); id. at 413 U. S. 288 (WHITE, J., dissenting); Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U. S. 72 (1970); United States v. Biswell, 406 U. S. 311 (1972); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. at 267 U. S. 154 . In Camara, the Court required an "area" warrant to support the reasonableness of inspecting private residences within a particular area for building code violations, but recognized that "specific knowledge of the condition of the particular dwelling" was not required to enter any given residence. 387 U.S. at 387 U. S. 538 . In so holding, the Court examined the government interests advanced to justify such routine intrusions "upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen," id. at 387 U. S. 534 -535, and concluded that, under the circumstances the government interests outweighed those of the private citizen.

We think the same conclusion is appropriate here, where we deal neither with searches nor with the sanctity of private dwellings, ordinarily afforded the most stringent Fourth Amendment protection. See, e.g., McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451 (1948). As we have noted earlier, one's expectation of privacy in an automobile and of freedom in its operation are significantly different from the traditional expectation of privacy and freedom in one's residence. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 896 n. 2; see Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583 , 417 U. S. 590 -591 (1974) (plurality

Page 428 U. S. 562

opinion). And the reasonableness of the procedures followed in making these checkpoint stops makes the resulting intrusion on the interests of motorists minimal. On the other hand, the purpose of the stops is legitimate and in the public interest, and the need for this enforcement technique is demonstrated by the records in the cases before us. Accordingly, we hold that the stops and questioning at issue may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion at reasonably located checkpoints. [Footnote 15]

Page 428 U. S. 563

We further believe that it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to the secondary inspection area at the San Clemente checkpoint on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop. Thus, even if it be assumed that such referrals are made largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry, [Footnote 16] we perceive no constitutional violation. Cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 885 -887. As the intrusion here is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it, we think it follows that the Border Patrol

Page 428 U. S. 564

officers must have wide discretion in selecting the motorists to be diverted for the brief questioning involved. [Footnote 17]

VSifuentes' alternative argument is that routine stops at a checkpoint are permissible only if a warrant has given judicial authorization to the particular checkpoint location and the practice of routine stops. A warrant requirement in these circumstances draws some support from Camara, where the Court held that, absent consent, an "area" warrant was required to make a building code inspection, even though the search could be conducted absent cause to believe that there were violations in the building searched. [Footnote 18]

We do not think, however, that Camara is an apt

Page 428 U. S. 565

model. It involved the search of private residences, for which a warrant traditionally has been required. See, e.g., McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451 (1948). As developed more fully above, the strong Fourth Amendment interests that justify the warrant requirement in that context are absent here. The degree of intrusion upon privacy that may be occasioned by a search of a house hardly can be compared with the minor interference with privacy resulting from the mere stop for questioning as to residence. Moreover, the warrant requirement in Camara served specific Fourth Amendment interests to which a warrant requirement here would make little contribution. The Court there said:

"[W]hen [an] inspector [without a warrant] demands entry, the occupant has no way of knowing whether enforcement of the municipal code involved requires inspection of his premises, no way of knowing the lawful limits of the inspector's power to search, and no way of knowing whether the inspector himself is acting under proper authorization."

387 U.S. at 387 U. S. 532 . A warrant provided assurance to the occupant on these scores. We believe that the visible manifestations of the field officers' authority at a checkpoint provide substantially the same assurances in this case.

Other purposes served by the requirement of a warrant also are inapplicable here. One such purpose is to prevent hindsight from coloring the evaluation of the reasonableness of a search or seizure. Cf. United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411 , 423 U. S. 455 -456, n. 22 (1976) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). The reasonableness of checkpoint stops, however, turns on factors such as the location and method of operation of the checkpoint, factors that are not susceptible to the distortion of hindsight, and therefore will be open to post-stop review notwithstanding

Page 428 U. S. 566

the absence of a warrant. Another purpose for a warrant requirement is to substitute the judgment of the magistrate for that of the searching or seizing officer. United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297 , 407 U. S. 316 -318 (1972). But the need for this is reduced when the decision to "seize" is not entirely in the hands of the officer in the field, and deference is to be given to the administrative decisions of higher ranking officials.

VIIn summary, we hold that stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and need not be authorized by warrant. [Footnote 19] The principal protection of Fourth

Page 428 U. S. 567

Amendment rights at checkpoints lies in appropriate limitations on the scope of the stop. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 24 -27; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 881 -882. We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891 (1975). And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. "[A]ny further detention . . . must be based on consent or probable cause." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra at 422 U. S. 882 . None of the defendants in these cases argues that the stopping officers exceeded these limitations. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which had affirmed the conviction of Sifuentes. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case with directions to affirm the conviction of Martinez-Fuerte and to remand the other cases to the District Court for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

* Together with No. 75-5387, Sifuentes v. United States, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

[Footnote 1]

The parties disagree as to whether vehicles not referred to the secondary inspection area are brought to a complete halt or merely "roll" slowly through the checkpoint. Resolution of this dispute is not necessary here, as we may assume, arguendo, that all motorists passing through the checkpoint are so slowed as to have been "seized."

[Footnote 2]

The record does not reveal explicitly why a warrant was sought. Shortly before the warrant application, however, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had held unconstitutional a routine stop and search conducted at a permanent checkpoint without such a warrant. See United States v. Bowen, 500 F.2d 960 (1974), aff'd on other grounds, 422 U. S. 916 (1975); United States v. Juarez-Rodriguez, 498 F.2d 7 (1974). Soon after the warrant issued, the Court of Appeals also held unconstitutional routine checkpoint stops conducted without a warrant. See United States v. Esquer-Rivera, 500 F.2d 313 (1974). See also n 15, infra.

[Footnote 3]

Each of the defendants in No. 74-1560 and the defendant in No. 75-5387 sought to suppress, among other things, the testimony of one or more illegal aliens. We noted in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 , 422 U. S. 876 n. 2 (1975), that

"[t]here may be room to question whether voluntary testimony of a witness at trial, as opposed to a Government agent's testimony about objects seized or statements overheard, is subject to suppression. . . ."

The question again is not before us.

[Footnote 4]

The prosecution of Martinez-Fuerte was before a different District Judge than were the other cases.

[Footnote 5]

The principal question before the Court of Appeals was the constitutional significance of the "warrant of inspection" under which the checkpoint was operating when the defendants were stopped. See n 15, infra. The Government, however, preserved the question whether routine checkpoint stops could be made absent a warrant.

[Footnote 6]

We initially granted the Government's petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 74-1560, 423 U.S. 822, and later granted Sifuentes' petition in No. 75-5387 and directed that the cases be argued in tandem. 423 U.S. 945. Subsequently, we granted the motion of the Solicitor General to consolidate the cases for oral argument. 425 U.S. 931.

[Footnote 7]

The latter occurs particularly where "border passes" are issued to simplify passage between interrelated American and Mexican communities along the border. These passes authorize travel within 25 miles of the border for a 72-hour period. See 8 CFR § 212.6 (1976).

[Footnote 8]

All these operations are conducted pursuant to statutory authorizations empowering Border Patrol agents to interrogate those believed to be aliens as to their right to be in the United States and to inspect vehicles for aliens. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1357(a)(1), (a)(3). Under current regulations, the authority conferred by § 1357(a)(3) may be exercised anywhere within 100 air miles of the border. 8 CFR § 287.1(a) (1976).

[Footnote 9]

As used in these statistics, the term "deportable alien" means

"a person who has been found to be deportable by an immigration judge, or who admits his deportability upon questioning by official agents."

United States v. Baca, 368 F.Supp. 398, 404 (SD Cal.1973). Most illegal aliens are simply deported without prosecution. The Government routinely prosecutes persons thought to be smugglers, many of whom are lawfully in the United States.

[Footnote 10]

The Sarita checkpoint is operated a comparable proportion of the time. "Down" periods are caused by personnel shortages, weather conditions, and -- at San Clemente -- peak traffic loads.

[Footnote 11]

On the facts of the case, we concluded that the stop was impermissible because reasonable suspicion was lacking.

[Footnote 12]

The defendants argue at length that the public interest in maintaining checkpoints is less than is asserted by the Government because the flow of illegal immigrants could be reduced by means other than checkpoint operations. As one alternative, they suggest legislation prohibiting the knowing employment of illegal aliens. The logic of such elaborate less restrictive alternative arguments could raise insuperable barriers to the exercise of virtually all search and seizure powers. In any event, these arguments tend to go to the general proposition that all traffic-checking procedures are impermissible, a premise our previous cases reject. The defendants do not suggest persuasively that the particular law enforcement needs served by checkpoints could be met without reliance on routine checkpoint stops. Compare United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 883 (effectiveness of roving patrols not defeated by reasonable suspicion requirement), with infra this page.

[Footnote 13]

The choice of checkpoint locations must be left largely to the discretion of Border Patrol officials, to be exercised in accordance with statutes and regulations that may be applicable. See n 15, infra. Many incidents of checkpoint operation also must be committed to the discretion of such officials. But see infra at 428 U. S. 565 -566.

[Footnote 14]

Stops for questioning, not dissimilar to those involved here, are used widely at state and local levels to enforce laws regarding drivers' licenses, safety requirements, weight limits, and similar matters. The fact that the purpose of such laws is said to be administrative is of limited relevance in weighing their intrusiveness on one's right to travel; and the logic of the defendants' position, if realistically pursued, might prevent enforcement officials from stopping motorists for questioning on these matters in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a law was being violated. As such laws are not before us, we intimate no view respecting them other than to note that this practice of stopping automobiles briefly for questioning has a long history evidencing its utility and is accepted by motorists as incident to highway use.

[Footnote 15]

As a judicial warrant authorized the Border Patrol to make routine stops at the San Clemente checkpoint, the principal question addressed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in No. 74-1560 was whether routine checkpoint stops were constitutional when authorized by warrant. Cf. n 5, supra. The Court of Appeals held, alternatively, that a warrant never could authorize such stops, 514 F.2d 308, 318 (1975), and that it was unreasonable to issue a warrant authorizing routine stops at the San Clemente location. Id. at 321-322. In reaching the latter conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied on (i) "the [low] frequency with which illegal aliens pass through the San Clemente checkpoint,"(ii) the distance of the checkpoint from the border, and (iii) the interference with legitimate traffic. Ibid. We need not address these holdings specifically, as we conclude that no warrant is needed. But we deem the argument by the defendants in No. 74-1560 in support of the latter holding to raise the question whether, even though a warrant is not required, it is unreasonable to locate a checkpoint at San Clemente.

We answer this question in the negative. As indicated above, the choice of checkpoint locations is an administrative decision that must be left largely within the discretion of the Border Patrol, see n 13, supra; cf. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 , 387 U. S. 538 (1967). We think the decision to locate a checkpoint at San Clemente was reasonable. The location meets the criteria prescribed by the Border Patrol to assure effectiveness, see supra at 428 U. S. 553 , and the evidence supports the view that the needs of law enforcement are furthered by this location. The absolute number of apprehensions at the checkpoint is high, see supra at 428 U. S. 554 , confirming Border Patrol judgment that significant numbers of illegal aliens regularly use Interstate 5 at this point. Also, San Clemente was selected as the location where traffic is lightest between San Diego and Los Angeles, thereby minimizing interference with legitimate traffic.

No question has been raised about the reasonableness of the location of the Sarita checkpoint.

[Footnote 16]

The Government suggests that trained Border Patrol agents rely on factors in addition to apparent Mexican ancestry when selectively diverting motorists. Brief for United States in No. 75-5387, p. 9; see United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 884 -885. This assertion finds support in the record. Less than 1% of the motorists passing the checkpoint are stopped for questioning, whereas American citizens of Mexican ancestry and legally resident Mexican citizens constitute a significantly larger proportion of the population of southern California. The 1970 census figures, which may not fully reflect illegal aliens, show the population of California to be approximately 19,958,000, of whom some 3,102,000, or 16%, are Spanish-speaking or of Spanish surname. The equivalent percentages for metropolitan San Diego and Los Angeles are 13% and 18% respectively. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1970 Census of Population, vol. 1, pt. 6, Tables 48, 140. If the state-wide population ratio is applied to the approximately 146,000 vehicles passing through the checkpoint during the eight days surrounding the arrests in No. 74-1560, roughly 23,400 would be expected to contain persons of Spanish or Mexican ancestry, yet only 820 were referred to the secondary area. This appears to refute any suggestion that the Border Patrol relies extensively on apparent Mexican ancestry standing alone in referring motorists to the secondary area.

[Footnote 17]

Of the 820 vehicles referred to the secondary inspection area during the eight days surrounding the arrests involved in No. 74-1560, roughly 20% contained illegal aliens. Supra at 428 U. S. 554 . Thus, to the extent that the Border Patrol relies on apparent Mexican ancestry at this checkpoint, see n 16, supra, that reliance clearly is relevant to the law enforcement need to be served. Cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra at 422 U. S. 886 -887, where we noted that "[t]he likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor . . . ," although we held that apparent Mexican ancestry, by itself, could not create the reasonable suspicion required for a roving patrol stop. Different considerations would arise if, for example, reliance were put on apparent Mexican ancestry at a checkpoint operated near the Canadian border.

[Footnote 18]

There also is some support for a warrant requirement in the concurring and dissenting opinions in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), which commanded the votes of five Justices. See id. at 413 U. S. 283 -285 (POWELL, J., concurring); id. at 413 U. S. 288 (WHITE, J., dissenting). The burden of these opinions, however, was that an "area" warrant could serve as a substitute for the individualized probable cause to search that otherwise was necessary to sustain roving patrol searches. As particularized suspicion is not necessary here, the warrant function discussed in Almeida-Sanchez is not an issue in these cases.

[Footnote 19]

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN's dissenting opinion reflects unwarranted concern in suggesting that today's decision marks a radical new intrusion on citizens' rights: it speaks of the "evisceration of Fourth Amendment protections," and states that the Court "virtually empties the Amendment of its reasonableness requirement." Post at 428 U. S. 567 , 428 U. S. 568 . Since 1952, Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 233, Congress has expressly authorized persons believed to be aliens to be interrogated as to residence, and vehicles "within a reasonable distance" from the border to be searched for aliens. See n 8, supra. The San Clemente checkpoint has been operating at or near its present location throughout the intervening 24 years. Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols. See supra at 428 U. S. 565 -556. Our holding today, approving routine stops for brief questioning (a type of stop familiar to all motorists) is confined to permanent checkpoints. We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation. We do suggest, however, that, against this background and in the context of our recent decisions, the rhetoric of the dissent reflects unjustified concern.

The dissenting opinion further warns:

"Every American citizen of Mexican ancestry and every Mexican alien lawfully in this country must know after today's decision that he travels the fixed checkpoint highways at [his] risk. . . ."

Post at 428 U. S. 572 . For the reason stated in n 16, supra, this concern is misplaced. Moreover, upon a proper showing, courts would not be powerless to prevent the misuse of checkpoints to harass those of Mexican ancestry.

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting.

Today's decision is the ninth this Term marking the continuing evisceration of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Early in the Term, Texas v. White, 423 U. S. 67 (1975), permitted the warrantless search of an automobile in police custody despite the unreasonableness of the custody

Page 428 U. S. 568

and opportunity to obtain a warrant. United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411 (1976), held that, regardless of whether opportunity exists to obtain a warrant, an arrest in a public place for a previously committed felony never requires a warrant, a result certainly not fairly supported by either history or precedent. See id. at 423 U. S. 433 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). United States v. Santana, 427 U. S. 38 (1976), went further and approved the warrantless arrest for a felony of a person standing on the front porch of her residence. United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (1976), narrowed the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy by denying the existence of a protectible interest in the compilation of checks, deposit slips, and other records pertaining to an individual's bank account. Stone v. Powell, ante p. 428 U. S. 465 , precluded the assertion of Fourth Amendment claims in federal collateral relief proceedings. United States v. Janis, ante p. 428 U. S. 433 , held that evidence unconstitutionally seized by a state officer is admissible in a civil proceeding by or against the United States. South Dakota v. Opperman, ante p. 428 U. S. 364 , approved sweeping inventory searches of automobiles in police custody irrespective of the particular circumstances of the case. Finally, in Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U. S. 463 (1976), the Court, in practical effect, weakened the Fourth Amendment prohibition against general warrants.

Consistent with this purpose to debilitate Fourth Amendment protections, the Court's decision today virtually empties the Amendment of its reasonableness requirement by holding that law enforcement officials manning fixed checkpoint stations who make standardless seizures of persons do not violate the Amendment. This holding cannot be squared with this Court's recent decisions in United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891 (1975); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 (1975);

Page 428 U. S. 569

and Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973). I dissent.

While the requisite justification for permitting a search or seizure may vary in certain contexts, compare Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89 (1964), with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), and Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 (1967), even in the exceptional situations permitting intrusions on less than probable cause, it has long been settled that justification must be measured by objective standards. Thus, in the seminal decision justifying intrusions on less than probable cause, Terry v. Ohio, supra, the Court said:

"The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that, at some point, the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances. And, in making that assessment, it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard. . . . Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction."

392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 21 -22 (emphasis added, footnote omitted)

"This demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated is the central teaching of this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."

392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 21 n. 18. Terry thus made clear what common sense teaches: conduct, to be reasonable, must pass muster under objective standards applied to specific facts.

We are told today, however, that motorists without number may be individually stopped, questioned, visually

Page 428 U. S. 570

inspected, and then further detained without even a showing of articulable suspicion, see ante at 428 U. S. 547 , let alone the heretofore constitutional minimum of reasonable suspicion, a result that permits search and seizure to rest upon "nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches." This defacement of Fourth Amendment protections is arrived at by a balancing process that overwhelms the individual's protection against unwarranted official intrusion by a governmental interest said to justify the search and seizure. But that method is only a convenient cover for condoning arbitrary official conduct, for the governmental interests relied on as warranting intrusion here are the same as those in Almeida-Sanchez and Ortiz, which required a showing of probable cause for roving patrol and fixed checkpoint searches, and Brignoni-Ponce, which required at least a showing of reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts to justify roving patrol stops. Absent some difference in the nature of the intrusion, the same minimal requirement should be imposed for checkpoint stops.

The Court assumes, and I certainly agree, that persons stopped at fixed checkpoints, whether or not referred to a secondary detention area, are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, since the vehicle and its occupants are subjected to a "visual inspection," the intrusion clearly exceeds mere physical restraint, for officers are able to see more in a stopped vehicle than in vehicles traveling at normal speeds down the highway. As the Court concedes, ante at 428 U. S. 558 , the checkpoint stop involves essentially the same intrusions as a roving patrol stop, yet the Court provides no principled basis for distinguishing checkpoint stops.

Certainly that basis is not provided in the Court's reasoning that the subjective intrusion here is appreciably less than in the case of a stop by a roving patrol.

Page 428 U. S. 571

Brignoni-Ponce nowhere bases the requirement of reasonable suspicion upon the subjective nature of the intrusion. In any event, the subjective aspects of checkpoint stops, even if different from the subjective aspects of roving patrol stops, just as much require some principled restraint on law enforcement conduct. The motorist whose conduct has been nothing but innocent -- and this is overwhelmingly the case -- surely resents his own detention and inspection. And checkpoints, unlike roving stops, detain thousands of motorists, a dragnet-like procedure offensive to the sensibilities of free citizens. Also, the delay occasioned by stopping hundreds of vehicles on a busy highway is particularly irritating.

In addition to overlooking these dimensions of subjective intrusion, the Court, without explanation, also ignores one major source of vexation. In abandoning any requirement of a minimum of reasonable suspicion, or even articulable suspicion, the Court, in every practical sense, renders meaningless, as applied to checkpoint stops, the Brignoni-Ponce holding that, "standing alone [Mexican appearance] does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens." [Footnote 2/1] 422

Page 428 U. S. 572

U.S. at 422 U. S. 887 . Since the objective is almost entirely the Mexican illegally in the country, checkpoint officials, uninhibited by any objective standards and therefore free to stop any or all motorists without explanation or excuse, wholly on whim, will perforce target motorists of Mexican appearance. The process will then inescapably discriminate against citizens of Mexican ancestry and Mexican aliens lawfully in this country for no other reason than that they unavoidably possess the same "suspicious" physical and grooming characteristics of illegal Mexican aliens.

Every American citizen of Mexican ancestry, and every Mexican alien lawfully in this country, must know after today's decision that he travels the fixed checkpoint highways at the risk of being subjected not only to a stop, but also to detention and interrogation, both prolonged and to an extent far more than for non-Mexican appearing motorists. To be singled out for referral and to be detained and interrogated must be upsetting to any motorist. One wonders what actual experience supports my Brethren's conclusion that referrals "should not be frightening or offensive because of their public and relatively routine nature." Ante at 428 U. S. 560 . [Footnote 2/2] In point of fact, referrals,

Page 428 U. S. 573

viewed in context, are not relatively routine; thousands are otherwise permitted to pass. But for the arbitrarily selected motorists who must suffer the delay and humiliation of detention and interrogation, the experience can obviously be upsetting. [Footnote 2/3] And that experience is particularly vexing for the motorist of Mexican ancestry who is selectively referred, knowing that the officers' target is the Mexican alien. That deep resentment will be stirred by a sense of unfair discrimination is not difficult to foresee. [Footnote 2/4]

Page 428 U. S. 574

In short, if a balancing process is required, the balance should be struck, as in Brignoni-Ponce, to require that Border Patrol officers act upon at least reasonable suspicion in making checkpoint stops. In any event, even if a different balance were struck, the Court cannot, without ignoring the Fourth Amendment requirement of reasonableness, justify wholly unguided seizures by officials manning the checkpoints. The Court argues, however, that practicalities necessitate otherwise:

"A requirement that stops on major routes inland always be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical, because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car that would enable it to be identified as a possible carrier of illegal aliens."

Ante at 428 U. S. 557 .

As an initial matter, whatever force this argument may have, it cannot apply to the secondary detentions that occurred in No. 74-1560. Once a vehicle has been slowed and observed at a checkpoint, ample opportunity

Page 428 U. S. 575

exists to formulate the reasonable suspicion which, if it actually exists, would justify further detention. Indeed, though permitting roving stops based on reasonable suspicion, Brignoni-Ponce required that "any further detention or search must be based on [the greater showing of] consent or probable cause." 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 882 . The Court today, however, does not impose a requirement of even reasonable suspicion for these secondary stops.

The Court's rationale is also not persuasive, because several of the factors upon which officers may rely in establishing reasonable suspicion are readily ascertainable, regardless of the flow of traffic. For example, with checkpoint stops, as with roving patrol stops, "[a]spects of the vehicle itself may justify suspicion." Id. at 422 U. S. 885 . Thus, it is relevant that the vehicle is a certain type of station wagon, appears to be heavily loaded, contains an extraordinary number of persons, or contains persons trying to hide. See ibid. If such factors are satisfactory to permit the imposition of a reasonable suspicion requirement in the more demanding circumstances of a roving patrol, where officers initially deal with a vehicle traveling not at a crawl, but at highway speeds, they clearly should suffice in the circumstances of a checkpoint stop.

Finally, the Court's argument fails for more basic reasons. There is no principle in the jurisprudence of fundamental rights which permits constitutional limitations to be dispensed with merely because they cannot be conveniently satisfied. Dispensing with reasonable suspicion as a prerequisite to stopping and inspecting motorists because the inconvenience of such a requirement would make it impossible to identify a given car as a possible carrier of aliens is no more justifiable than dispensing with probable cause as prerequisite to the search of an individual because the inconvenience of

Page 428 U. S. 576

such a requirement would make it impossible to identify a given person in a high-crime area as a possible carrier of concealed weapons.

"The needs of law enforcement stand in constant tension with the Constitution's protections of the individual against certain exercises of official power. It is precisely the predictability of these pressures that counsels a resolute loyalty to constitutional safeguards."

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. at 413 U. S. 273 .

The Court also attempts to justify its approval of standardless conduct on the ground that checkpoint stops "involve less discretionary enforcement activity" than roving stops. Ante at 428 U. S. 559 . This view is at odds with its later more revealing statement that "officers must have wide discretion in selecting the motorists to be diverted for the brief questioning involved." Ante at 428 U. S. 564 . Similarly unpersuasive is the statement that,

"since field officers may stop only those cars passing the checkpoint, there is less room for abusive or harassing stops of individuals than there was in the case of roving patrol stops."

Ante at 428 U. S. 559 . [Footnote 2/5] The Fourth Amendment standard

Page 428 U. S. 577

of reasonableness admits of neither intrusion at the discretion of law enforcement personnel nor abusive or harassing stops, however infrequent. Action based merely on whatever may pique the curiosity of a particular officer is the antithesis of the objective standards requisite to reasonable conduct and to avoiding abuse and harassment. Such action, which the Court now permits, has expressly ben condemned as contrary to basic Fourth Amendment principles. Certainly today's holding is far removed from the proposition emphatically affirmed in United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297 , 407 U. S. 317 (1972), that

"those charged with . . . investigative and prosecutorial duty should not be the sole judges of when to utilize constitutionally sensitive means in pursuing their tasks. The historical judgment, which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy. . . ."

Indeed, it is far removed from the even more recent affirmation that

"the central concern of the Fourth Amendment is to protect liberty and privacy from arbitrary and oppressive interference by government officials."

United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 895 . [Footnote 2/6]

Page 428 U. S. 578

The cornerstone of this society, indeed of any free society, is orderly procedure. The Constitution, as originally adopted, was therefore, in great measure, a procedural document. For the same reasons, the drafter of the Bill of Rights largely placed their faith in procedural limitations on government action. The Fourth Amendment's requirement that searches and seizures be reasonable enforces this fundamental understanding in erecting its buffer against the arbitrary treatment of citizens by government. But to permit, as the Court does today, police discretion to supplant the objectivity of reason and, thereby, expediency to reign in the place of order, is to undermine Fourth Amendment safeguards and threaten erosion of the cornerstone of our system of a government, for, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter reminded us, "[t]he history of American freedom is, in no small measure, the history of procedure." Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401 , 324 U. S. 414 (1945).

[Footnote 2/1]

Brignoni-Ponce, which involved roving patrol stops, said:

"[Mexican ancestry] alone would justify neither a reasonable belief that they were aliens nor a reasonable belief that the car concealed other aliens who were illegally in the country. Large numbers of native born and naturalized citizens have the physical characteristics identified with Mexican ancestry, and, even in the border area, a relatively small proportion of them are aliens. The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, but, standing alone, it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens."

422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 886 -887 (footnote omitted). Today we are told that secondary referrals may be based on criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop, and specifically that such referrals may be based largely on Mexican ancestry. Ante at 428 U. S. 563 . Even if the difference between Brignoni-Ponce and this decision is only a matter of degree, we are not told what justifies the different treatment of Mexican appearance, or why greater emphasis is permitted in the less demanding circumstances of a checkpoint. That law in this country should tolerate use of one's ancestry as probative of possible criminal conduct is repugnant under any circumstances.

[Footnote 2/2]

The Court's view that

"selective referrals -- rather than questioning the occupants of every car -- tend to advance some Fourth Amendment interests by minimizing the intrusion on the general motoring public,"

ante at 428 U. S. 560 , stands the Fourth Amendment on its head. The starting point of this view is the unannounced assumption that intrusions are generally permissible; hence, any minimization of intrusions serves Fourth Amendment interests. Under the Fourth Amendment, however, the status quo is nonintrusion, for, as a general matter, it is unreasonable to subject the average citizen or his property to search or seizure. Thus, minimization of intrusion only lessens the aggravation to Fourth Amendment interests; it certainly does not further those interests.

[Footnote 2/3]

United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891 (1975), expressly recognized that such selectivity is a source of embarrassment:

"Nor do checkpoint procedures significantly reduce the likelihood of embarrassment. Motorists whose cars are searched, unlike those who are only questioned, may not be reassured by seeing that the Border Patrol searches others cars as well."

Id. at 422 U. S. 895 .

[Footnote 2/4]

Though today's decision would clearly permit detentions to be based solely on Mexican ancestry, the Court takes comfort in what appears to be the Border Patrol practice of not relying on Mexican ancestry standing alone in referring motorists for secondary detentions. Ante at 428 U. S. 563 n. 16. See also ante at 428 U. S. 566 -567, n.19. Good faith on the part of law enforcement officials, however, has never sufficed in this tribunal to substitute as a safeguard for personal freedoms or to remit our duty to effectuate constitutional guarantees Indeed, with particular regard to the Fourth Amendment, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 , 392 U. S. 22 (1968), held that

"simple "good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be `secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects' only in the discretion of the police." Beck v. Ohio, [379 U.S. 89,] 379 U. S. 97 [1964]."

Even if good faith is assumed, the affront to the dignity of American citizens of Mexican ancestry and Mexican aliens lawfully within the country is in no way diminished. The fact still remains that people of Mexican ancestry are targeted for examination at checkpoints and that the burden of checkpoint intrusions will lie heaviest on them. That, as the Court observes, ante at 428 U. S. 563 n. 16, "[l]ess than 1% of the motorists passing the checkpoint are stopped for questioning," whereas approximately 16% of the population of California is Spanish-speaking or of Spanish surname, has little bearing on this point -- or, for that matter, on the integrity of Border Patrol practices. There is no indication how many of the 16% have physical and grooming characteristics identifiable as Mexican. There is no indication what portion of the motoring public in California is of Spanish or Mexican ancestry. Given the socioeconomic status of this portion, it is likely that the figure is significantly less than 16%. Neither is there any indication that those of Mexican ancestry are not subjected to lengthier initial stops than others, even if they are not secondarily detained. Finally, there is no indication of the ancestral makeup of the 1% who are referred for secondary detention. If, as is quite likely the case, it is overwhelmingly Mexican, the sense of discrimination which will be felt is only enhanced.

[Footnote 2/5]

As an empirical proposition, this observation is hardly self-evident. No small number of vehicles pass through a checkpoint. Indeed, better than 1,000 pass through the San Clemente checkpoint during each hour of operation. Ante at 428 U. S. 554 . Thus, there is clearly abundant opportunity for abuse and harassment at checkpoints through lengthier detention and questioning of some individuals or arbitrary secondary detentions. Such practices need not be confined to those of Mexican ancestry. And given that it is easier to deal with a vehicle which has already been slowed than it is to observe and then chase and apprehend a vehicle traveling at highway speeds, if anything, there is more, not less, room for abuse or harassment at checkpoints. Indeed, in Ortiz, the Court was "not persuaded that the checkpoint limits to any meaningful extent the officer's discretion to select cars for search." 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 895 . A fortiori, discretion can be no more limited simply because the activity is detention or questioning, rather than searching.

[Footnote 2/6]

Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 (1967), does not support the Court's result. Contrary to the Court's characterization, ante at 428 U. S. 561 , the searches condoned there were not "routine intrusions." The Court required that administrative searches proceed according to reasonable standards satisfied with respect to each particular dwelling searched. 387 U.S. at 387 U. S. 538 . The search of any dwelling at the whim of administrative personnel was not permitted. The Court, however, imposes no such standards today. Instead, any vehicle and its passengers are subject to detention at a fixed checkpoint, and "no particularized reason need exist to justify" the detention. Ante at 428 U. S. 563 . To paraphrase an apposite observation by the Court in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 , 413 U. S. 270 (1973),

"[checkpoints] thus embodied precisely the evil the Court saw in Camara when it insisted that the 'discretion of the official in the field' be circumscribed. . . ."

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 15:48

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that allowed the United States Border Patrol to set up permanent or fixed checkpoints on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border and that the checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.[1][2]

United States v. Martinez-FuerteArgued April 26, 1976Decided July 6, 1976Full case nameUnited States v. Martinez-Fuerte, et al.Citations428 U.S. 543 (more)HoldingThe Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.Court membershipChief JusticeWarren E. BurgerAssociate JusticesWilliam J. Brennan Jr. · Potter StewartByron White · Thurgood MarshallHarry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.William Rehnquist · John P. StevensCase opinionsMajorityPowell, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist, StevensDissentBrennan, joined by MarshallLaws appliedU.S. Const. amend. IVContents

History Edit The defendant, Martinez-Fuerte, had agreed to transport two illegal Mexican aliens who had entered the United States through the Port of San Ysidro in San Diego, California. They traveled north and were stopped at a permanent checkpoint on Interstate 5 between Oceanside and San Clemente and then questioned. The two passengers admitted their status, and the defendant was charged with two counts of illegally transporting aliens. He moved to have the evidence suppressed, on the grounds that the checkpoint stop had violated the Fourth Amendment. The motion was denied, and he was convicted of both counts.[1]

Decision Edit The court ruled 7-2 that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court went on to say that it would be impracticable for the officers to seek warrants for every vehicle searched and that to do so would eliminate any deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration. The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual.[1]

The court also ruled that the stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry:[2]

"As we have noted earlier, one's expectation of privacy in an automobile and of freedom in its operation are significantly different from the traditional expectation of privacy and freedom in one's residence. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 896 n. 2; see Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583, 417 U. S. 590-591 (1974) (plurality opinion)."

"And the reasonableness of the procedures followed in making these checkpoint stops makes the resulting intrusion on the interests of motorists minimal. On the other hand, the purpose of the stops is legitimate and in the public interest, and the need for this enforcement technique is demonstrated by the records in the cases before us. Accordingly, we hold that the stops and questioning at issue may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion at reasonably located checkpoints. [Footnote 15]"

Thus, a Border Patrol agent that sends a vehicle to secondary does not violate the Fourth Amendment even without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion:

"We further believe that it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to the secondary inspection area at the San Clemente checkpoint on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop." (The court was referring to the Terry v. Ohio requirement of roving patrol).

"Thus, even if it be assumed that such referrals are made largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry, [Footnote 16] we perceive no constitutional violation. Cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 885-887. As the intrusion here is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it, we think it follows that the Border Patrol officers must have wide discretion in selecting the motorists to be diverted for the brief questioning involved."

Dissenting opinion Edit Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., wrote in his dissent that the decision was a radical new intrusion on citizens' rights and "empties the reasonableness requirement of the Amendment":

"The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances. And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard.... Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction."[1]

Part of Justice Brennan's complaint was that it was the ninth decision to rule against Fourth Amendment protections in that term.[2]

See also Edit References Edit

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Jun 2018 22:05

She texted with another agent, her lover at the time.

Moyer, 44, texted ''f*** Trump'' and called Trump voters 'retarded'. She vowed to quit ''on the spot'' if Donald Trump won. Unfortunately, she didn't and is still working in the Deep State FBI. No one ever seems to get fired by these government agencies.

This is what passes off as an FBI agent in the new FBI, via the Daily Mail:

Moyer's texts were included in the Inspector General's reportThis woman is still working at the FBI, think about that.

In the next clip, she agreed she'd quit if Hillary didn't win. Her paramour, Agent 1 didn't want to protect the President '-- he'd be offended.

ANOTHER POOR EXCUSE OF AN FBI AGENTKevin ClinesmithKevin Clinesmith, Agent 2, and Moyer, Agent 5, were not working in counterintelligence and there is absolutely no reason for their names to be kept secret. That is why Meadows named them.

Clinesmith's text messages deserve a lot of attention. We copped these from Heavy.

After former FBI Director James Comey sent his letter to Congress about reopening the Clinton investigation right before the election, the lawyer sent four similar messages to different employees, including:

''I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway.''

''As I have initiated the destruction of the republic'... would you be so kind as to have a coffee with me this afternoon?''

''I'm clinging to small pockets of happiness in the dark time of the Republic's destruction.''

He explained the messages ''as reflecting his surprise and frustration that the FBI 'was essentially walking into a landmine in terms of injecting itself (into the election) at that late in the process,''' said the report.

He explained '''...the Russia investigation was ongoing as well. And that information was obviously kept close hold and was not released until March. So, you know, it, it was just kind of frustration that we weren't handling both of them the same way with, with that level I guess.''

He described the ''destruction'' language as ''hyperbolic'' and ''off-the-cuff commentary to friends.''

The second exchange took place November 9, 2016, the day after the presidential election, in which Attorney 2 wrote to another employee, including the following:

Attorney 2: ''I am numb.''

Other employee not involved in midyear investigation: ''I can't stop crying.''

Attorney 2: ''That makes me even more sad.''

Employee ''Like, what happened? You promised me this wouldn't happen. YOU PROMISED'...''

Attorney 2: ''I am so stressed about what I could have done differently.''

Employee: ''Don't stress. None of that mattered. The FBI's influence.''

Attorney 2: ''I don't know. We broke the momentum.''

Employee: ''That is not so'....''

Attorney 2: ''I'm just devastated. I can't wait until I can leave today and just shut off the world for the next four days'...I just can't imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, walls and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is stupid.''

Attorney 2: ''And it's just hard not to feel like the FBI caused some of this. It was razor thin in some states. Plus my god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff. So who knows if that breaks to him, what he is going to do.''

He told the IG that ''we tend to exaggerate some statements back and forth to one another'' of his exchanges with the unnamed employee.

In a third exchange on November 22, 2016, he sent an instant message to FBI Attorney 1 commenting on the amount of money the subject of an FBI investigation had been paid while working on the Trump campaign. FBI attorney 1 responded, ''Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump administration?'' FBI attorney 2 replied, ''Hell, no,'' and then added ''Viva le resistance.'' They then talked about federal pension issues.

He later explained to the IG: ''It's just the lines bled through here just in terms of, of my personal, political views in terms of, or what particular preference I have. But, but that doesn't have any leaning on the way that I, I maintain myself as a professional in the FBI.''

Asked if Viva le resistance signaled he was going to fight back against President Trump, he responded ''That's not what I was doing'... I just, again, like that, that's just like the entire, it's just my political view in terms of, of my preference. It wasn't something along the lines of, you know, we're taking certain actions in order to, you know, combat that or, or do anything like that.''

He and attorney 1 were assigned to the Russia investigation at that time. She said she thought it was a ''joke obviously.''

He is also still at the FBI. He should be fired or forced to leave but don't count on it. How can we expect the FBI to fairly probe anything?

Related

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:36

The National Security Agency is deleting years' worth of call records collected for foreign intelligence purposes, saying that "technical irregularities" resulted in the spy agency collecting data it was not authorized to receive.

The NSA issued a statement Thursday revealing that the spy agency started deleting all so-called "call detail records" collected since 2015 in May of this year.

Call detail records, or CDRs, are obtained from telecommunications providers and contain the numbers and time and duration of phone calls, not the content of the calls themselves. The NSA is authorized to collect the data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"NSA is deleting the CDRs because several months ago NSA analysts noted technical irregularities in some data received from telecommunications service providers," NSA said. "These irregularities also resulted in the production to NSA of some CDRs that NSA was not authorized to receive."

The revelation comes after an annual transparency report issued by the Director of National Intelligence showed that the NSA collected well over 500 million U.S. call detail records in 2017 - more than three times the number gathered the previous year.

The NSA said that it is deleting all call detail records gathered since 2015 because it was "infeasible" for the agency to isolate the data it was authorized to receive from the rest of it. The NSA said it notified relevant oversight committees in Congress, as well as the Department of Justice and the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, of the decision.

"The root cause of the problem has since been addressed for future CDR acquisitions, and NSA has reviewed and revalidated its intelligence reporting to ensure that the reports were based on properly received CDRs," NSA said.

The transparency report issued in early May showed that the NSA collected 534 million U.S. call records in 2017, well over the 151 million received in 2016. At the time, a DNI spokesman said the agency expects the figure to "fluctuate from year to year" and that a number of factors could influence the number received - including the number of court-approved selection terms used by a given target and "the dynamics of the ever-changing telecommunications sector."

NSA's call collection efforts have been shrouded in controversy since the 2013 Edward Snowden revelations of massive global surveillance by the agency.

As a result of Snowden's disclosures, Congress passed legislation meant to rein in the surveillance program, which included a mandate that the intelligence community provide an annual report on its efforts in order to boost transparency.

Late last month, two-dozen civil liberties organizations wrote to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats urging him to disclose more information about the U.S. call records collected in 2017.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:16

The FBI had little problem leaking ''unverified" dirt from Russian sources on Donald Trump and his campaign aides '' and even basing FISA wiretaps on it. But according to the Justice Department's inspector general, the bureau is refusing to allow even members of Congress with top security clearance to see intercepted material alleging political interference by President Obama's attorney general, Loretta Lynch.

That material '' which has been outlined in press reports '' consists of unverified accounts intercepted from putative Russian sources in which the head of the Democratic National Committee allegedly implicates the Hillary Clinton campaign and Lynch in a secret deal to fix the Clinton email investigation.

''It is remarkable how this Justice Department is protecting the corruption of the Obama Justice Department,'' said Tom Fitton, president of Washington-based watchdog Judicial Watch, which is suing for the material.

Lynch and Clinton officials as well as the DNC chairman at the time, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have denied the allegations and characterized them as Russian disinformation.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

True or false, the material is consequential because it appears to have influenced former FBI Director James B. Comey's decision to break with bureau protocols because he didn't trust Lynch. In his recent book, Comey said he took the reins in the Clinton email probe, announcing Clinton should not be indicted, because of a ''development still unknown to the American public'' that ''cast serious doubt'' on Lynch's credibility '' clearly the intercepted material.

If the material documents an authentic exchange between Lynch and a Clinton aide, it would appear to be strong evidence that the Obama administration put partisan political considerations ahead of its duty to enforce the law.

If the material is a fabrication, it may constitute the most fruitful effort by the Russians to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. For if Comey had not gone around Lynch and given his July 2016 press conference clearing Clinton, he almost certainly would not have publicly announced the reopening for the case just prior to the election '' an event Clinton and her allies blame for her surprising loss to Trump. The information remains so secret that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz had to censor it from his recently released 500-plus-page report on the FBI's investigation of Clinton, and even withhold it from Congress. The contents of the secret intelligence document '-- which purport to show that Lynch informed the Clinton campaign she'd make sure the FBI didn't push too hard '-- were included in the inspector general's original draft. But in the official IG report issued June 14, the information was tucked into a classified appendix to the report and entirely blanked out.

''The information was classified at such a high level by the intelligence community that it limited even the members [of Congress] who can see it, as well as the staffs,'' Horowitz explained last week to annoyed Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight authority over Justice and the FBI.

He said he has asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray to work with the CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence to determine if the material can be rewritten to allow congressional oversight. Once the material is appropriately redacted, including protecting alleged ''sources and methods,'' Horowitz said, he hopes members can then go to the ''tank,'' or secure reading room in the basement of the Capitol Building, and read it.

''We very much want the committee to see this information,'' Horowitz said.

Congressional sources told RealClearInvestigations the material is classified "TS/SCI," which stands for Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information.

Such security precautions were not taken with the Steele dossier, which alleges corruption within the Trump campaign. Although the FBI and CIA used it as both an investigative and intelligence resource, its contents were readily shared with Congress and widely leaked to the media.

The dossier formed the basis for warrants to spy on the Trump campaign and is being used by the Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a roadmap in his continuing investigation into possible Trump ties to Russia.

In contrast, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times have accepted the denials from Lynch and the Clinton campaign, dismissing the compromising information as unreliable and possibly fake. In his report, Horowitz quotes non-FBI ''witnesses" describing the secret information as ''objectively false.'' Those witnesses included Lynch.

Amanda Renteria.

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

The DOJ and FBI have not publicly commented on the authenticity of the material. No one has explained why Comey believed it to be serious enough to cut Lynch out of the decision loop.

What is known, based on press leaks and a letter Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent Lynch, is that in March 2016, the FBI received a batch of hacked documents from U.S. intelligence agencies that had access to stolen emails stored on Russian networks. One of the intercepted documents revealed an alleged email from then-DNC Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz to an operative working for billionaire Democratic fundraiser George Soros. It claimed Lynch had assured the Clinton campaign that investigators and prosecutors would go easy on the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee regarding her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state. Lynch allegedly made the promise directly to Clinton political director Amanda Renteria.

The FBI apparently took the document seriously but never interviewed anyone named in it until Clinton's case was closed by Comey in July 2016. The next month, the FBI quizzed Lynch informally about the allegations. Comey reportedly also confronted the attorney general with the sensitive document and was told to leave her office after getting a frosty reception. No other parties mentioned in the document have been interviewed by the FBI.

In his new memoir, ''A Higher Loyalty,'' Comey, clearly referring to the document given the timing and circumstances, said he relied on it in part to make his unilateral and controversial decision to publicly announce the results of the Clinton investigation without Lynch. He said he worried the attorney general might be viewed as ''politically compromised'' if the secret information leaked, thereby undermining the ''integrity" of the FBI's investigation.

Comey said he had doubts about Lynch's independence as early as September 2015 when she called him into her office and asked him to minimize the probe by calling it ''a matter'' instead of an ''investigation,'' which aligned with Clinton campaign talking points. Then, just days before FBI agents interviewed Clinton in July 2016, Lynch privately met with former President Bill Clinton on her government plane while it was parked on an airport tarmac in Phoenix. In a text message that has since been brought to light, the lead investigators on the case, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, made clear at the time their understanding that Lynch knew that ''no charges will be brought'' against Clinton.

Renteria, the Clinton campaign official, who ran for governor of California but failed to secure a top-two spot in the primary, insists the intelligence citing her was disinformation created by Russian officials to dupe Americans and create discord and turmoil during the election.

''It was simply made up by the Russians,'' she asserted in a recent tweet, ironically echoing complaints by Trump defenders about the Steele dossier.

Rep. Wasserman Schultz, who is up for re-election in the House, also denied the charges, though she acknowledged prior contacts with both Lynch and Renteria.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

Lynch, for her part, has never been asked directly and under oath by Congress about the allegation in the document. But in a July 2016 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, she swore, ''I have not spoken to anyone on either the [Clinton] campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them.''

On Thursday, Grassley announced he wants to subpoena Lynch to testify before his committee about her role in the Clinton email probe. But he said he has to first convince the top Democrat on the panel, Dianne Feinstein, who seems disinclined to support issuing a subpoena. ''The ranking member refused to agree to compel'' Lynch to testify, Grassley said in a statement earlier in the week.

Under Judiciary Committee rules, the chairman and the ranking member must both agree on the use of subpoenas.

Hill sources say Feinstein's reluctance may owe to her close relationship with one of Lynch's top aides at the Justice Department. During the 2016 campaign, Paige Herwig served as counselor to the attorney general, and after Lynch left the department in January 2017, Herwig became Feinstein's deputy general counsel. Herwig is now working with Clinton's former press secretary on a campaign to oppose Trump's judicial nominees.

Feinstein is also close to Renteria, who worked as a Feinstein staffer last decade.

Feinstein argued that Lynch "would only be able to speak to the Clinton email investigation, which has been investigated ad nauseam, including a 500-plus-page inspector general report that we had a hearing on, so she wouldn't have anything to add to the committee's current inquiries."

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 11:41

WASHINGTON (AP) '-- The National Security Agency is deleting more than 685 million call records the government obtained since 2015 from telecommunication companies in connection with investigations, raising questions about the viability of the program.

The NSA's bulk collection of call records was initially curtailed by Congress after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents revealing extensive government surveillance. The law, enacted in June 2015, said that going forward, the data would be retained by telecommunications companies, not the NSA, but that the intelligence agency could query the massive database.

Now the NSA is deleting all the information it collected from the queries.

The agency released a statement late Thursday saying it started deleting the records in May after NSA analysts noted "technical irregularities in some data received from telecommunication service providers." It also said the irregularities resulted in the NSA obtaining some call details it was not authorized to receive.

That points to a failure of the program, according to David Kris, a former top national security official at the Justice Department.

"They said they have to purge three years' worth of data going back to 2015, and that the data they did collect during that time '-- which they are now purging '-- was not reliable and was infected with some kind of technical error," said Kris, founder of Culper Partners, a consulting firm in Seattle. "So whatever insights they were hoping to get over the past three years from this program of collection ... is all worthless. Because of that, they are throwing all the data away and basically starting over."

Christopher Augustine, an NSA spokesman, disagreed with the claim that the program had failed.

"This is a case in which NSA determined that there was a problem and proactively took all the right steps to fix it," he said.

The agency has reviewed and re-validated the intelligence reporting to make sure it was based only on call data that had been properly received from the telecommunication providers, he said. The agency declined to assign blame, and said the "root cause of the problem has since been addressed."

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a staunch advocate of privacy rights, placed the blame on the telecom companies providing the NSA with call records.

"This incident shows these companies acted with unacceptable carelessness, and failed to comply with the law when they shared customers' sensitive data with the government," he told The Associated Press in a written statement Friday.

Under law, the government can request information, such as the type of details that might be printed on a phone bill: the date and time of a call or text, a telephone calling card number, the duration of a call and to what phone number it was made. The details provided to the government do not include the content of any communications, the name, address or financial information of a customer, cell site location or GPS information.

If government investigators have reasonable suspicion that a certain phone number is being used by a terrorist, who might be in the U.S. or overseas, the government asks the phone companies which other numbers have been in touch with the suspicious number '-- something known as the "first hops" '-- and then which numbers are in touch with those numbers, the "second hops."

The NSA collected more than 534.4 million details of calls and text messages in 2017 from American telecom providers like AT&T and Version, according to the most recent government report covering NSA surveillance activities that year. That was more than three times the 151.2 million collected in 2016.

The call records were part of an intelligence collection effort aimed at 42 targets in 2016 and 40 targets in 2017, according to the report. It defines a target as an individual, group of individuals, organization or entity.

Annual reports to Congress from the intelligence community are now required under the 2015 surveillance reform legislation. The law also requires the government to seek a court order to collect call records to obtain intelligence. Requests for records of U.S. citizens must be based on an investigation being conducted to protect against terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities and the probe cannot be conducted solely on activities protected by the First Amendment.

However, despite the reforms, the NSA still received some data from the telecommunications companies that the agency was not authorized to see and some of that data was erroneous, Augustine said.

"We cannot go into greater detail because those details remain classified. However, at no point in time did NSA receive the content of any calls, the name, address or financial information of a subscriber or customer, nor cell site location information or global positioning system information," he said.

Privacy and civil rights advocates said the NSA announcement raised further concerns about the program.

"This is another in a series of failures that shows that many NSA spying programs have ballooned out of control and have repeatedly failed to meet the basic limits imposed by Congress and the FISA court," said Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington. Guliani was referring to a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to oversee requests for surveillance warrants.

She said the public has a right to know more about the cause and scope of the problem, such as how many of the records were obtained in error and whether the NSA notified any individuals that their information improperly ended up in the agency's hands.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:44

Portland protesters say U.S. Department of Homeland Security officers play odd mind games.

Protesters camping outside southwest Portland's Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility say DHS personnel accosted the camp with high-volume Metallica tunes throughout the night, before making several arrests this morning.

"DHS agents had been trying to arouse and disorient and disrupt protesters over the past few nights," the Occupy ICE release reads. "Threatening dad rock with lyrics like 'sleep with one eye open,' was played at high volume, disrupting protester's rest."

Federal Protective Service spokesman Robert Sperling says the officers were merely having an innocent rooftop dinner.

"I know [officers] were having dinner on the roof last night," he told WW. "If music was coming off the top of the building, that might have been what it was.

"I don't know what was on their playlist," he continued, noting that blasting music at protesters isn't a DHS tactic: "We wouldn't do something like that."

The song the occupiers are referring to is "Enter Sandman"'-- a 1991 heavy banger that, yes, sensible-shoe wearing dads with former long-haired glory days likely jam out to on the reg.

Is Metallica offended by the feds' alleged use of their song as a mind-fuck tactic? It's hard to say.

"Hi Metallica," Portland freelance journalist Leah Sottile asked on Twitter, "your music was being blared from an ICE building by federal officers at the Occupy ICE PDX protest encampment. Would you like to comment?"

Hi @Metallica: your music was being blared from an ICE building by federal officers at the #OccupyICEPDX protest encampment. Would you like to comment?

'-- Leah Sottile (@Leah_Sottile) June 28, 2018 The band did not respond. But plenty of other Twitter users chimed in.

TIL Metallica is "threatening dad rock."Cool.

'-- Michael (@DefinitelyMike) June 28, 2018 on the one hand this is terrible, on the other hand calling enter sandman "threatening dad rock" is like, let's call a spade a spade shall we https://t.co/u5CjIYenrF

'-- jard boiled (@jard_sard) June 28, 2018 Yes, using "threatening dad rock" as a descriptor for early '90s Metallica is a comical. No, using a song about a mythical figure that puts children to sleep and gives them "dreams of war," and "things that will bite," to upset people protesting immigrant children being stripped from their parents at the border is not.

Other allegations in a protesters' press release? "Agents placed cardboard cut-outs in windows in the building wearing ICE jackets and a large costume eagle mask was placed in one window. Agents were seen making hand gestures of guns and pantomimed shooting at protesters. Agents stood on the roof of the building and mocked protesters. Agents were shining blinking flashlights from the windows of the building overnight, and drones were flown over camp in the early morning."

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 13:28

Portland Police declared a riot Saturday after tensions between the right-wing Patriot Prayer group and local anti-fascist activists came to a head and broke out in violence.

The afternoon began with a permitted rally at Terry Schrunk Federal Plaza organized by Joey Gibson, U.S. Senate candidate for Washington and leader of the right-wing, Vancouver-based group.

A counter-demonstration by masked local anti-fascist groups gathered nearby among a heavy police presence. Officers seized weapons such as utility knives, clubs and chemical sprays, detaining several protesters early on.

Federal Dept. of Homeland Security police are making the new arrivals return anything that can be used as a weapon, plus any pepper spray they may be carrying. pic.twitter.com/bODdHU8L7b

'-- eder campuzano [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] (@edercampuzano) June 30, 2018Portland Police made four arrests during the demonstrations, none of them connected to the events of the day.

Tusitala "Tiny" Toese, 22, and Donovon Flippo, 23, were arrested upon arriving at Terry Schrunk Plaza for an alleged assault in Portland earlier in the month.

Luiz Marquez, 46, was lodged in the Multnomah County Jail on charges of theft and assault for the June 3 protest that also saw four others arrested.

And Matthew Braddock, 37, was arrested on charges of robbery and assault for an investigation that began May 31.

Things turned ugly shortly after 6 p.m., when Patriot Prayer protesters spilled into Third Avenue to begin their permitted march through the streets of Portland.

Antifascist counter-demonstrators immediately began lobbing eggs, half-empty water bottles and firecrackers at the conservative marchers, prompting federal police to fire paintballs filled with pepper spray into the crowd.

Portland police said four people were struck by the projectiles and had to be taken to the hospital. An officer was also struck and taken to the hospital.

The two groups continued heckling each other even as police intervened.

The bureau declared a riot and revoked the march permit soon after police said they witnessed several instances of assault and other criminal activity.

Portland police closed Chapman and Lownsdale squares around the same time, according to a tweet sent out by the department. They ordered rioters to clear the area and warned that non-compliance would lead to arrest.

Patriot Prayer demonstrators gathered again at Terry Schrunk Plaza shortly after the order, several of them stranded as Gibson had arranged buses to shuttle supporters from a loading area in Vancouver. The first bus back to Vancouver was boarded just before 7:30 p.m.

The conservative demonstrators were irked that police did not do enough to protect them, shouting at Portland officers and black-clad anti-fascists alike as they returned to the plaza.

The Patriot Prayer rally began at 4 p.m.

Gibson's followers and anti-fascist counter-protesters alike arrived in the two blocks east of Portland City Hall hours ahead of time, heckling each other behind metal barriers set up by Federal Protective Service and Department of Homeland Security police.

There *might* be 150 or so people in Terry Schrunk Plaza today, half of what turned out earlier in the month. And a fraction of what was here last year for the Trump Free Speech Rally. pic.twitter.com/g1DnQd7q7J

'-- eder campuzano [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] (@edercampuzano) June 30, 2018The Patriot Prayer grouped numbered nearly 150, while the counter-demonstration boasted attendance at least twice that. Combined, the dueling protests were a fraction of an earlier march in support of immigrant children separated from their parents at the southern border.

That event tallied up to 5,000 attendees.

The conservative rally in the federal plaza was a typical affair for the Vancouver-based political figure.

Gibson said he wanted to "bring light into a city that's full of darkness," verbally bashing Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown. Gibson is one of 13 candidates vying for the GOP nomination in the U.S. Senate race in Washington, according to Ballotpedia.

A group of die-hard supporters exploded in raucous cheers as Gibson delivered his speech, where he mentioned his Senate campaign only once near the end of his address.

Corlyn Voorhees of The Oregonian/OregonLive staff contributed to this report.

Follow @edercampuzano

--Eder Campuzano | 503.221.4344ecampuzano@oregonian.com

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:23

Michael Ron David Kadar, seated, was convicted in Israel on Thursday of making threats against Jewish organizations in the United States. Credit Sebastian Scheiner/Associated Press An Israeli court convicted a 19-year-old man on Thursday in connection with threats made against organizations and individuals around the world, including the Israeli Embassy in Washington and numerous Jewish groups in the United States.

The youth court withheld the man's name because some of the crimes were committed before he was an adult, but the Justice Department identified him, in charging documents last year and indictments this year, as Michael Ron David Kadar, a dual American and Israeli citizen.

In the verdict, Judge Zvi Gurfinkel of the Tel Aviv district youth court said that the man had threatened thousands of people between 2015 and early 2017 ''with acts of terror and murder that would be executed in an area filled with people, and that these acts would be executed by explosion or shooting and would harm many.''

The targets included ''airlines, airports, schools, malls, police stations, hospitals'' and other institutions, he said.

Mr. Kadar was arrested in Israel on March 23, 2017, after months of making threats against Jewish institutions, the authorities say. The threats raised fears of growing anti-Semitism in the United States.

His lawyer had argued at the time that Mr. Kadar, who was born in Israel, had developed a brain tumor when he was 14 years old that affected his behavior. Although Judge Gurfinkel did not address the tumor in his verdict on Thursday, he did say that Mr. Kadar was fit to stand trial despite having received an autism diagnosis.

The judge convicted Mr. Kadar of ''all the crimes attributed to him'' since he turned 18 on Aug. 25, 2016. It was not immediately clear when Mr. Kadar would be sentenced or how severe the sentence would be.

According to the American documents, Mr. Kadar made threats against Jewish community centers, schools and historic institutions, as well as the Anti-Defamation League's offices in Washington and New York. Mr. Kadar made at least 245 threatening phone calls in the first two months of 2017 alone, according to the F.B.I.

The phone calls to groups and institutions often warned of bombs in the building or an impending mass shooting. The threats were taken seriously, resulting in evacuations, lockdowns and the closing of buildings and offices.

In a call in February 2017 to a Tampa Jewish Community Center preschool, for example, Mr. Kadar warned of a bomb that would blow off the heads of the ''Jew children'' there, according to the charging documents filed last year, which described the F.B.I. investigation.

Mr. Kadar was also accused of engaging in ''swatting,'' the practice of calling the police with dramatic, but false, reports intended to provoke a large and potentially dangerous law-enforcement response.

Using multiple digital tools, Mr. Kadar was able to mask his identity, alter his voice, hide his phone number and reroute his internet traffic through intermediaries, according to the charging documents.

After issuing more than 100 subpoenas to assorted technology companies, the F.B.I. traced the calls to Israel. The authorities there narrowed the search to a neighborhood in Ashkelon, a small city where they arrested Mr. Kadar.

Unprompted, he told the authorities that he ''did not do'' the ''JCC threats,'' according to the documents. On his laptop, they found recordings of calls arranged into folders bearing names such as ''Bomb Threats to Jewish Institutions Feb 27 2017.''

In February, the Justice Department announced that Mr. Kadar had been indicted in the District of Columbia, Georgia and Florida on dozens of charges related to the calls, including hate crime charges, each carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, and multiple bomb threat charges, each carrying a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

Myra Noveck contributed reporting from Jerusalem.

A version of this article appears in print on

, on Page

A

7

of the New York edition

with the headline:

Israeli Judge Convicts Man on Charges of Threatening U.S. Jewish Groups

. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 15:23

"Full Frontal with Samantha Bee" writer Ashley Nicole Black said that "civility is a tool of white supremacy" on Monday. (Image: YouTube screenshots)

A writer for TBS's ''Full Frontal with Samantha Bee'' went off on a Twitter rant Monday, saying that ''civility is a tool of white supremacy.''

''Civility is a tool of white supremacy. Ok, cool. Byeeeeee!'' Ashley Nicole Black wrote in a tweet, lashing out against nationwide calls for civility after influential Democrats like Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California called for liberals to remove Trump cabinet members from restaurants and public places.

''If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them,'' Waters said on Sunday. ''Tell them they're not welcome any more, anywhere!''

Reasonable Democrats have called for calmer heads amid the heightened rhetoric against conservatives, paired with the doxxing of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials earlier in June for which a professor at New York University is responsible.

Arne Duncan, who was Secretary of Education in the Obama administration, pointed out the similarities between chasing Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen out of a restaurant June 19 to the U.S.'s history of racial segregation laws that made it legal not to serve black people in restaurants.

''My personal opinion: No matter how much we dislike or disagree with someone, we should not deny them the chance to have a meal,'' Duncan wrote in a tweet on Sunday. ''The history in our country of denying people access to restaurants, to water fountains and even bathrooms is too raw, too real. We can't keep dividing.''

But Black was not pleased with his comparison, saying it's ''truly wild.''

''Wow,'' Black responded. ''Imagine using this country's history of oppression to bolster your argument that we need to be nicer to the people trying to drag us back to that time.'' (RELATED: Maxine Waters Praised Violent LA Race Riots As 'Defining Moment' For Resistance)

Samantha Bee was also under fire recently for calling Trump's daughter Ivanka a ''feckless c**t'' on May 30. Bee and TBS apologized the next day after losing some of her show's sponsors.

''I would like to sincerely apologize to Ivanka Trump and to my viewers for using an expletive on my show to describe her last night. It was inappropriate and inexcusable,'' Bee wrote in a tweet. ''I crossed a line, and I deeply regret it.''

TBS did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Follow Kyle on Twitter @KylePerisic

Send tips to kyle@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:52

BROWNSVILLE, Texas - Juan Sanchez, the founder of Southwest Key Programs, informed News Center 23 that over 900 employees have been let go from Brownsville, Harlingen and San Benito, and over 1,500 nationwide.

''When we started hiring people, we had over 3,000 kids that we were serving at the time,'' Sanchez said in an interview with News Center 23's Marlane Rodriguez.

''The government needed all these [shelter] beds,'' Sanchez said referring to unaccompanied minors.

In fiscal year 2016, total apprehensions of undocumented immigrants by the border patrol on our southwest border, between ports of entry, was 408,870.

''[The government] asked us to set up'... And so we did and in the process of course we advertised and all these people applied for jobs,'' he said before a meeting between Southwest Key Programs and laid off employees took place.

He said the Trump Administration could be the cause of all the layoffs.

''There's been this determination by the government 'that we're going to cut the number of kids that you're serving by 48%', so as the government has made these cuts across the country, what do we do?'' Sanchez said. ''They told us you need to terminate folks so we are in the process right now of needing to terminate people.''

Employees walked in and out of the event center with information on what they can do next.

Sanchez said he spoke with the former employees about their benefits, and hopes this will not be the end of the Southwest Key Programs.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 04:10

Act 101(a)15P

(P) an alien having a foreign residence which the alien has no intention of abandoning who:

(i) (a) is described in section 214(c)(4)(A) (relating to athletes), or

(b) is described in section 214(c)(4)(B) (relating to entertainment groups);

(ii)(I) performs as an artist or entertainer, individually or as part of a group, or is an integral part of the performance of such a group, and

(II) seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of performing as such an artist or entertainer or with such a group under a reciprocal exchange program which is between an organization or organizations in the United States and an organization or organizations in one or more foreign states and which provides for the temporary exchange of artists and entertainers;

(iii)(I) performs as an artist or entertainer, individually or as part of a group, or is an integral part of the performance of such a group, and

(II) seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely to perform, teach, or coach as such an artist or entertainer or with such a group under a commercial or noncommercial program that is culturally unique; or

(iv) is the spouse or child of an alien described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) and is accompanying, or following to join, the alien;

(Q) 4a(i) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning who is coming temporarily (for a period not to exceed 15 months) to the United States as a participant in an international cultural exchange program approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security 4ab for the purpose of providing practical training, employment, and the sharing of the history, culture, and traditions of the country of the alien's nationality and who will be employed under the same wages and working conditions as domestic workers; 4a or

(ii) (I) an alien citizen of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, 21 to 35 years of age, unemployed for not less than 12 months, and having a residence for not less than 18 months in Northern Ireland 4ab1, or the counties of Louth, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Sligo, and Donegal within the Republic of Ireland, which the alien has no intention of abandoning who is coming temporarily (for a period not to exceed 24 months) 4ab1 to the United States as a participant in a cultural and training program approved by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security 4/ab under section 2(a) of the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act of 1998 for the purpose of providing practical training, employment, and the experience of coexistence and conflict resolution in a diverse society, and (II) the alien spouse and minor children of any such alien if accompanying the alien or following to join the alien;

(R) an alien, and the spouse and children of the alien if accompanying or following to join the alien, who-

(i) for the 2 years immediately preceding the time of application for admission, has been a member of a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States; and

(ii) seeks to enter the United States for a period not to exceed 5 years to perform the work described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of paragraph (27)(C)(ii); 4aa

(S) subject to section 214(k), an alien-

(i) who the Attorney General determines-

(I) is in possession of critical reliable information concerning a criminal organization or enterprise;

(II) is willing to supply or has supplied such information to Federal or State court; and

(III) whose presence in the United States the Attorney General determines is essential to the success of an authorized criminal investigation or the successful prosecution of an individual involved in the criminal organization or enterprise; or

(ii) who the Secretary of State and the Attorney General jointly determine-

(I) is in possession of critical reliable information concerning a terrorist organization, enterprise, or operation;

(II) is willing to supply or has supplied such information to Federal law enforcement authorities or a Federal court;

(III) will be or has been placed in danger as a result of providing such information; and

(IV) is eligible to receive a reward under section 36(a) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, and, if the Attorney General (or with respect to clause (ii), the Secretary of State and the Attorney General jointly) considers it to be appropriate, the spouse, married and unmarried sons and daughters, and parents of an alien described in clause (i) or (ii) if accompanying, or following to join, the alien; 4aa

(T) (i) subject to section 214(o), 4aa an alien who the 4ab2 Secretary of Homeland Security, or in the case of subclause (III)(aa) the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General 4ab3 determines--

(I) is or has been a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, as defined in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000; 4ab3

(II) is physically present in the United States, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or at a port of entry thereto, on account of such trafficking, including physical presence on account of the alien having been allowed entry into the United States for participation in investigative or judicial processes associated with an act or a perpetrator of trafficking; 4ab3

(III)(aa) has complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the Federal, State, or local 4ab2 investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking 4ab2 or the investigation of crime where acts of trafficking are at least one central reason for the commission of that crime; 4ab3

(bb) 4ab3 in consultation with the Attorney General, as appropriate, is unable to cooperate with a request described in item (aa) due to physical or psychological trauma; or

(cc) 4ab3 has not attained 18 years of age4aaa; and 4ab3

(IV) the alien would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal; 4ab2

(ii) 4aaa4aa4ab2if accompanying, or following to join, the alien described in clause (i)--

(I) in the case of an alien described in clause (i) who is under 21 years of age, the spouse, children, unmarried siblings under 18 years of age on the date on which such alien applied for status under such clause, and parents of such alien; 4ab3

(II) in the case of an alien described in clause (i) who is 21 years of age or older, the spouse and children of such alien; and

(III) any parent or unmarried sibling under 18 years of age of an alien described in subclause (I) or (II) who the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the law enforcement officer investigating a severe form of trafficking, determines faces a present danger of retaliation as a result of the alien's escape from the severe form of trafficking or cooperation with law enforcement.

(iii) [Removed] 4ab34ab2

(U) 4aa(i) subject to section 214(p), an alien who files a petition for status under this subparagraph, if the 4aa1 Secretary of Homeland Security determines that--

(I) the alien has suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of having been a victim of criminal activity described in clause (iii);

(II) the alien (or in the case of an alien child under the age of 16, the parent, guardian, or next friend of the alien) possesses information concerning criminal activity described in clause (iii);

(III) the alien (or in the case of an alien child under the age of 16, the parent, guardian, or next friend of the alien) has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official, to a Federal, State, or local prosecutor, to a Federal or State judge, to the Service, or to other Federal, State, or local authorities investigating or prosecuting criminal activity described in clause (iii); and

(IV) the criminal activity described in clause (iii) violated the laws of the United States or occurred in the United States (including in Indian country and military installations) or the territories and possessions of the United States;

(ii) 4aa1 if accompanying, or following to join, the alien described in clause (i)--

(I) in the case of an alien described in clause (i) who is under 21 years of age, the spouse, children, unmarried siblings under 18 years of age on the date on which such alien applied for status under such clause, and parents of such alien; or

(II) in the case of an alien described in clause (i) who is 21 years of age or older, the spouse and children of such alien; and

(iii) the criminal activity referred to in this clause is that involving one or more of the following or any similar activity in violation of Federal, State, or local criminal law: rape; torture; trafficking; incest; domestic violence; sexual assault; abusive sexual contact; prostitution; sexual exploitation; stalking; female genital mutilation; being held hostage; peonage; involuntary servitude; slave trade; kidnapping; abduction; unlawful criminal restraint; false imprisonment; blackmail; extortion; manslaughter; murder; felonious assault; witness tampering; obstruction of justice; perjury; fraud in foreign labor contracting (as defined in section 1351 of title 18, United States Code); or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the above mentioned crimes; or 4aa

(V) subject to section 214(q) , 4aa an alien who is the beneficiary (including a child of the principal alien, if eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) of a petition to accord a status under section 203(a)(2)(A) that was filed with the Attorney General under section 204 on or before the date of the enactment of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, if--

(i) such petition has been pending for 3 years or more; or

(ii) such petition has been approved, 3 years or more have elapsed since such filing date, and--

(I) an immigrant visa is not immediately available to the alien because of a waiting list of applicants for visas under section 203(a)(2)(A); or

(II) the alien's application for an immigrant visa, or the alien's application for adjustment of status under section 245, pursuant to the approval of such petition, remains pending.

(16) The term "immigrant visa" means an immigrant visa required by this Act and properly issued by a consular officer at his office outside of the United States to an eligible immigrant under the provisions of this Act.

(17) The term "immigration laws" includes this Act and all laws, conventions, and treaties of the United States relating to the immigration, exclusion, deportation, expulsion, or removal of aliens.

(18) The term "immigration officer" means any employee or class of employees of the Service or of the United States designated by the Attorney General, individually or by regulation, to perform the functions of an immigration officer specified by this Act or any section thereof.

(19) The term "ineligible to citizenship," when used in reference to any individual, means, notwithstanding the provisions of any treaty relating to military service, an individual who is, or was at any time, permanently debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States under section 3(a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended (54 Stat. 885; 55 Stat. 844), or under section 4(a) of the Selective Service Act of 1948, as amended (62 Stat. 605; 65 Stat. 76) 50 U.S.C. App. 454 , or under any section of this Act, or any other Act, or under any law amendatory of, supplementary to, or in substitution for, any of such sections or Acts.

(20) The term "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed.

(21) The term "national" means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

(22) The term "national of the United States" means:

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

(23) The term "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

(24) [was repealed by Sec. 305(m)(1) of the Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments of 1991 (P.L. 102-232, Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1750), effective as if included in section 407(d) of the Immigration Act of 1990. ]

(25) The term "noncombatant service" shall not include service in which the individual is not subject to military discipline, court martial, or does not wear the uniform of any branch of the armed forces.

(26) The term "nonimmigrant visa" means a visa properly issued to an alien as an eligible nonimmigrant by a competent officer as provided in this Act.

(27) The term "special immigrant" means-

(A) an immigrant, lawfully admitted for permanent residence, who is returning from a temporary visit abroad;

(B) an immigrant who was a citizen of the United States and may, under section 324(a) or 327 of title III, apply for reacquisition of citizenship;

(C) an immigrant, and the immigrant's spouse and children if accompanying or following to join the immigrant, who-

(i) for at least 2 years immediately preceding the time of application for admission, has been a member of a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States;

(ii) seeks to enter the United States-

(I) solely for the purpose of carrying on the vocation of a minister of that religious denomination,

(II) before September 30, 2015, 254bbb4b4bb in order to work for the organization at the request of the organization in a professional capacity in a religious vocation or occupation, or

(III) before September 30, 2115, 254bbb4b4bb in order to work for the organization (or for a bona fide organization which is affiliated with the religious denomination and is exempt from taxation as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) at the request of the organization in a religious vocation or occupation; and

(iii) has been carrying on such vocation, professional work, or other work continuously for at least the 2-year period described in clause (I);

(D) an immigrant who is an employee, or an honorably retired former employee, of the United States Government abroad, or of the American Institute in Taiwan, and who has performed faithful service for a total of fifteen years, or more, and his accompanying spouse and children: Provided, That the principal officer of a Foreign Service establishment (or, in the case of the American Institute in Taiwan, the Director thereof), in his discretion, shall have recommended the granting of special immigrant status to such alien in exceptional circumstances and the Secretary of State approves such recommendation and finds that it is in the national interest to grant such status;

(E) an immigrant, and his accompanying spouse and children, who is or has been an employee of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone Government before the date on which the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 (as described in section 3 (a)(1) of the Panama Canal Act of 1979) enters into force, who was resident in the Canal Zone on the effective date of the exchange of instruments of ratification of such Treaty, and who has performed faithful service as such an employee for one year or more;

(F) an immigrant, and his accompanying spouse and children, who is a Panamanian national and (i) who, before the date on which such Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 enters into force, has been honorably retired from United States Government employment in the Canal Zone with a total of 15 years or more of faithful service, or (ii) who on the date on which such Treaty enters into force, has been employed by the United States Government in the Canal Zone with a total of 15 years or more of faithful service and who subsequently is honorably retired from such employment or continues to be employed by the United States Government in an area of the former Canal Zone;

(G) an immigrant, and his accompanying spouse and children, who was an employee of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone government on the effective date of the exchange of instruments of ratification of such Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, who has performed faithful service for five years or more as such an employee, and whose personal safety, or the personal safety of whose spouse or children, as a direct result of such Treaty, is reasonably placed in danger because of the special nature of any of that employment;

(H) an immigrant, and his accompanying spouse and children, who-

(i) has graduated from a medical school or has qualified to practice medicine in a foreign state,

(ii) was fully and permanently licensed to practice medicine in a State on January 9, 1978, and was practicing medicine in a State on that date,

(iii) entered the United States as a nonimmigrant under subsection (a)(15)(H) or (a)(15)(J) before January 10, 1978, and

(iv) has been continuously present in the United States in the practice or study of medicine since the date of such entry;

(I) (i) an immigrant who is the unmarried son or daughter of an officer or employee, or of a former officer or employee, of an international organization described in paragraph (15)(G)(i), and who (I) while maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant under paragraph (15)(G)(iv) or paragraph (15)(N), has resided and been physically present in the United States for periods totaling at least one-half of the seven years before the date of application for a visa or for adjustment of status to a status under t his subparagraph and for a period or periods aggregating at least seven years between the ages of five and 21 years, and (II) applies for a visa or adjustment of status under this subparagraph no later than his twenty- fifth birthday or six months after the date of the enactment of the Immigration Technical Corrections Act of 1988, whichever is later;

(ii) an immigrant who is the surviving spouse of a deceased officer or employee of such an international organization, and who

(I) while maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant under paragraph (15)(G)(iv) or paragraph (15)(N), has resided and been physically present in the United States for periods totaling at least one-half of the seven years before the date of application for a visa or for adjustment of status to a status under this subparagraph and for a period or periods aggregating at least 15 years before the date of the death of such officer or employee, and

(II) files a petition for status under this subparagraph no later than six months after the date of such death or six months after the date of the enactment of the Immigration Technical Corrections Act of 1988, whichever is later;

(iii) an immigrant who is a retired officer or employee of such an international organization, and who

(I) while maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant under paragraph (15)(G)(iv), has resided and been physically present in the United States for periods totaling at least one-half of the seven years before the date of application for a visa or for adjustment of status to a status under this subparagraph and for a period or periods aggregating at least 15 years before the date of the officer or employee's retirement from any such international organization, and

(II) files a petition for status under this subparagraph no later than six months after the date of such retirement or six months after the date of enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, whichever is later; or

(iv) an immigrant who is the spouse of a retired officer or employee accorded the status of special immigrant under clause (iii), accompanying or following to join such retired officer or employee as a member of his immediate family;

(J) 4can immigrant who is present in the United States--

(i) who has been declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the United States or whom such a court has legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of a State, or an individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court located in the United States, and whose reunification with 1 or both of the immigrant's parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law; 24

(ii) for whom it has been determined in administrative or judicial proceedings that it would not be in the alien's best interest to be returned to the alien's or parent's previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence; and

(iii) in whose case the Secretary of Homeland Security consents to the grant of special immigrant juvenile status, 24 except that--

(I) no juvenile court has jurisdiction to determine the custody status or placement of an alien in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services specifically consents to such jurisdiction; 24 and

(II) no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any alien provided special immigrant status under this subparagraph shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this Act; 4d

(K) an immigrant who has served honorably on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States after October 15, 1978, and after original lawful enlistment outside the United States (under a treaty or agreement in effect on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph) for a period or periods aggregating-

(i) 12 years and who, if separated from such service, was never separated except under honorable conditions, or

(ii) 6 years, in the case of an immigrant who is on active duty at the time of seeking special immigrant status under this subparagraph and who has reenlisted to incur a total active duty service obligation of at least 12 years, and the spouse or child of any such immigrant if accompanying or following to join the immigrant, but only if the executive department under which the immigrant serves or served recommends the granting of special immigrant status to the immigrant; 4dd4d

4d(L) an immigrant who would be described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of subparagraph (I) if any reference in such a clause--

(i) to an international organization described in paragraph (15)(G)(i) were treated as a reference to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO);

(ii) to a nonimmigrant under paragraph (15)(G)(iv) were treated as a reference to a nonimmigrant classifiable under NATO-6 (as a member of a civilian component accompanying a force entering in accordance with the provisions of the NATO Status-of-Forces Agreement, a member of a civilian component attached to or employed by an Allied Headquarters under the `Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters' set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty, or as a dependent); and

(iii) to the Immigration Technical Corrections Act of 1988 or to the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 were a reference to the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 4dd

(M) 4ddsubject to the numerical limitations of section 203(b)(4), an immigrant who seeks to enter the United States to work as a broadcaster in the United States for the International Broadcasting Bureau of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, or for a grantee of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and the immigrant's accompanying spouse and children.

(28) The term "organization" means, but is not limited to, an organization, corporation, company, partnership, association, trust, foundation or fund; and includes a group of persons, whether or not incorporated, permanently or temporarily associated together with joint action on any subject or subjects.

(29) The term "outlying possessions of the United States" means American Samoa and Swains Island.

(30) The term "passport" means any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer's origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country.

(31) The term "permanent" means a relationship of continuing or lasting nature, as distinguished from temporary, but a relationship may be permanent even though it is one that may be dissolved eventually at the instance either of the United States or of the individual, in accordance with law.

(32) The term "profession" shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries.

(33) The term "residence" means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.

(34) The term "Service" means the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice.

(35) The term "spouse", "wife", or "husband" does not include a spouse, wife, or husband by reason of any marriage ceremony where the contracting parties thereto are not physically present in the presence of each other, unless the marriage shall have been consummated.

(36) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, 23 the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands .

(37) The term "totalitarian party" means an organization which advocates the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship or totalitarianism. The terms "totalitarian dictatorship" and "totalitarianism" mean and refer to systems of government not representative in fact, characterized by

(A) the existence of a single political party, organized on a dictatorial basis, with so close an identity between such party and its policies and the governmental policies of the country in which it exists, that the party and the government constitute an indistinguishable unit, and

(B) the forcible suppression of opposition to such party.

(38) The term "United States", except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, 23 the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands .

(39) The term "unmarried", when used in reference to any individual as of any time, means an individual who at such time is not married, whether or not previously married.

(40) The term "world communism" means a revolutionary movement, the purpose of which is to establish eventually a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in any or all the countries of the world through the medium of an internationally coordinated Communist political movement.

(41) The term "graduates of a medical school" means aliens who have graduated from a medical school or who have qualified to practice medicine in a foreign state, other than such aliens who are of national or international renown in the field of medicine.

(42) The term "refugee" means:

(A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or

(B) in such circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 207(e) of this Act) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term "refugee" does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this Act, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion. 5

(43) 6The term "aggravated felony" means-

(A) murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor;

(B) illicit trafficking in controlled substance (as described in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code);

(C) illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code) or in explosive materials (as defined in section 841(c) of that title);

(D) an offense described in section 1956 of title 18, United States Code (relating to laundering of monetary instruments) or section 1957 of that title (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specific unlawful activity) if the amount of the funds exceeded $10,000;

(E) an offense described in-

(i) section 842 (h) or (i) of title 18, United States Code, or section 844 (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), or (i) of that title (relating to explosive materials offenses);

(ii) section 922(g) (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5), (j), (n), (o), (p), or (r) or 924 (b) or (h) of title 18, United States Code (relating to firearms offenses); or

(iii) section 5861 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to firearms offenses);

(F) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code, but not including a purely political offense) for which the term of imprisonment at 7 least 1 year;

(G) a theft offense (including receipt of stolen property) or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment at 8 least 1 year;

(H) an offense described in section 875, 876, 877, or 1202 of title 18, United States Code (relating to the demand for or receipt of ransom);

(I) an offense described in section 2251, 2251A, or 2252 of title 18, United States Code (relating to child pornography);

(J) an offense described in section 1962 of title 18, United States Code (relating to racketeer influenced corrupt organizations, or an offense described in section 1084 (if it is the second or subsequent offense) or 1955 of that title (relating to gambling offenses), for which a sentence of 1 year imprisonment or more may be imposed;

(K) an offense that-

(i) relates to the owning, controlling, managing, or supervising of a prostitution business; or

(ii) is described in section 2421, 2422, 2423, of Title 18, United States Code (relating to transportation for the purpose of prostitution) if committed for commercial advantage; or

(iii) 99a is described in any of sections 1581-1585 or 1588-1591 of title 18, United States Code (relating to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons);

(L) an offense described in-

(i) section 793 (relating to gathering or transmitting national defense information), 798 (relating to disclosure of classified information), 2153 (relating to sabotage) or 2381 or 2382 (relating to treason) of title 18, United States Code;

(ii) section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421) (relating to protecting the identity of undercover intelligence agents); or

(iii) section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947 (relating to protecting the identity of undercover agents);

(M) an offense that-

(i) involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000; or

(ii) is described in section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax evasion) in which the revenue loss to the Government exceeds $10,000;

(N) an offense described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2) of section 274(a) (relating to alien smuggling), except in the case of a first offense for which the alien has affirmatively shown that the alien committed the offense for the purpose of assisting, abetting, or aiding only the alien's spouse, child, or parent (and no other individual) to violate a provision of this Act 10;

(O) an offense described in section 275(a) or 276 committed by an alien who was previously deported on the basis of a conviction for an offense described in another subparagraph of this paragraph;

(P) an offense (i) which either is falsely making, forging, counterfeiting, mutilating, or altering a passport or instrument in violation of section 1543 of title 18, United States Code, or is described in section 1546(a) of such title (relating to document fraud) and (ii) for which the term of imprisonment is at least 12 months, except in the case of a first offense for which the alien has affirmatively shown that the alien committed the offense for the purpose of assisting, abetting, or aiding only the alien's spouse, child, or parent (and no other individual) to violate a provision of this Act 11;

(Q) an offense relating to a failure to appear by a defendant for service of sentence if the underlying offense is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 5 years or more; and

(R) an offense relating to commercial bribery, counterfeiting, forgery, or trafficking in vehicles the identification numbers of which have been altered for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year 12;

(S) an offense relating to obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness, for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year13;

(T) an offense relating to a failure to appear before a court pursuant to a court order to answer to or dispose of a charge of a felony for which a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment or more may be imposed; and

(U) an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense described in this paragraph.

The term applies to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law and applies to such offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any effective date), the term applies regardless of whether the conviction was entered before, on, or after the date of enactment of this paragraph. 14

(44) (A) The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily-

(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization;

(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization;

(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as promotion and leave authorization) or, if no other employee is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and

(iv) exercises discretion over the day- to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional.

(B) The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily-

(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization;

(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function;

(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and

(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization.

(C) If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, the Attorney General shall take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, component, or function in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization, component, or function. An individual shall not be considered to be acting in a managerial or executive capacity (as previously defined) merely on the basis of the number of employees that the individual supervises or has supervised or directs or has directed.

(45) The term "substantial" means, for purposes of paragraph (15)(E) with reference to trade or capital, such an amount of trade or capital as is established by the Secretary of State, after consultation with appropriate agencies of Government.

(46) The term "extraordinary ability" means, for purposes of section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), in the case of the arts, distinction.

(47) (A) The term 'order of deportation' means the order of the special inquiry officer, or other such administrative officer to whom the Attorney General has delegated the responsibility for determining whether an alien is deportable, concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation.

(B) The order described under subparagraph (A) shall become final upon the earlier of-

(i) a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such order; or

(ii) the expiration of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 15

(48) (A) The term "conviction" means, with respect to an alien, a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where-

(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and

(ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien's liberty to be imposed.

(B) Any reference to a term of imprisonment or a sentence with respect to an offense is deemed to include the period of incarceration or confinement ordered by a court of law regardless of any suspension of the imposition or execution of that imprisonment or sentence in whole or in part. 16

(49) The term "stowaway" means any alien who obtains transportation without the consent of the owner, charterer, master or person in command of any vessel or aircraft through concealment aboard such vessel or aircraft. A passenger who boards with a valid ticket is not to be considered a stowaway. 17

(50) 17bThe term 'intended spouse' means any alien who meets the criteria set forth in section 204(a)(1)(A)(iii)(II)(aa)(BB), 204(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II)(aa)(BB), or 240A(b)(2)(A)(i)(III).

(51) 17bbThe term 'VAWA self-petitioner' means an alien, or a child of the alien, who qualifies for relief under--

(A) clause (iii), (iv), or (vii) of section 204(a)(1)(A);

(B) clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B);

(C) section 216(c)(4)(C);

(D) the first section of Public Law 89-732 (8 U.S.C. 1255 note) (commonly known as the Cuban Adjustment Act) as a child or spouse who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty;

(E) section 902(d)(1)(B) of the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 (8 U.S.C. 1255 note);

(F) section 202(d)(1) of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act; or

(G) section 309 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208).

(52) 26The term `accredited language training program' means a language training program that is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary of Education.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 04:08

Skip to main content

\ slb \ SERVICE LAW BOOKS MENU \ IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT \ INA: ACT 208 - ASYLUM 1/ Previous Document | Next Document Sec. 208.(a) Authority to Apply for Asylum.- (1) In general. - Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b). (A) Safe third country. - Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien's nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence) in which the alien's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States. (B) Time limit. - Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of alien's arrival in the United States. (C) Previous asylum applications. - Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the alien has previously applied for asylum and had such application denied. (D) Changed conditions. - An application for asylum of an alien may be considered, notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C), if the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing the application within the period specified in subparagraph (B). (E) 7/ APPLICABILITY- Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 462(g) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g))). (3) Limitation on judicial review.3/4No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2). (b) Conditions for Granting Asylum. - (1) In general. - 4/ (A) ELIGIBILITY- The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by 4/ the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if 4/ the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A). (i) IN GENERAL- The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A) . To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant. (ii) SUSTAINING BURDEN- The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant's burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant's testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant's burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence. (iii) CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION- Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant's or witness's account, the consistency between the applicant's or witness's written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim, or any other relevant factor. There is no presumption of credibility, however, if no adverse credibility determination is explicitly made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal. (A) In general. - Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that - (i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; (ii) the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States; (iii) there are serious reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States; (iv) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States; (v) the alien is 5/ described in subclause (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (VI) 2/ of section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) or section 237(a)(4)(B) (relating to terrorist activity), unless, in the case only of an alien 5/ described in subclause (IV) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) , the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General's discretion, that there are not reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States; or (vi) the alien was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States. (i) Conviction of aggravated felony. - For purposes of clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony shall be considered to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime. (ii) Offenses. - The Attorney General may designate by regulation offenses that will be considered to be a crime described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A). (C) Additional limitations. - The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1). (D) No judicial review. - There shall be no judicial review of a determination of the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(v). 3/ (3) TREATMENT OF SPOUSE AND CHILDREN- (A) IN GENERAL- A spouse or child (as defined in section 101(b)(1)(A) , (B) , (C) , (D) , or (E) ) of an alien who is granted asylum under this subsection may, if not otherwise eligible for asylum under this section, be granted the same status as the alien if accompanying, or following to join, such alien. (B) CONTINUED CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN ALIENS AS CHILDREN- An unmarried alien who seeks to accompany, or follow to join, a parent granted asylum under this subsection, and who was under 21 years of age on the date on which such parent applied for asylum under this section, shall continue to be classified as a child for purposes of this paragraph and section 209(b)(3) , if the alien attained 21 years of age after such application was filed but while it was pending. (C) 8/ INITIAL JURISDICTION- An asylum officer (as defined in section 235(b)(1)(E) ) shall have initial jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 462(g) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g))), regardless of whether filed in accordance with this section or section 235(b) . (1) In general.- In the case of an alien granted asylum under subsection (b), the Attorney General - (A) shall not remove or return the alien to the alien's country of nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence; (B) shall authorize the alien to engage in employment in the United States and provide the alien with appropriate endorsement of that authorization; and (C) may allow the alien to travel abroad with the prior consent of the Attorney General. (2) Termination of asylum. - Asylum granted under subsection (b) does not convey a right to remain permanently in the United States, and may be terminated if the Attorney General determines that - (A) the alien no longer meets the conditions described in subsection (b)(1) owing to a fundamental change in circumstances; (B) the alien meets a condition described in subsection (b)(2); (C) the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien's nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence) in which the alien's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien is eligible to receive asylum or equivalent temporary protection; (D) the alien has voluntarily availed himself or herself of the protection of the alien's country of nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the alien's country of last habitual residence, by returning to such country with permanent resident status or the reasonable possibility of obtaining such status with the same rights and obligations pertaining to other permanent residents of that country; or (E) the alien has acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality. (3) Removal when asylum is terminated. - An alien described in paragraph (2) is subject to any applicable grounds of inadmissibility or deportability under section 212(a) and 237(a) , and the alien's removal or return shall be directed by the Attorney General in accordance with sections 240 and 241 . (1) Applications. - The Attorney General shall establish a procedure for the consideration of asylum applications filed under subsection (a). The Attorney General may require applicants to submit fingerprints and a photograph at such time and in such manner to be determined by regulation by the Attorney General. (2) Employment. - An applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization, but such authorization may be provided under regulation by the Attorney General. An applicant who is not otherwise eligible for employment authorization shall not be granted such authorization prior to 180 days after the date of filing of the application for asylum. (3) Fees. - The Attorney General may impose fees for the consideration of an application for asylum, for employment authorization under this section, and for adjustment of status under section 209(b). Such fees shall not exceed the Attorney General's costs in adjudicating the applications. The Attorney General may provide for the assessment and payment of such fees over a period of time or by installments. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require the Attorney General to charge fees for adjudication services provided to asylum applicants, or to limit the authority of the Attorney General to set adjudication and naturalization fees in accordance with section 286(m). (4) Notice of privilege of counsel and consequences of frivolous application. - At the time of filing an application for asylum, the Attorney General shall - (A) advise the alien of the privilege of being represented by counsel and of the consequences, under paragraph (6), of knowingly filing a frivolous application for asylum; and (B) provide the alien a list of persons (updated not less often than quarterly) who have indicated their availability to represent aliens in asylum proceedings on a pro bono basis. (5) Consideration of asylum applications. - (A) Procedures. - The procedure established under paragraph (1) shall provide that - (i) asylum cannot be granted until the identity of the applicant has been checked against all appropriate records or databases maintained by the Attorney General and by the Secretary of State, including the Automated Visa Lookout System, to determine any grounds on which the alien may be inadmissible to or deportable from the United States, or ineligible to apply for or be granted asylum; (ii) in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the initial interview or hearing on the asylum application shall commence not later than 45 days after the date an application is filed; (iii) in the absence of exceptional circumstances, final administrative adjudication of the asylum application, not including administrative appeal, shall be completed within 180 days after the date an application is filed; (iv) any administrative appeal shall be filed within 30 days of a decision granting or denying asylum, or within 30 days of the completion of removal proceedings before an immigration judge under section 240, whichever is later; and (v) in the case of an applicant for asylum who fails without prior authorization or in the absence of exceptional circumstances to appear for an interview or hearing, including a hearing under section 240, the application may be dismissed or the applicant may be otherwise sanctioned for such failure. (B) Additional regulatory conditions. - The Attorney General may provide by regulation for any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum not inconsistent with this Act. (6) Frivolous applications. - If the Attorney General determines that an alien has knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum and the alien has received the notice under paragraph (4)(A), the alien shall be permanently ineligible for any benefits under this Act, effective as of the date of a final determination on such application. (7) No private right of action. - Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to create any substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person. (e) 6/ Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands- The provisions of this section and section 209(b) shall apply to persons physically present in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or arriving in the Commonwealth (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including persons who are brought to the Commonwealth after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) only on or after January 1, 2014. \ slb \ SERVICE LAW BOOKS MENU \ IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT \ INA: ACT 208 - ASYLUM 1/ Previous Document | Next Document

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 04:04

You may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States. You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status and within one year of your arrival to the United States.

You will not be eligible to apply for asylum if you:·

Filed your application after being in the United States for more than one year. However, you may qualify for an exception if you show

changed circumstances materially affecting your asylum eligibility for asylum or

extraordinary circumstances relating to your delay in filing.

You must still file your application within a reasonable time under the circumstances to be eligible for an exception.

Changed circumstances may include but are not limited to:

Changes in conditions in your country of nationality or, if you are stateless, your country of last habitual residenceChanges in your circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum, including changes in applicable U.S. law and activities you become involved in outside the country of feared persecution that place you at riskIf you were previously included as a dependent in someone else's pending asylum application, the loss of the spousal or parent-child relationship to the principal applicant through marriage, divorce, death, or attainment of age 21Extraordinary circumstances may include but are not limited to:·

Serious illness or mental or physical disability, including any effects of persecution or violent harm suffered in the past, during the 1-year period after your arrival in the U.S.Legal disability, such as your status as an unaccompanied minor or you suffered from a mental impairment, during the 1-year period after your arrival in the U.S.Ineffective assistance of counsel, if:

You file an affidavit explaining in detail the agreement that you had with your lawyer about the actions to be taken by your lawyer on your behalf and what your lawyer told you he or she would do for you

You have informed the lawyer whom you are criticizing of the accusations against him or her and the lawyer has been given an opportunity to respond

You indicate whether you have filed a complaint with appropriate disciplinary authorities about any violation of your lawyer's ethical or legal responsibilities, and if not, why not

You had Temporary Protected Status (TPS), lawful immigrant or nonimmigrant status, or you were given parole, until a reasonable period before you filed your asylum applicationYou filed an asylum application before the expiration of the 1-year deadline, but USCIS rejected your application as not properly filed, returned the application to you for corrections, and you re-filed your application within a reasonable time after the returnThe death or serious illness or incapacity of your legal representative or a member of your immediate familyFor a list of circumstances that may be considered changed or extraordinary circumstances, see 8 CFR 208.4 and the ''Asylum Bars'' link to the right.

You will be barred from applying for asylum if you previously applied for asylum and were denied by the Immigration Judge or Board of Immigration Appeals, unless you demonstrate that there are changed circumstances which affect your eligibility for asylum.

You will also be barred if you could be removed to a safe third country to a two-party or multi-party agreement. Currently, the United States has a safe third country agreement with Canada that does not apply to you if you are applying for asylum affirmatively with USCIS. The Agreement only applies in Credible Fear Screenings. For more information about the safe third country agreement with Canada, see the ''Questions & Answers: Credible Fear Screenings'' link to the right. For more information about bars to applying, see ''Asylum Bars'' to the right.

To apply for asylum, you must complete a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. For more information about applying for asylum, see the ''Obtaining Asylum in the U.S.'' and ''The Affirmative Asylum Process'' links to the right.

Yes. You may apply for asylum with USCIS regardless of your immigration status if:

You are not currently in removal proceedingsYou file an asylum application within one year of arriving to the United States or demonstrate that you are within an exception to that rule.Yes, but you may be barred from being granted asylum depending on the crime. You must disclose any criminal history on your Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, and at your asylum interview. If you do not disclose such information, your asylum claim will be referred to the immigration court and may result in fines or imprisonment for committing perjury. For more information on bars to receiving asylum, see the ''Asylum Bars'' link to the right.

You must list your spouse and children on your Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, regardless of whether they are:

Alive, missing or deadBorn in other countries or in the United StatesUnder 21 years old or adultsMarried or unmarriedLiving with you in the United States or elsewhereStepsons or stepdaughters or legally adopted;Born when you were not marriedIncluded in your asylum application or filing a separate applicationYou may include your spouse as a dependent on your asylum application. You may also include your children if they are:

Under the age of 21UnmarriedIn the United StatesYou should bring your family members to your asylum interview. If you are granted asylum status, family members included on your application will also be granted asylum status (unless they are barred from asylum) and will be allowed to remain in the United States. If you are referred to the Immigration Court, your family members will also be referred to court for removal proceedings if they are not in legal status.

If you are granted asylum and your spouse and any unmarried children under 21 years old are outside the United States, you may file a Form I-730, Refugee and Asylee Relative Petition, for them to obtain derivative asylum status. For more information about benefits for your dependents, see the ''Family of Refugees & Asylees'' link to the right.

We will send you a notice to go to a USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) to have your fingerprints taken after we receive your asylum application. You are exempt from the fingerprinting fee and do not need to submit a fingerprint card. Your spouse and children will also need to be fingerprinted if they are between 12 years and 9 months of age and 79 years of age. For ASC locations, see the ''ASC Locator'' link to the right.

Yes. Every individual who applies for asylum will be subject to a series of background and security checks. If you are not eligible for a final grant of asylum, your application may be referred to Immigration Court for removal proceedings. Background and security checks consist of:

FBI check on your biographical information and fingerprintsCheck of your biographical information against law enforcement databases.Your child will continue to be eligible as a dependent on your asylum application if they turned 21 after you filed your application and while it remains pending. For more information about derivative asylum, see the ''Family of Refugees & Asylees'' link to the right.

There is no fee to apply for asylum.

The asylum officer will determine if you are eligible for asylum by evaluating whether you meet the definition of a refugee. See section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). We will make the determination of whether you meet the definition of a refugee based on information you provide on your application and during an interview with an asylum officer.

The asylum officer will also consider whether any bars to asylum apply. You will be barred from being granted asylum if you:

Ordered, incited, assisted, or participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinionWere convicted of a serious crime (including aggravated felonies) Committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United StatesPose a danger to the security of the United StatesWere firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United StatesFor more information on bars to asylum, see the ''Bars to Applying and Receiving Asylum'' link to the right.

A decision should be made on your asylum application within 180 days after the date you filed your application unless there are exceptional circumstances. For more information about the step by step asylum process, see the ''Affirmative Asylum Process'' link to the right.

The legal provisions governing the Asylum Program can be found in Section 208 of the INA. Rules concerning eligibility requirements and procedures can be found at 8 CFR 208. Asylum officers also rely on case law to adjudicate asylum claims. Administrative decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) can be found in the ''BIA Appeals'' link to the right.

You have a right to bring a lawyer or representative to your asylum interview and to immigration proceedings before the Immigration Court. See the ''Finding Legal Advice'' link to the right.

Representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) may also be able to assist in identifying persons to help you complete your Form I-589. The current address of the UNHCR is:

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 1775 K Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 296-5191

For more information about UNHCR, see the ''United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees'' link to the right.

You must bring an interpreter if you do not speak English fluently. The interpreter must be fluent in both English and a language you speak and must be at least 18 years old. USCIS does not provide any interpreters during the asylum interview. The following people cannot serve as your interpreter:

Your attorney or representative of recordA witness testifying on your behalf at the interviewA representative or employee of your countryIf you have a document that is not in English, you are required to provide a certified translation of the document in English.

Q. How Can I Find Out the Status of My Asylum Application? A. You can find out the status of a pending asylum application by sending a written inquiry or by visiting the asylum office with jurisdiction over your case. Please provide in writing the following information when you write to the asylum office:

Your A-Number (the 8 or 9 digit number following the letter "A")Your legal name and, if different, the name as it appears on the applicationYour date of birthDate and location of your asylum interview, if applicableYou may also inquire at the asylum office where your case is pending. See the ''Asylum Office Locator'' link to the right.

Q. What if I Need to Travel After I've Applied for Asylum? A. If you applied for asylum and have not yet received a decision, you should not leave the United States without first obtaining advance parole. Advance parole allows certain individuals to return to the United States without a visa after traveling abroad. If you leave the United States without first obtaining advance parole, we will presume you abandoned your asylum application. Advance parole does not guarantee that you will be allowed to reenter the United States.

To obtain advance parole, you must file Form I-131, Application for Travel Document. For more information about travel documents, see the ''Fact Sheet: Traveling Outside the United States as an Asylum Applicant, an Asylee, or Lawful Permanent Resident Who Obtained Such Status Based on Asylum Status'' links to the right.

Q. What if I Need to Travel After I've Been Granted Asylum? A. If you plan to depart the United States after being granted asylum, you must obtain permission to return to the United States before departure by obtaining a refugee travel document. Your spouse and children who were granted asylum must also obtain a refugee travel documents before leaving as well.

A refugee travel document may be used for temporary travel abroad and is required for readmission to the United States as an asylee. If you do not obtain a refugee travel document in advance of departure, you may be unable to re-enter the United States, or you may be placed in removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge.

To obtain a refugee travel document file Form I-131, Application for Travel Document.

Q. Is the Information I Provide on My Application Protected?

A. Yes, asylum-related information may not be shared with third parties without the asylum applicant's written consent or the Secretary of Homeland Security's specific authorization. Q. If I Am a Minor Can I Still Apply for Asylum?A. Yes. For more information on minors applying for asylum, see the ''Asylum Procedures for Minor Children'' link to the right.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 03:59

Check out which nations are on the top 25 list as of 2018.

Over the years, both the mix of people applying for asylum (protection from overseas persecution) in the U.S. and the people whose applications are granted has varied a great deal. In some ways, this is as it should be. As circumstances change around the world'--war and civil unrest starts or eases, governments rise and fall, tribal and other groups become the oppressors or the oppressed'--changes naturally occur in who is granted asylum status and allowed to stay in the United States.

Before turning to the actual statistics, it's worth remembering that every person's claim for asylum is unique. True, the U.S. government has demonstrated some bias toward and against various countries' asylum applicants over the years. Nevertheless, it does not issue any blanket statements like, ''Everyone from X country probably deserves asylum.''

Individual applicants must present a convincing claim showing that they themselves were the victims of persecution, or fear future persecution. Therefore, looking at lists of which countries end up with the greatest number of its citizens granted asylum in the U.S. should not be viewed as an indicator of whether any one person's claim is likely to succeed.

Finding out whether a lot of other asylum applicants have come from a certain country can be instructional nonetheless. For one thing, a high number of granted cases from your own country tells you that, at the very least, the asylum officer or Immigration Judge (IJ) hearing your case probably has a reasonable amount of knowledge regarding conditions in your country, and you won't have to educate him or her about basic facts. (Then again, if the officers or IJs believe themselves to be too expert on the topic, you may find that they've already devised clever ways to ferret out any problems in your case.)

Another advantage if you come from a country with a lot of other asylum applicants is that the lawyer or agency working on your case can probably borrow materials from other lawyers to help support your claim. Gathering documents to show general country conditions or to back up accounts of persecution against particular groups is an important part of preparing an asylum claim.

Immigration Court Asylum StatisticsSo, with these thoughts and cautions in mind, it is possible to get government-issued statistics on the countries of origin of asylum grantees, at the Department of Justice's Executive Office of Immigration Review Statistical Year Book page. The Year Book tracks grants of defensive asylum in removal proceedings.

Keep in mind that while these statistics may include applications originally filed affirmatively with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that were denied and referred to the immigration court, it does not include those asylum applications that were originally approved by USCIS. For example, in 2016, USCIS approved 15,999 asylum applications without sending them on for court proceedings, but did not track them by nationality.

The latest Yearbook (as of early 2018) was for 2016. And the top ten countries whose citizens were granted asylum in the U.S. included (from most to least):

ChinaEl SalvadorGuatemalaHondurasMexicoIndiaNepalEthiopiaSomaliaEritreaChina alone accounted for an impressive 36% of the asylum grants in 2016, and it has topped the list in every one of the last several years. China has a large population to begin with, so this isn't too surprising. El Salvador comes in next at a mere 8.6%.

The overall grant rate is on the decline, and was at 48% in 2016.

For more information on applying for asylum in the U.S., see the Asylum & Refugee Status page of Nolo's website.

Talk to a Lawyer

Need a lawyer? Start here. How it Works Briefly tell us about your case Provide your contact information Choose attorneys to contact you

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:09

Official website of the Department of Homeland Security

The NEXUS program allows pre-screened travelers expedited processing when entering the United States and Canada. Program members use dedicated processing lanes at designated northern border ports of entry, NEXUS kiosks when entering Canada by air and Global Entry kiosks when entering the United States via Canadian Preclearance airports. NEXUS members also receive expedited processing at marine reporting locations.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:19

After U.S. authorities detained a 12-year-old boy crossing the U.S.-Mexico border by himself in February, government contractors wrote in his file that he went from being calm and cooperative to showing signs of depression brought on by ''being kept from his family,'' which had entered the country before him, according to a new court case.

The boy's condition deteriorated further in the care of shelters funded by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement, which now holds over 2,000 children separated more forcefully from their parents under an abandoned policy of the Trump administration, the lawsuit alleges. He has been transferred to a psychiatric facility in Texas and placed on a regimen of antidepressants, it says, and the U.S. government is refusing to release him to an adult sister in Los Angeles, saying her home may not be suitable and that the boy is not yet ''psychologically sound'' for release.

The complaint, filed Friday in federal court in California, illustrates the difficulties the Trump administration faces in complying with a federal judge's order to reunify all 2,000 children and their parents within a month. Many of those children '-- perhaps ''hundreds,'' the lawsuit estimates '-- are already caught up in a bureaucratic tangle of medical determinations and assessments of family members to which they could potentially be released. In several cases documented in the suit, those issues have taken a year or more to be resolved.

The lawsuit alleges that delays in releasing minors amount to violations of their constitutional rights.

''Basic due-process rights for these children are really being trampled on right now by the Trump administration,'' said Leecia Welch, an attorney for the National Center for Youth Law, one of the groups that brought the case. ''Child after child has told us the same story of being awaken at 4 a.m., and flown across the country to be detained without being told why, let alone a judicial determination as to why. What ORR is doing is saying it can incarcerate children and throw away the key for as long as it likes.''

The Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment.

But in court filings in a separate case, the federal government has asserted that it has the right and responsibility to have doctors at shelters administer drugs to minors when needed. It has relied largely on authority courts have said it has in emergency situations to do so. In May, the Justice Department also pushed back on allegations that it was moving too slowly in discharging children to sponsors, saying it has a responsibility to adequately review and vet the conditions immigrants will live in.

Welch said the Justice Department all but invited advocates for immigrant children to file the suit during a recent court exchange over whether the government has the authority to prescribe psychotropic medications and whether it is violating previous legal agreements to release children as quickly as possible.

''To the extent Plaintiffs wish to challenge the sufficiency of constitutionality of the process '... they should do so in separate litigation,'' the Justice Department wrote in a court filing in May.

The group bringing the suit includes the same core group of attorneys and advocacy organizations that filed a 1985 complaint that led to a landmark document called the Flores settlement.

That agreement ultimately forced the U.S. government to stop housing children in austere detention centers run by Border Patrol officers and to instead direct children to more shelter-like conditions with education and exercise facilities run by ORR, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The new case, Lucas R. v Azar, for Alex Azar, current HHS secretary, claims the policies and practices of ORR are ''causing grave harm to children detained for alleged civil violations'' of crossing the border.

Lucas R. is the pseudonym that attorneys assigned to the 12-year-old from Guatemala detained in February.

The suit alleges the boy was placed in Hacienda del Sol, a shelter in Arizona run by the government contractor Southwest Key. When he arrived, the lawsuit says, staff noted that Lucas ''appeared cooperative, calm, and alert, and showed 'no behavioral concerns.''‰''

''As his confinement wore on, however, Lucas became depressed, fearing that ORR would never release him to his family,'' the case alleges, and without seeking consent of his closest relative in the United States, the ''ORR administered Lucas psychotropic drugs, ostensibly to control 'moderate' depression.''

Meanwhile, the boy's adult sister, who lives in Los Angeles with her infant daughter, brother and a roommate, had applied to be his sponsor and take custody of him from Hacienda del Sol.

But when investigators arrived to inspect her apartment, a friend of the roommate was visiting, the suit alleges. Agents said everyone in the home, including the friend would have to be fingerprinted for Lucas to be released to his sister's custody.

The friend's roommate did not show up for fingerprinting, and ORR informed the sister that Lucas would not be released to her.

For Lucas, the situation was deteriorating, the lawsuit alleges. The medication Zoloft was causing him stomach pain, and he began refusing to take the antidepressant. That led to his transfer to Shiloh Treatment Center in Texas. At that facility, a doctor who has signed off on many recent treatment plans has been operating on an expired state license, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting.

The lawsuit says: ''Shiloh personnel have now diagnosed Lucas with 'major depressive disorder.' Among Lucas' 'major stressors,' Shiloh personnel identify his '[b]eing kept from family and in ORR custody.' Shiloh staff have nonetheless told Lucas that ORR will not release him until Shiloh medical personnel declare him psychologically sound.''

In addition to the Center for Youth Law, other plaintiffs are the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, University of California Davis School of Law Immigration Law Clinic, and Cooley LLP.

''We don't know what process ORR is using currently to reunite these children with their families and what we're seeing is that parents of children are going through the ringer trying to get their kids out of these detention facilities,'' Welch said. ''There is no reason to think it is going to get any better.''

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:46

The US government is deploying a new facial recognition system at the southern border that would record images of people inside vehicles entering and leaving the country.

The pilot program, scheduled to begin in August, will build on secretive tests conducted in Arizona and Texas during which authorities collected a ''massive amount of data'', including images captured ''as people were leaving work, picking up children from school, and carrying out other daily routines'', according to government records.

The project, which US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confirmed to the Guardian on Tuesday, sparked immediate criticisms from civil liberties advocates who said there were a host of privacy and constitutional concerns with an overly broad surveillance system relying on questionable technology.

How big is the force?

Already the largest and most funded federal law enforcement agency in its own right, the border patrol is part of the umbrella agency US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP's approximately 60,000 employees are split in four major divisions: officers who inspect imports; an air and marine division; agents who staff ports of entry '' international airports, seaports and land crossings; and the approximately 20,000 agents of the border patrol, who are concentrated in the south-west, but stationed nationwide.

What are its powers?

The border patrol enjoys extraordinary police powers. Agents operate checkpoints where they stop motorists everyday without suspicion, and in the interior of the country up to 100 miles, they can board planes, trains and buses. There is no geographic limit to which agents can otherwise conduct stops amid roving patrols, though they are technically required to have reasonable suspicion to do so. Extending from not only land borders but also the Pacific, Atlantic, Gulf and Great Lakes coasts, the 100-mile zone encompasses two out of every three Americans, 12 states in their whole or near entirety and nine of the 10 biggest cities in the nation.

''This is an example of the growing trend of authoritarian use of technology to track and stalk immigrant communities,'' said Malkia Cyril, the executive director of the Center for Media Justice. ''It's absolutely a violation of our democratic rights, and we are definitely going to fight back.''

The so-called Vehicle Face System, first reported by the Verge, will run for one year at the Anzalduas port of entry in Texas, tracking cars traveling to and from Mexico with the goal of testing the camera's ''ability to capture a quality facial image for each occupant position in the vehicle'' and the ''biometric matching accuracy'' of the images, CBP said. Authorities will ''compare'' those images with ones stored in ''government holdings'', which include passports, visas and other CBP documents, said a spokeswoman, Jennifer Gabris.

This is an example of the growing trend of authoritarian use of technology to track and stalk immigrant communities

Last year, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, a government-sponsored lab, obtained approval to test the new cameras, determining that the technology was ''capable of capturing a high quality image'' of drivers' faces and possibly other occupants in moving cars.

The US has been aggressively expanding its monitoring and targeting of people at the southern border and surrounding regions, and there have been increasing concerns about border agents and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) searching electronic devices.

But this appears to be the first time CBP will be utilizing this kind of facial recognition technology that records images from cars at the border, said Mitra Ebadolahi, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Border Litigation Project.

''Once these kinds of powerful surveillance systems are built and deployed, the privacy harms '... can't be undone,'' said Ebadolahi. ''People don't understand just how invasive these technologies are, and people don't even know they are being targeted.''

Research has repeatedly shown that facial recognition is a ''fundamentally biased technology'', she added.

Critics have increasingly warned that biometric tools can exacerbate existing inequalities in the criminal justice system, relying on databases and algorithms built on a history of discriminatory policing.

There is also evidence of facial recognition misidentifying black people, women and young people at higher rates than older white men, Cyril noted, arguing that the use of the technology against immigrants was unjustified: ''We should not be criminalizing people trying to escape the travesties '... in their countries of origin.''

Brian Brackeen, the CEO of Kairos, a face recognition company, noted that problems also arise when cameras take pictures through glass, and that ''false positives'' were more likely to affect people with darker skin: ''It's inevitably going to lead to problems.''

In records obtained by the Verge, officials said the cameras were capturing at least 1,400 vehicles over three days as part of the test programs. The lab deleted the images after the analysis, according to Gabris.

Asked how the government would store and use the images in the new pilot, Gabris said officials were still working on a ''privacy impact assessment'', adding that the Department of Homeland Security has been testing biometrics since 2003. In 2016, Congress provided up to $1bn to CBP for this work. The agency ''has the authority to capture scene images from all vehicles'', she added in an email.

Ebadolahi said she was concerned about how the government could expand this targeting, given that CBP has a wide geographical reach and considers the ''border'' to be anywhere within 100 miles of the country's boundary lines: ''They've been thwarted so far in building a physical wall. Now, they are trying to build a virtual wall. But the difference is a virtual wall can exist anywhere.''

If you have stories of government surveillance or targeting at the border, contact sam.levin@theguardian.com

This article contains affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a reader clicks through and makes a purchase. All our journalism is independent and is in no way influenced by any advertiser or commercial initiative. The links are powered by Skimlinks. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that Skimlinks cookies will be set. More information.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 29 Jun 2018 21:34

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Party's rising socialist star, describes herself as ''a girl from the Bronx'' to project a working-class image. However, this claim is only half true '' to borrow a phrase from the left-wing website PolitiFact.''Well, you know, the president is from Queens, and with all due respect '-- half of my district is from Queens '-- I don't think he knows how to deal with a girl from the Bronx,'' Ocasio-Cortez said this week on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

She similarly told the Washington Post: ''I wasn't born to a wealthy or powerful family '-- mother from Puerto Rico, dad from the South Bronx. I was born in a place where your Zip code determines your destiny.''

The congressional candidate, who pulled off an upset win against high-ranking establishment Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY), was indeed born in New York City's Bronx borough. She currently lives there, too.

So what's the issue? For most of her formative years, Ocasio-Cortez was actually raised in one of the United States' wealthiest counties.

Around the age of five, Alexandria's architect father Sergio Ocasio moved the family from the ''planned community'' of Parkchester in the Bronx to a home in Yorktown Heights, a wealthy suburb in Westchester County. The New York Times describes her childhood home as ''a modest two-bedroom house on a quiet street.'' In a 1999 profile of the area, when Ocasio-Cortez would have been ten years old, the Times lauded Yorktown Heights' ''diversity of housing in a scenic setting'' '' complete with two golf courses.

The paper quoted Linda Cooper, the town supervisor, describing Yorktown as ''a folksy area where people can come, kick off their shoes, wander around, sit in a cafe, listen to a concert in the park, or go to the theater.''

In a fun coincidence, Yorktown, which contains Yorktown Heights, is also home to a 436-acre state park named after '' yes, one Donald J. Trump.

After high school, Ocasio-Cortez studied international relations and economics at Boston University and worked for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA). Only after college did Ocasio-Cortez return to the Parkchester complex, where she launched Brook Avenue Press, a publishing group aimed at improving the public image of the Bronx.

Westchester County '' which the Washington Post, in a glowing profile on Ocasio-Cortez, describes as only ''middle class'' '' ranks #8 in the nation for the counties with the ''highest average incomes among the wealthiest one percent of residents.'' According to the Economic Policy Institute, the county's average annual income of the top one percent is a staggering $4,326,049.

Yorktown Heights, specifically, offers a sharp contrast from Bronx living. According to USA.com, the town's population is 81 percent white, and median household income is $96,413 '' nearly double the average for both New York state and the nation, according to data from 2010-2014.

The 28-year-old's far-left platform includes abolishing ICE, universal guaranteed employment, and Medicare for all. In an interview with CNN, Ocasio-Cortez said she supports impeaching President Trump, despite warnings from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to avoid the issue.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:12

Opinion

By Stephen Miller

June 27, 2018 | 8:42pm

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez AP

When Mayor Bill de Blasio picked Bernie Sanders to swear him in for his second term, it was a sign, much like a groundhog signaling six more weeks of winter, that the heart of the Democrat Party was changing '-- even if Bernie himself still refuses to acknowledge that he belongs to it.

And while Sanders-endorsed candidates have floundered nationally, they got a big win last night when 28-year-old Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez breezed past establishment figurehead Joe Crowley in the primary for the relatively safe 14th District.

Nancy Pelosi tried to wave away the obvious Tea Party parallels by saying the 14th is simply a ''very progressive district '... They made a choice in one district. Let's not get yourself carried away.'' But it's becoming clearer and clearer that Democrats' days of flirting with the more radical wing of their party are over. They're now in a committed relationship with each other, the hammer entwined with the sickle.

Party bigwigs should've seen it coming. In the 2016 presidential nomination race, Sanders was supposed to be Hillary Clinton's tomato can. Instead, he gave her a serious run for her money, such that the party had to lean on the scales in Hillary's favor just to make sure she limped across the finish line.

After Clinton lost to Donald Trump, Democratic candidates started sounding a lot more like Sanders '-- Medicare-for-all and the like. Ocasio-Cortez, herself a former community organizer for the Sanders campaign, has followed suit. Her official platform included a right to housing, a universal-jobs guarantee and Medicare-for-all.

In Ocasio-Cortez, comrades everywhere finally have their sleeker, new model, and can finally start to haul the old jalopy off to the junkyard. Take a bow Berniecrats, you finally have someone to rally behind that doesn't have to be carbon dated.

Ocasio-Cortez says her first goal, if elected to the House (an almost sure thing), is to introduce legislation abolishing ICE, a bridge too far for even Bernie, but a romanticized goal among the online far-left monster given life by Dr. Bernie Frankenstein. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has stated that he simply wants to reform ICE. But as national media line up behind the attractive and articulate Ocasio-Cortez, and her social-media following explodes as it has done since her victory, tempering the radical Occupy remnants is going to become more difficult.

She has yet to offer any solutions on how to pay for her fairytale platform, of course, beyond the standard manifesto answer of taxing the rich. Ocasio-Cortez also supports impeaching President Trump, which many Democrats quietly support but candidates aren't supposed to say out loud, as the midterm electorate might be wary of spending the next two years mired in such shenanigans.

Her radicalized anti-Israel stance became apparent in a tweet blaming Israel for the recent violence in Gaza perpetuated by Hamas: ''This is a massacre. I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such. No state or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protesters. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore.''

She also blamed Palestinian deaths on Trump's decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish state's capital, Jerusalem.

Along with her tweets, a former New York City Council candidate whose platform was to ''defeat the greedy Jewish landlords'' both volunteered for her campaign and attended her election-night victory party.

This will surely give Schumer and the leadership heartburn, but like it or not, these positions aren't outliers, and Ocasio-Cortez's ascension will almost surely make other Democrats more confident in stating them plainly. Democrats always seem stumped when asked, ''What's the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?'' Thanks to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that question just got much more difficult to answer.

As the Democrats reject the moderate centrist voters that could be key to winning back support in the middle of the country, there's a hard lesson that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer seem yet to accept from watching the Tea Party create a wave of grassroots momentum that toppled party leaders who got in its way: It's already Ocasio-Cortez's party.

Stephen L. Miller lives in New York and writes about politics and culture.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 13:05

After winning the Democratic primary in New York's Fourteenth Congressional District, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is now a national political figure. On Wednesday, she made a series of media appearances, including spots on CNN and MSNBC's ''Morning Joe.'' Later in the day, Stephen Colbert hailed her win, joking that when he was twenty-eight he got his first can opener. On Thursday, she appeared on Colbert's show, and an article in the Times described her as ''an instant political rock star.''

Ocasio-Cortez deserves all the attention she's getting, but it's important not to focus only on her personal traits: her age, her gender, her ethnicity, and her inspiring life story. As she pointed out in her post-victory interviews, she ran on a platform that transcended these things. ''Our campaign was focussed on just a laser-focussed message of economic, social, and racial dignity for working-class Americans, especially those in Queens and the Bronx,'' she told Mika Brzezinski, of ''Morning Joe.''

Of course, all politicians say that they are dedicated to the interests and well-being of their constituents. But Ocasio-Cortez, who had the support of progressive groups such as MoveOn and the Democratic Socialists of America, isn't your average pol. She delivered an important message to the Democratic Party by running an explicitly populist, anti-establishment campaign. And, as the Party prepares for the midterms and the 2020 Presidential election, it would do well to listen to her.

Ocasio-Cortez's first point was that being opposed to Donald Trump and his actions, while essential, isn't a sufficient political strategy. Ocasio-Cortez herself is vehemently anti-Trump. Last week, she visited a detention center on the Mexican border; after her victory, she said that she would vote to impeach the President. But she has also warned against fixating on him and his every offensive statement. ''What we need to do is lay out a plan and a vision that people can believe in, and getting into Twitter fights with the President is not exactly, I think, where we're going to find progress as a nation,'' she said, on ''Morning Joe.''

Ocasio-Cortez also expressed the view that Democrats have something to learn from Trump's rise and, particularly, from his ability to mobilize voters who are detached from, or alienated by, the major political parties. ''He spoke very directly to a lot of needs that were not being met by both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party,'' she told the Intercept's Glenn Greenwald. ''Our neglect of that is something we wholeheartedly have to take responsibility for, and correct for.''

Although some Democrats continue to insist that it was the Russians or James Comey or Jill Stein who gifted Trump the White House, Ocasio-Cortez doesn't accept this narrative. ''I do think the role of Russian interference was aggressive in the election,'' she told Greenwald. ''But that didn't get Donald Trump to forty per cent. It didn't get him to forty-five per cent in the polls.''

Ocasio-Cortez's second point is related to the first: to attract working-class and middle-class voters of all colors and ethnicities, Democratic candidates need to demonstrate that they aren't part of a system rigged in favor of the rich and powerful. As a former campaign organizer for Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez levelled many of the same charges against her opponent, the ten-term Democratic congressman Joseph Crowley, that Sanders hurled at Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primary. ''My opponent takes insane amounts of money from luxury-real-estate developers, from private-equity groups, from pharmaceutical corporations and insurance corporations,'' she told Greenwald. ''And that is tied directly to the legislation he has been passing.''

Crowley vehemently denied this charge, and his voting record shows that he may well have a point. In May, for example, he voted against a G.O.P. bill that rolled back some of the financial regulations that the Dodd-Frank Act put in place. But in representing a poor, working-class district'--the most diverse in the country, according to Ocasio-Cortez'--why did he need to raise money from interests like the Blackstone Group, a private-equity firm co-founded by the late Republican billionaire Pete Peterson? The entire business model of private-equity firms is based on upward redistribution, by borrowing large sums of money to take over companies, then squeezing costs'--particularly labor costs'--so that the companies can be resold at a profit, generating huge gains for the partners of the firm.

There is little convincing justification for Crowley's association with the Blackstone Group, just as there was little convincing justification for Clinton when she gave highly paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms in advance of her second Presidential bid. To position itself as a truly populist force, Ocasio-Cortez says, the Democratic Party must make a decisive leap from the standard methods of financing campaigns through corporate-money politics'--and from the conflicts of interest that come with them. ''Once we break free from that system [and] start to finance our campaigns with grassroots donations, we are able to speak more directly to the needs of the American people,'' she told Greenwald.

With the Democratic Party preparing to fight elections against opponents financed by the likes of Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers, many more seasoned Democrats would say (at least in private) that Ocasio-Cortez is being unrealistic, that the Party has no choice but to accept big donations from people like Tom Steyer, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg. With so much depending on depriving Republicans of control of Congress, it is easy to sympathize with this argument. Ultimately, however, it is unpersuasive.

With phony demagogues like Trump busy claiming the mantle of populism, progressive parties need to offer voters the real thing. That's bottom-up, participatory politics'--or people power. If sympathetic billionaires wish to align themselves with such a movement, that is all very well (at least until campaign-finance laws are fixed). But if the interests and policy preferences of the wealthy take precedence over those of the average citizen, that is the politics of plutocracy, not populism.

How well are the Democrats doing in heeding Ocasio-Cortez's warnings? Despite all the stories about potential splits in the Party, there are some grounds for optimism.

On the organizational side, Trump's occupancy of the White House has unleashed an unprecedented wave of political activism. From dedicated groups such as Indivisible to the suburban moms who participated in the Women's March, to the marchers protesting the Administration's immigration policy, participation on the left is on the rise. Small donations are pouring into Democratic candidacies and progressive causes. And the fight over Anthony Kennedy's replacement on the Supreme Court will only heighten this enthusiasm.

In terms of messaging, Ocasio-Cortez isn't as much of an outlier as she might appear. Although many prominent Democrats seem to be talking mainly about Trump'--to the point that they can barely see straight'--that preoccupation is partly an artifact of the media's focus. In a world of all Trump all the time, Democrats who bring up other things don't get much coverage. The fact is that many Democrats are concentrating on the same issues that Ocasio-Cortez emphasized during her campaign: health care (she supports Medicare for all), housing, education (like Sanders, she favors free tuition at public universities), wages, and jobs (she has advocated for a federal jobs guarantee).

Listen to the speeches of Senator Sherrod Brown, of Ohio; or of Stacey Abrams, who is running for governor in Georgia; or of Beto O'Rourke, who is challenging Ted Cruz in Texas; or of Conor Lamb, who won a special election in western Pennsylvania earlier this year; or of Mikie Sherrill, a former Navy pilot who recently won the Democratic primary in New Jersey's Republican-held Eleventh Congressional District. To be sure, these Democrats are attacking Trump and talking about immigration and the Supreme Court. But their main focus is on promoting social and economic empowerment for people living in their districts.

That is the traditional Democratic Party message, and it is one that never grows old. Every so often, however, it needs to be renewed and adapted to new circumstances. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just demonstrated how to do this.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:13

Chris Delmas / AFP / Getty ImagesThe only three black Americans in the United States Senate '-- Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Tim Scott '-- will introduce a bipartisan bill Friday to make lynching, defined as ''the willful act of murder by a collection of people assembled with the intention of committing an act of violence upon any person,'' unlawful at the federal level.

The bill from Harris and Booker, both possible candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, and Scott, a South Carolina Republican, will make the law that lynching is punishable as a hate crime.

''Lynching is a dark, despicable part of our history, and we must acknowledge that, lest we repeat it,'' said Harris, who announced her intention to introduce the legislation. ''From 1882 to 1986, there have been 200 attempts that have failed to get Congress to pass federal anti-lynching legislation. It's time for that to change.''

The Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018 comes on the heels of the erection of a national lynching memorial in Montgomery, Alabama, known as the National Memorial for Peace and Justice.

''It is never too late for our nation to express our sorrow for the decades of racial terror that traumatized millions in this country," said Bryan Stevenson, the executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative and the founder of the lynching memorial. ''Passing an anti-lynching law is not just about who we were decades ago, it's a statement about who we are now that is relevant, important and timely.''

Harris previewed the bill during an appearance on Sirius XM's Joe Madison Show earlier this month.

During Harris's appearance, the hosts played audio of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell being asked if he would support such legislation. He said he didn't know that, despite hundreds of attempts, lynching had actually not been banned by federal law. ''I thought we did that many years ago,'' he said. ''Honestly I hadn't thought about it. I thought that was done back during LBJ or some period like that. If we need one at the federal level I certainly would support it.''

Booker pointed to the attempts to pass legislation previously, saying that failure to get a law was a ''travesty Congress still hasn't put anti-lynching legislation on the books. This bill will right historical wrongs by acknowledging our country's stained past and codifying into law our commitment to abolishing this shameful practice."

Scott, an outspoken voice on race in America, and on how racism has affected him during his career in Congress, said the bill was ''well past due'' and that he was glad to ''join in efforts that will underscore the severity of this crime.

''This piece of legislation sends a message that together, as a nation, we condemn the actions of those that try to divide us with violence and hate,'' he said.

Harris's office pointed to data from the Equal Justice Initiative which said that 4,000 black American men, women, and children were lynched in the 19th and 20th centuries. Democratic senators who also will introduce the bill include Tammy Baldwin, Patty Murray, Richard Blumenthal, Patrick Leahy, Dick Durbin, Tim Kaine, Chris Van Hollen, Bill Nelson, Kirsten Gillibrand, Doug Jones, Jack Reed, Mazie Hirono, and Amy Klobuchar; independents Bernie Sanders and Angus King will also introduce the legislation.

Darren Sands is a political reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York.

Contact Darren Sands at darren.sands@buzzfeed.com.

Got a confidential tip? Submit it here.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:07

WASHINGTON '-- U.S. intelligence agencies believe that North Korea has increased its production of fuel for nuclear weapons at multiple secret sites in recent months '-- and that Kim Jong Un may try to hide those facilities as he seeks more concessions in nuclear talks with the Trump administration, U.S. officials told NBC News.

The intelligence assessment, which has not previously been reported, seems to counter the sentiments expressed by President Donald Trump, who tweeted after his historic June 12 summit with Kim that "there was no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea."

Analysts at the CIA and other intelligence agencies don't see it that way, according to more than a dozen American officials who are familiar with their assessments and spoke on the condition of anonymity. They see a regime positioning itself to extract every concession it can from the Trump administration '-- while clinging to nuclear weapons it believes are essential to survival.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In recent months, even as the two sides engaged in diplomacy, North Korea was stepping up its production of enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, five U.S. officials say, citing the latest intelligence assessment. North Korea and the U.S. agreed at the summit to "work toward" denuclearization, but there is no specific deal. On Trump's order, the U.S. military canceled training exercises on the Korean peninsula, a major concession to Kim.

While the North Koreans have stopped missile and nuclear tests, "there's no evidence that they are decreasing stockpiles, or that they have stopped their production," said one U.S. official briefed on the latest intelligence. "There is absolutely unequivocal evidence that they are trying to deceive the U.S."

Four other officials familiar with the intelligence assessment also said North Korea intended to deceive the U.S.

U.S. intelligence agencies have stepped up their collection against North Korea in recent years, and it appears to be paying off with greater insights into a country that has long been the world's hardest spying target, officials say. NBC News agreed to withhold some details of the latest intelligence assessment that officials said could put sources at risk.

"There are lots of things that we know that North Korea has tried to hide from us for a long time," a U.S. intelligence official said.

It's long been understood that North Korea had at least one undeclared facility to enrich nuclear fuel, aside from Yongbyon, its main nuclear site.

An annotated satellite image shows what the web site 38north says are operations at the Yongbyon uranium enrichment plant in North Korea. Airbus Defense and Space and 38 North"When North Korea constructed the enrichment facility at Yongbyon in 2009, the North Koreans did so at a pace that suggested this was not their first rodeo, i.e. not the first time they had assembled large cascades of centrifuges," said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program for the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.

Joel Wit, who negotiated a 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea, said the U.S. always believed North Korea had two facilities to enrich nuclear material: Yongbyon and a second site the U.S. is aware of but whose name has not been disclosed.

"People have been open to the possibility there might be more," he said.

The latest U.S. intelligence assessment concludes that there is more than one secret site, officials tell NBC News. The question is whether Kim will be willing to admit it.

"This is why people want North Korea to declare all its facilities up front," said Wit, a former Clinton administration official and senior fellow at the Stimson Center who founded a website devoted to North Korea, 38north.org.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:15

Sat Jun 30, 2018 / 12:46 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence agencies believe North Korea has increased production of fuel for nuclear weapons at multiple secret sites in recent months and may try to hide these while seeking concessions in nuclear talks with the United States, NBC News quoted U.S. officials as saying.

In a report on Friday, the network said what it described as the latest U.S. intelligence assessment appeared to go counter to sentiments expressed by President Donald Trump, who tweeted after an unprecedented June 12 summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that "there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea."

NBC quoted five unidentified U.S. officials as saying that in recent months North Korea had stepped up production of enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, even as it engaged in diplomacy with the United States.

The network cited U.S. officials as saying that the intelligence assessment concludes that North Korea has more than one secret nuclear site in addition to its known nuclear fuel production facility at Yongbyon.

"There is absolutely unequivocal evidence that they are trying to deceive the U.S.," NBC quoted one official as saying.

The CIA declined to comment on the NBC report. The State Department said it could not confirm it and did not comment on matters of intelligence. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The NBC report raises further questions about North Korea's readiness to enter serious negotiations about giving up a weapons program that now threatens the United States, in spite of Trump's enthusiastic portrayal of the summit outcome.

NBC quoted one senior U.S. intelligence official as saying that North Korea's decision ahead of the summit to suspend nuclear and missile tests was unexpected and the fact that the two sides were talking was a positive step.

However, he added: "Work is ongoing to deceive us on the number of facilities, the number of weapons, the number of missiles ... We are watching closely."

Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at California's Middlebury Institute of International Studies, said there were two "bombshells" in the NBC report.

He said it had long been understood that North Korea had at least one undeclared facility to enrich nuclear fuel aside from Yongbyon.

"This assessment says there is more than one secret site. That means there are at least three, if not more sites," he said.Lewis said the report also implied that U.S. intelligence had reporting to suggest North Korea did not intend to disclose one or more of the enrichment sites.

"Together, these two things would imply that North Korea intended to disclose some sites as part of the denuclearization process, while retaining others," he said.

North Korea agreed at the summit to "work toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," but the joint statement signed by Kim and Trump gave no details on how or when Pyongyang might surrender its nuclear weapons.

Ahead of the summit, North Korea rejected unilaterally abandoning an arsenal it has called an essential deterrent against U.S. aggression.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last week he would likely go back to North Korea before long to try to flesh out commitments made at the Trump-Kim meeting.

On Thursday, the Financial Times quoted U.S. officials as saying that Pompeo plans to travel to North Korea next week, but the State Department has declined to confirm this.

Bruce Klingner, a former CIA Korea expert now at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, said the NBC report showed Trump's statement that North Korea was no longer a nuclear threat was "absurd" and that detailed work on a verification regime was required.

Trump said last week North Korea was blowing up four of its big test sites and that a process of "total denuclearization ... has already started," but officials said there had been no such evidence since the summit.

This week, Washington-based North Korean monitoring project 38 North said recent satellite imagery showed North Korea had made rapid improvements to facilities at Yongbyon since May 6, but it could not say if such work had continued after June 12.

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom)

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 29 Jun 2018 22:31

Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, June 28, 2018 Southern District of Florida Charges 124 Individuals Responsible Largest National Health Care Fraud Enforcement Action in Department of Justice History Resulted in Total of 76 Doctors Charged and 84 Opioid Cases Involving More Than 13 Million Illegal Dosages of Opioids Benjamin G. Greenberg, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Robert F. Lasky, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office; Shimon R. Richmond, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), Miami Regional Office; John F. Khin, Special Agent in Charge, Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), Southeast Field Office; Brian Swain, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Secret Service (USSS), Miami Field Office; Pam Bondi, Florida Attorney General (Florida Medicaid Fraud Control Unit); Michael J. DePalma, Acting Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI); Christopher Cave, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (USPS OIG), Southern Area Field Office; Frank Robey, Director, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command's Major Procurement Fraud Unit; Scott Gottlieb, M.D., Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Jimmy Patronis, Florida Chief Financial Officer, Division of Investigative and Forensic Services (DIFS); Tom Howard, Inspector General, Amtrak Office of Inspector General (Amtrak-OIG); Isabel Colon, Atlanta Regional Director, U.S. Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration (DOL-EBSA); Norbert E. Vint, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Office of Inspector General (OPM-OIG); and Dennis Russo, Director of Operations, National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), announced that in the Southern District of Florida a total of 124 defendants were charged with offenses relating to their alleged participation in various fraud schemes involving over $337 million in false billings for services including home health care, substance abuse treatment, lab testing, and pharmacy fraud. The South Florida charges are part of the largest ever national health care fraud enforcement action by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced today that more than 601 defendants were charged, across 58 federal districts,

including 76 doctors, as well as nurses and other licensed medical professionals, for their alleged participation in health care fraud schemes involving approximately $2 billion in false billings. Of those charged, over 162 defendants, including doctors, were charged for their roles in prescribing and distributing opioids and other dangerous narcotics. Thirty state Medicaid Fraud Control Units also participated in today's arrests. In addition, HHS announced today that from July 2017 to the present, it has excluded 2,700 individuals from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and all other Federal health care programs, which includes 587 providers excluded for conduct related to opioid diversion and abuse. The charges announced today aggressively target schemes billing Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE (a health insurance program for members and veterans of the armed forces and their families), and private insurance companies for medically unnecessary prescription drugs and compounded medications that often were never even purchased and/or distributed to beneficiaries. The charges also involve individuals contributing to the opioid epidemic, with a particular focus on medical professionals involved in the unlawful distribution of opioids and other prescription narcotics, a particular focus for the Department of Justice (DOJ). According to the CDC, approximately 115 Americans die every day of an opioid-related overdose. According to court documents, the defendants allegedly participated in schemes to submit claims to Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and private insurance companies for treatments that were medically unnecessary and often never provided. In many cases, patient recruiters, beneficiaries and other co-conspirators were allegedly paid cash kickbacks in return for supplying beneficiary information to providers, so that the providers could then submit fraudulent bills to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary or never performed. Collectively, the doctors, nurses, licensed medical professionals, health care company owners and others charged are accused of submitting a total of over $2 billion in fraudulent billings. The number of medical professionals charged is particularly significant, because virtually every health care fraud scheme requires a corrupt medical professional to be involved in order for Medicare or Medicaid to pay the fraudulent claims. Aggressively pursuing corrupt medical professionals not only has a deterrent effect on other medical professionals, but also ensures that their licenses can no longer be used to bilk the system. ''Today's takedown sends a clear message that those who steal our tax dollars and divert money from much needed government programs to line their own pockets will be brought to justice,'' stated U.S. Attorney Benjamin Greenberg. The same is true of those individuals who facilitate these crimes by enabling the perpetrators to financially benefit from their misdeeds. The South Florida based schemes involved hundreds of millions of

dollars in fraud, and in some cases resulted in significant harm to patients in need of substance abuse treatment. When that treatment is withheld because of someone's greed, the very people who are supposed to help the addicts end up enabling their addiction. Side by side with our great partners, we will continue to fight against all forms of healthcare fraud in South Florida.'' ''Health care fraud and opioid abuse are threats to this country, both in terms of the well-being of patients and the viability of government health care programs,'' said Shimon R. Richmond, Special Agent in Charge, HHS-OIG. ''This takedown sends a clear message that criminals who engage in health care fraud schemes and illicit opioid distribution will be caught. Working collaboratively with our state and federal partners, we will continue to bring these criminals to justice.'' John F. Khin, Special Agent in Charge, DCIS-Southeast Field Office, stated, ''As part of the National Health Care Fraud multi-agency joint effort, the DCIS-Southeast Field Office contributed significant resources and efforts to achieve a successful operation to effectively combat widespread fraud and abuse, and preserve the integrity of TRICARE, a vital DoD program serving U.S. service members, retirees, and their families.'' ''Health care fraud costs taxpayers billions of dollars, increases medical costs and even helps fuel the national opioid crisis,'' stated Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. ''Our law enforcement partners and my Medicaid Fraud Control Unit aggressively investigate fraud in Florida, and as part of this massive nationwide effort, we were able to arrest some of the worst offenders and stop the illegal sale of prescription opioids'--and hopefully safe lives.'' ''Today's local announcement reinforces law enforcement's continued commitment to combat healthcare fraud in South Florida. IRS-CI is proud to participate in these cases and be part of the Greater Palm Beach County Health Care Fraud Task Force where we can provide our expertise to conduct financial analysis and unravel the complex financial transactions involved in these fraudulent schemes. IRS-CI will continue to allocate resources to fight the battle against healthcare fraud and will investigate individuals who are committing crimes while motivated by greed,'' stated Michael J. DePalma, Acting Special Agent in Charge, IRS-CI. ''This historic announcement marks a significant effort by the National Healthcare Fraud Takedown task force and should send a clear message that these crimes will not be tolerated,'' said Special Agent in Charge, Christopher Cave, USPS OIG. ''The USPS Office of Inspector General, along with our law enforcement partners, will continue to

aggressively pursue these investigations in order to ensure continued oversight and protection of the Postal Service and federal benefits programs.'' ''We applaud the coordinated efforts of our federal law enforcement partners in this action today. The FDA is proud to play a role in supporting these investigations,'' said U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. ''A key aspect of the FDA's mission to protect public health is creating a regulatory framework that helps ensure that compounded drugs are dispensed to patients who have a legitimate medical need for them.'' ''Insurance fraud has seeped into our opioid treatment homes in Florida, impacting countless families and communities,'' said CFO Jimmy Patronis. ''The collaborative efforts of national, state and local law enforcement are essential for combatting this type of activity. My office, along with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and our law enforcement partners remains committed to safeguarding Floridians while reminding those who seek to deceive and defraud '' they will be held accountable for their actions.'' ''These cases reinforce our commitment and determination to pursue those who would defraud Amtrak's health care programs and target such vulnerable populations,'' said Amtrak Inspector General Tom Howard. ''Our agents will continue to hold perpetrators accountable and to protect Amtrak, its employees and their dependents.'' ''Today's announcement is a reflection of federal, state, and local partners joining forces to root out fraud and abuse in the healthcare system,'' said Atlanta Regional Director for DOL-EBSA Isabel Colon. ''The department will continue to take all actions necessary to put a stop to those who would defraud workers and their families of hard-earned employee benefits.'' ''The OPM-OIG will continue to work with the Department of Justice and our other law enforcement partners to protect the integrity of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and ensure that Federal employees, annuitants, and their families receive unbiased medical care from ethical professionals,'' said Norbert E. Vint, Acting OPM Inspector General. The following are some of the recent health care fraud cases that have been charged in the Southern District of Florida: I. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FRAUD AND ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION OF OPIOIDS

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida continues to partner with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and the Greater Palm Beach Health Care Fraud Task Force (''Task Force'') to target fraud and other criminal practices in the substance abuse treatment/medical industry, including: money laundering; billing for treatment and laboratory testing that was not actually provided and not medically necessary; submission of claims that were solicited through the payment of kickbacks and bribes to patients, sober home owners, and treatment center owners; and the illegal distribution of opioids. To date, at least 34 individuals have been charged federally, 19 have been convicted, $20,292,916.37 in restitution has been ordered, and more than $4 million in restitution has been collected. A. Health Care Fraud and Money Laundering 1. United States v. Kenneth Bailynson, et al., Case No. 18-80124-CR-Rosenberg On June 22, 2018, Kenneth Bailynson, 45, of West Palm Beach, Florida, owner of GDSL, Inc., a/k/a Good Decisions Sober Living, Inc. (''GDSL'') in West Palm Beach, Stephanie Curran, 35, of Lake Worth, Florida, an employee of GDSL, Mark Agresti, 55, of Palm Beach, Florida, the Medical Director of GDSL, and Matthew Noel, 32, of Louisville, Kentucky, an employee of GDSL, were charged by indictment. The defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit health care and wire fraud, substantive counts of health care fraud, and substantive counts of money laundering for their involvement in a scheme at GDSL to illegally recruit patients, pay kickbacks, and defraud health care benefit programs by billing for widespread fraudulent urine testing that was not medically necessary. The indictment alleges that during the course of the fraudulent scheme, from September 2011 through December 2015, GDSL submitted claims for substance abuse treatment services in excess of approximately $106,576,358 to the insurance plans, and received insurance payments of approximately $31,356,527. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney James V. Hayes, formerly an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida. 2. United States v. Anthony Jackson, Case No. 18-80040-CR-Middlebrooks On June 21, 2018, following his guilty plea to conspiracy to commit health care fraud, Anthony Jackson, 51, of Lantana, Florida, a Certified Addiction Counselor at Reflections

Treatment Center in Margate, Florida and owner of Pantherview Sober Home in Boynton Beach, Florida was sentenced to 42 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. Jackson also was ordered to pay $5,122,886.86 in restitution. The case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys A. Marie Villafa±a and Alexandra Chase. 3. United States v. Eric Snyder, et al., Case No. 18-80111-CR-Rosenberg On June 7, 2018, Eric Snyder, 31, of Delray Beach, Florida, an owner of Halfway There Florida, LLC/A Safe Place (''HWT''), a Delray Beach sober home, and Real Life Recovery Delray LLC (''RLR''), a substance abuse treatment facility, Paul R. Materia, 43, of Port St. Lucie, Florida, the CEO of RLR, and patient brokers Joseph Lubowitz, 29, of Pennsylvania and West Palm Beach, Florida, and Christopher Fuller, 33, of West Palm Beach, Florida, were charged by indictment. The defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit health care and wire fraud, substantive counts of health care fraud, substantive counts charging a violation of the Travel Act, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and substantive counts of money laundering for their involvement in a scheme to illegally recruit patients, pay kickbacks, and defraud health care benefit programs by billing for urine testing and substance abuse treatment that was medically unnecessary, and that was never provided. During the course of the alleged fraudulent scheme, from January 2011 through September 2015, HWT/RLR submitted claims for substance abuse treatment services in excess of approximately $58,209,385 to insurance plans, and received insurance payments of approximately $20,190,941. Eric Snyder and Christopher Fuller were previously charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud in this case, in a criminal complaint filed in July 2017 (Case No. 17-MJ-08268-Brannon). This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney James V. Hayes, formerly an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida. 4. United States v. Mark Jeffrey Hollander, Case No. 18-80102-CR-Rosenberg On May 21, 2018, Mark Jeffrey Hollander, 44, of Miami, Florida, was charged by an information with laundering the proceeds of health care fraud, that is, monies he received from Smart Lab LLC, a clinical laboratory located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

The case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys A. Marie Villafa±a and Alexandra Chase 5. United States v. Lawrence Weisberg, Case No. 18-80108-CR-Rosenberg On May 29, 2018, Lawrence Weisberg, 51, of Boca Raton, Florida, was charged by an information with laundering the proceeds of health care fraud, that is, monies he received from Smart Lab LLC, a clinical laboratory located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. The case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys A. Marie Villafa±a and Alexandra Chase. 6. United States v. Lanny Fried, Case No. 18-80100-CR-Rosenberg On May 21, 2018, Lanny Fried, 41 of Miami, Florida, was charged by an information with conspiracy to commit money laundering of proceeds from health care fraud, that is, monies he and others received from Smart Lab LLC, a clinical laboratory located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. The case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys A. Marie Villafa±a and Alexandra Chase. 7. United States v. Bosco Vega, Case No. 18-80101-CR-Middlebrooks On May 22, 2018, Bosco Vega, 52, of Miami, Florida, was charged by an information with laundering the proceeds of health care fraud, that is, monies he received from Smart Lab LLC, a clinical laboratory located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. The case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys A. Marie Villafa±a and Alexandra Chase. B. Illegal Distribution of Opioids 8. United States v. Arman Abovyan and Tina Marie Barbuto, Case No. 18-80122-CR-Middlebrooks

On June 19, 2018, Arman Abovyan, 44, of Boca Raton, Florida, former Medical Director of Reflections Treatment Center in Margate and Journey to Recovery in Boca Raton, and Tina Marie Barbuto, 39 of Boca Raton, Florida, former Clinical Director of Reflections Treatment Center in Margate were charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute and dispense controlled substances outside the course of medical practice and two counts of distribution of controlled substances outside the course of medical practice. The case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys A. Marie Villafa±a and Alexandra Chase. 9. United States v. Kenneth Rivera-Kolb, Case No. 18-80121-CR-Cohn On June 19, 2018, Kenneth Rivera-Kolb, 66, of Largo, Florida, was charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in relation to his employment with Angel's Recovery, a substance abuse treatment facility located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Rivera-Kolb was a licensed physician in the State of Florida. In 2013, he was hired as the Medical Director for Angel's Recovery. As the Medical Director of Angel's Recovery, Rivera-Kolb prescribed controlled substances for patients. From approximately February 17, 2015 through September 2, 2015, after the suspension of his medical license, Rivera-Kolb allegedly continued to prescribe controlled substances to patients of Angel's Recovery. The case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys A. Marie Villafa±a and Alexandra Chase. 10. United States v. Scott Novick, Case No. 18-20563-CR-Moore On June 27, 2018, Scott Novick, 50, of Broward County, Florida, was charged by information with one count of conspiracy to dispense and distribute controlled substances. According to the information, Novick was the owner of American Pain Management, a pain management clinic located in Tamarac, Florida. He also owed Pacific Pharmacy, a Miami-area pharmacy. Between July 2016 and March 2018, Novick allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to dispense and distribute Schedule II substances, including oxycodone and morphine.

Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Timothy P. Loper. Agencies involved with the Greater Palm Beach County Health Care Fraud Task Force include the FBI, IRS-CI, DIFS, Amtrak-OIG, DOL-EBSA, OPM-OIG, and NICB. II. CHECK CASHING FRAUD SCHEMES 11. United States v. Evelio Suarez, Case No. 18-MJ-2965-Torres On June 21, 2018, Evelio Suarez, 53, of Miramar, Florida, was charged by criminal complaint with conspiracy to commit money laundering, bribery of a bank employee, and obstruction of justice. According to allegations contained in the criminal complaint, Suarez controlled three check-cashing stores in Hialeah, Florida, in the name of nominee owners. From 2013 to 2014, Suarez's check-cashing stores cashed nearly $500 million in checks, which were allegedly primarily funded by healthcare fraud, mortgage fraud, identity theft tax refund fraud, and other fraudulent activity. Suarez allegedly knowingly cashed checks made payable to individuals who were not present at the stores, including individuals whose identities had been stolen or individuals who had been paid to flee to Cuba. Suarez allegedly did not require real identification documents to cash the fraudulent checks and, if necessary, Suarez would make fake identification documents. Suarez allegedly charged a personal fee of approximately ten percent to cash healthcare fraud and mortgage fraud checks and thirty percent for identity theft tax refund fraud checks, on top of the fee charged by the check-cashing stores. On numerous occasions, Suarez allegedly cashed individual fraudulent Medicare checks exceeding $200,000 and individual U.S. Treasury tax refund checks exceeding $150,000. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of IRS-CI and FBI in this matter. The case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Berger and DOJ Trial Attorney Yisel Valdes. 12. United States v. Enrique Indalecio Iglesias, Case No. 18-MJ-2973-Torres

On June 22, 2018, Enrique Iglesias, 44, of Homestead, Florida, was charged by criminal complaint with conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and structuring transactions to avoid reporting requirements justice. According to allegations contained in the complaint, Iglesias controlled two check-cashing stores in Miami, in the name of nominee owners. From 2013 to 2015, Iglesias' check-cashing stores cashed nearly $150 million in checks, which were allegedly funded primarily from health-care fraud, mortgage fraud, and other fraudulent activity. Iglesias allegedly did not require the payee on the check to be present and, on many occasions, the actual payee had been paid to flee to Cuba. Iglesias typically charged personal fees between eight to fifteen percent, for allegedly cashing health-care and mortgage-fraud checks. On numerous occasions, Iglesias allegedly cashed fraudulent individual health care fraud checks exceeding $50,000. Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the FBI, HHS-OIG and IRS-CI in this matter. The case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Berger and DOJ Trial Attorney Yisel Valdes. III. DRUG AND PHARMACY FRAUD SCHEMES '' Medicare Part D A. TRICARE Fraud 13. United States v. Alap Shah, Case No. 18-20526-CR-Ungaro On June 19, 2018, Alap Shah, 44, of Columbus, Georgia, was charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and receive health care kickbacks and three counts of receiving health care kickbacks. According to the indictment, Shah was a State of Georgia licensed podiatrist who allegedly received kickback payments from PGRX, a Weston, Florida based business that recruited and paid doctors to prescribe compounded medications for TRICARE and private commercial insurance beneficiaries. During the course of the conspiracy the defendant and his co-conspirators allegedly signed false Medical Director and Speaker agreements in order to conceal the fact that PGRX was paying the defendant for writing prescriptions. As a result of these prescriptions TRICARE made payments to Atlantic Pharmacy, a pharmacy located in the Southern District of Florida.

Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of DCIS, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, FDA-Office of Criminal Investigations (FDA-OCI) and USPS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Bernstein. 14. United States v. Christopher Liva, et al., Case No. 18-60167-CR-Middlebrooks On June 14, 2018, Christopher Liva, 39, of Boca Raton, Florida, Elaina Liva, 66, of Pompano Beach, Florida, and Stephen Chalker, 42, of Wellington, Florida, were charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Chalker was also charged with three counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the Livas were the owners/operators of, and Chalker was the pharmacist in charge at Pop's Pharmacy, LLC (''Pop's Pharmacy''), a pharmacy located in Deerfield Beach, Florida. The indictment alleges that from approximately September 2014 to October 2016, the defendants and their co-conspirators caused Pop's Pharmacy to submit false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, TRICARE, and Medicaid for compounded drugs and other prescription medications, including expensive pain and scar creams, that were not medically necessary and/or were never provided. As a result of these false and fraudulent claims, Medicare, TRICARE, and Medicaid made payments totaling nearly $5 million. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI, HHS-OIG, DCIS, and the State of Florida Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Leslie Wright. 15. United States v. Ryan Long and Billy Burton, Case. Nos. 18-60144-CR-Dimitrouleas; 18-60164-CR-Dimitrouleas On May 24, 2018, Ryan Long, 47, of Dunnelon, Florida, was charged by indictment with conspiracy to receive healthcare kickbacks along with six counts of receiving healthcare kickbacks. Billy Burton, 28, of Louisville, Kentucky, was charged by information on June 12, 2018, with causing the misbranding of drugs while held for sale. These charges stem from Long and Burton's alleged involvement in a $40 million compounding pharmacy fraud scheme, involving TRICARE, spearheaded by Monty Ray Grow, 47, of Tampa, Florida, who was convicted earlier this year in United States v. Monty Ray Grow, Case No. 16-20893-CR-Moreno(s), and recently sentenced to 22 years in prison.

Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of DCIS, FDA-OCI, and U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Larsen. 16. United States v. Asif Uddin and Karl Voeller, Case Nos. 18-20546-CR-Gayles and 18-20549-CR-Moreno On June 25, 2018, Asif Uddin, 31, of Kansas City, Missouri, was charged by information with conspiracy to pay and receive healthcare kickbacks in connection with a multi-million dollar fraud scheme purportedly perpetrated on the TRICARE military health benefit program. Uddin, along with Karl Voeller, 33, of Boynton Beach, Florida, who was charged by a separate information on the same date, allegedly conspired with a company based in Miami, Florida to recruit and refer TRICARE beneficiaries to receive prescriptions from pharmacies in Florida and Oklahoma in exchange for kickbacks. Attorney for the United States Randy A. Hummel commends the investigative efforts of DCIS. These cases are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin J. Larsen. B. Limited Income Newly Eligible Transition (''LINET'') Program Fraud According to the criminal charges, filed in the following cases, the defendants allegedly defrauded the Limited Income Newly Eligible Transition (''LINET'') Program of Medicare Part D. The LINET Program exists to ensure that certain low-income individuals who are newly eligible for Medicare benefits receive immediate Part D coverage until they are enrolled in a traditional Medicare Part D prescription drug plan. 17. United States v. Orelbis Gonzalez, Case No. 18-20477-CR-Gayles On June 5, 2018, Orelbis Gonzalez, 32, of Miami, Florida, was charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, four counts of health care fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and four counts of money laundering. According to the indictment, the defendant targeted the LINET program of Medicare Part D. Gonzalez was the president and registered agent of Universal Pharmacy Group Inc. (''Universal Pharmacy''), a Miami pharmacy that purportedly provided prescription drugs to Medicare beneficiaries. From June 2015 through September 2015, the defendant submitted and caused the submission of approximately $411,760 in claims for reimbursement to the Medicare Part D program, via interstate wires, that falsely and

fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily prescription drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by Universal Pharmacy. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors made payments funded by the Medicare Part D Program to the corporate bank accounts of Universal Pharmacy in the approximate amount of $354,979. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Clark. 18. United States v. Dalia Hernandez, Case No. 18-20474-CR-Altonaga On June 5, 2018, Dalia Hernandez, 50, of Miami, Florida, was charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and three counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the defendant targeted the LINET program of Medicare Part D. Hernandez was the president and registered agent of AAP Pharmacy in Miami Springs, a pharmacy that purportedly provided prescription drugs to Medicare beneficiaries. From April 2014 through July 2014, the defendant submitted and caused the submission of approximately $1,267,368 in claims for reimbursement to the Medicare Part D program, via interstate wires, that falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily prescription drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by AAP Pharmacy. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors made payments funded by the Medicare Part D Program to the corporate bank accounts of AAP Pharmacy in the approximate amount of $322,331. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Clark. 19. United States v. Georvanys Rodriguez Pineda, Case No. 18-20428-CR-Cooke On May 22, 2018, Georvanys Rodriguez Pineda, 43, of Miami, Florida, was charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and four counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the defendant targeted the LINET program of Medicare Part D. Pineda was the president and registered agent of Urantia Pharmacy Inc., a Miami pharmacy that purportedly provided prescription drugs to Medicare beneficiaries. From

June 2015 through November 2015, the defendant submitted and caused the submission of approximately $1,111,820 in claims for reimbursement to the Medicare Part D program, via interstate wires, that falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily prescription drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by Urantia Pharmacy. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors made payments funded by the Medicare Part D Program to the corporate bank accounts of Urantia Pharmacy in the approximate amount of $310,490. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Clark. 20. United States v. Alexander Sarduy Fuentes, et al., Case No. 18-20475-CR-Moreno On June 5, 2018, Alexander Sarduy Fuentes, 47, and Jorge Victor O'Reilly, 56, both of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and six counts of health care fraud. Fuentes owned Hello Pharmacy & Discount Inc. (''Hello Pharmacy''), a Miami Gardens pharmacy that purportedly provided prescription drugs to Medicare beneficiaries. O'Reilly owned @ All Pharmacy & Supplies LLC (''All Pharmacy''), a Miami pharmacy that purportedly provided prescription drugs to Medicare beneficiaries. Fuentes, O'Reilly, and others conspired to fraudulently bill the LINET program. From August 2015 through October 2015, the defendants submitted and caused the submission of approximately $539,711 in claims for reimbursement to the Medicare Part D program, via interstate wires, that falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily prescription drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by All Pharmacy. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors made payments funded by the Medicare Part D Program to the corporate bank accounts of All Pharmacy in the approximate amount of $539,711. From August 2015 through October 2015, the defendants submitted and caused the submission of approximately $346,095 in claims for reimbursement to the Medicare Part D program, via interstate wires, that falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily prescription drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by Hello Pharmacy. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Medicare prescription drug

plan sponsors made payments funded by the Medicare Part D Program to the corporate bank accounts of Hello Pharmacy in the approximate amount of $274,052. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Clark. C. Additional Pharmacy Fraud Schemes 21. United States v. Antonio Perez, Jr., Case No. 18-20528-CR-Moreno On June 25, 2018, Antonio Perez, Jr., 48, of Miami Beach, Florida, was charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, four counts of health care fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and two counts of money laundering. According to the indictment, Perez owned a Miami-area pharmacy called ARA Medical Services Inc., which did business under the name Valles Pharmacy. Between January 2011 and August 2017, Perez allegedly engaged in a conspiracy and scheme to defraud Part D of the Medicare program by causing Valles Pharmacy to be paid approximately $8 million in claims for prescription medications that were not medically necessary, not eligible for reimbursement, and were not provided. As alleged in the indictment, Perez and his co-conspirators carried out the fraudulent scheme by, among other things, paying kickbacks to beneficiaries in exchange for access to their identifying information, which Valles Pharmacy used to submit false and fraudulent claims to Medicare. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Timothy P. Loper. 22. United States v. Maria E. Inda and Ileana Rodriguez, Case No. 18-20453-CR-Ungaro On May 31, 2018, Maria E. Inda, 65, and Ileana Rodriguez, 45, both of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud and eight counts of health care fraud. Rodriguez was also charged with two counts of money laundering. According to the indictment, the defendants defrauded the Medicare Part D prescription drug program through two Miami pharmacies. Inda was the president and registered

agent of Caribbean Pharmacy Inc. (''Caribbean''), a retail pharmacy that purportedly provided prescription drugs to Medicare beneficiaries. Rodriguez was a pharmacy technician at Caribbean. Later, Rodriguez opened Aqua Pharma Inc. (''Aqua''), a retail pharmacy she controlled with Inda. From May 2009 through September 2016, the defendants allegedly submitted and caused the submission of fraudulent claims for reimbursement to the Medicare Part D program, via interstate wires, that falsely and fraudulently represented that prescription drugs were medically necessary and had been provided by Caribbean and Aqua. The scheme operated through the payment of kickbacks to patient recruiters in exchange for the referral of fraudulent prescriptions. As a result of the fraudulent claims, Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors made payments funded by the Medicare Part D Program to Caribbean and Aqua pharmacies in the approximate amount of $6.8 million. The indictment further charges Rodriguez with money laundering based on her purchase of a home and Mercedes Benz, allegedly with proceeds of the Medicare fraud scheme. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jon Juenger. 23. United States v. Ascanio Serna, Case No. 18-20561-CR-Altonaga On June 27, 2018, Ascanio Serna, formerly a co-owner of A.S.C. Pharmacy, Inc. ("ASC"), a now-defunct Miami pharmacy, was charged by information with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud for his role in a $3.6 million compounding scheme at ASC. As alleged in the information, ASC formulated compounded medications without regard to medical necessity, but rather to maximize profits by increasing the amount that ASC could bill to insurance companies for reimbursement of the specific combinations of ingredients in each compounded cream. To obtain prescriptions for its compounded formulas, ASC paid kickbacks and bribes to marketers and doctors, and waived co-pays to patients. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of HHS-OIG, FBI and DCIS. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney David Snider. 24. United States v. David Espinosa, Sandy Basulto and Aracelis Basilia Lopez, Case No. 18-20435-CR-Middlebrooks

On May 24, 2018, David Espinosa, 61, Sandy Basulto, 34, and Aracelis Lopez, 59, all of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud and eight counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the defendants defrauded the Medicare Part D prescription drug program through Ultra Pharmacy Discount Corp. (''Ultra Pharmacy''), a retail pharmacy located in Miami. Espinosa was the president and registered agent of Ultra Pharmacy, while Basulto and Lopez served as licensed pharmacy technicians. From March 2013 through February 2015 the defendants allegedly submitted and caused the submission of fraudulent claims for reimbursement to the Medicare Part D program, via interstate wires, that falsely and fraudulently represented that prescription drugs were medically necessary and had been provided by Ultra Pharmacy. The indictment also alleges that the scheme involved payment of kickbacks to patient recruiters in exchange for the referral of fraudulent prescriptions. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors made payments funded by the Medicare Part D Program to Ultra Pharmacy in the approximate amount of $2.4 million. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the HHS-OIG, FBI, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jon Juenger. 25. United States v. Carlos Garcia, Heidy Garcia and Gisell Aberasturia, Case No. 18-20514-CR-Moore On June 14, 2018, Carlos Garcia, 51, of Lake Worth, Florida and Heidy Garcia, 24, and Gisell Aberastria, 52, both of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud and nine counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the defendants defrauded the Medicare Part D prescription drug program through retail pharmacies Capital Drugs in Miami, Green Hope Pharmacy in Miami and American Drugs Pharmacy in Lake Worth. Garcia was the president and registered agent of Capital Drugs and a beneficial owner of Green Hope Pharmacy and American Drugs, while Aberasturia was the president and registered agent for Green Hope Pharmacy. Garcia served as a licensed pharmacy technician at Capital Drugs, Green Hope Pharmacy and American Drugs Pharmacy. From March 2013 through June 2018 the defendants allegedly submitted and caused the submission of fraudulent claims for reimbursement to the Medicare Part D program, via interstate wires, that falsely and fraudulently represented that prescription drugs were medically necessary and had been provided by Capital Drugs, Green Hope and American Drugs. The indictment also alleges

that the scheme involved payment of kickbacks to patient recruiters in exchange for the referral of fraudulent prescriptions. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors made payments funded by the Medicare Part D Program to Capital Drugs, Green Hope Pharmacy and American Drugs Pharmacy in the approximate amount of $2.5 million. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jon Juenger. 26. United States v. Gregory Sanchez, Case No. 18-20513-CR-Ungaro On June 14, 2018, Gregory Sanchez, 43, of Miami, Florida, a co-owner of Med Health Equipment, LLC (''Med Health''), a now-defunct Miami pharmacy, was charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, six counts of health care fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and six counts of money laundering, for his alleged role in a scheme that caused Part D of the Medicare program to pay Med Health $2.5 million for prescription drugs that the pharmacy never actually purchased or provided to Medicare beneficiaries. As alleged in the indictment, Sanchez and his co-conspirators carried out the fraudulent scheme by, among other things, paying kickbacks to patient recruiters in exchange for Medicare beneficiaries' identifying information, which Med Health used to submit false and fraudulent claims to Medicare. To generate the cash needed to pay the patient recruiters, Sanchez allegedly laundered the proceeds of the fraud by cashing checks disguised as compensation. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of HHS-OIG and FBI. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney David Snider. 27. United States v. Arturo Paez Martinez, Case No. 18-20545-CR-Scola On June 25, 2018, Arturo Paez Martinez, 65, of Miami, Florida, was charged by information with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud and four counts of health care fraud. According to the information, Martinez owned a Miami-area pharmacy called Versalles Pharmacy. Between March 2014 and June 2015, Perez allegedly engaged in a conspiracy and scheme to defraud Part D of the Medicare program by causing Versalles Pharmacy to be paid approximately $1.2 million in claims for prescription medications that were not

medically necessary, not eligible for reimbursement, and not provided. As alleged in the indictment, Martinez and his co-conspirators carried out the fraudulent scheme by, among other things, paying kickbacks to patient recruiters in exchange for Medicare beneficiaries' identifying information, which Versalles Pharmacy used to submit false and fraudulent claims to Medicare. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Timothy P. Loper. 28. United States v. Augustine Oranusi and Daylet Martinez, Case No. 18-20527-CR-Ungaro On June 19, 2018, Augustine Oranusi, 52, and Daylet Martinez, 35, both of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, five counts of health care fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. According to the indictment, Oranusi was a pharmacist and Martinez was a pharmacy technician, and together they owned a Miami-area pharmacy called Evergreen Pharmacy. Between March 2013 and October 2016, Oranusi and Martinez engaged in a conspiracy and scheme to defraud Part D of the Medicare program by causing Evergreen Pharmacy to be paid approximately $1.6 million in claims for prescription medications that were never actually purchased or provided to Medicare beneficiaries. As alleged in the indictment, Oranusi, Martinez, and their co-conspirators carried out the fraudulent scheme by, among other things, paying kickbacks to patient recruiters in exchange for Medicare beneficiaries' identifying information, which Evergreen Pharmacy used to submit false and fraudulent claims to Medicare. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Timothy P. Loper. 29. United States v. Alian Miranda, Case No. 18-20434-CR-Williams On May 24, 2018, Alian Miranda, 30, of Miami, Florida, was charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud and nine counts of health care fraud.

According to the indictment, the defendant defrauded the Medicare Part D prescription drug program through Rodriguez Pharmacy Corp (''Rodriguez Pharmacy''), a retail pharmacy owned by Miranda and located in Miami, Florida. From October 2014 through July 2017 the defendant allegedly submitted and caused the submission of fraudulent claims for reimbursement to the Medicare Part D program, via interstate wires, that falsely and fraudulently represented that prescription drugs were medically necessary and had been provided by Rodriguez Pharmacy. The indictment also alleges that the scheme involved payment of kickbacks to Medicare beneficiaries and other co-conspirators in exchange for the referral of fraudulent prescriptions. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors made payments funded by the Medicare Part D Program to Rodriguez Pharmacy in the approximate amount of $1.3 million. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jon Juenger. 30. United States v. Oscar Guardarrama, Sandy Basulto and Noemi Delgado, Case No. 18-20508-CR-Altonaga On June 14, 2018, Oscar Guardarrama, 62, Sandy Basulto, 34, and Noemi Delgado, 27, all of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud and eleven counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the defendants defrauded the Medicare Part D prescription drug program through Antares Pharmacy Discount Corp. (''Antares Pharmacy''), a retail pharmacy located in Miami. Guardarrama was the president and registered agent of Antares Pharmacy, while Basulto and Delgado served as licensed pharmacy technicians. From February 2014 through June 2018 the defendants allegedly submitted and caused the submission of fraudulent claims for reimbursement to the Medicare Part D program, via interstate wires, that falsely and fraudulently represented that prescription drugs were medically necessary and had been provided by Antares Pharmacy. The indictment also alleges that the scheme involved payment of kickbacks to patient recruiters, including Delgado, in exchange for the referral of fraudulent prescriptions. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors made payments funded by the Medicare Part D Program to Antares Pharmacy in the approximate amount of $1.7 million. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jon Juenger.

31. United States v. Nieves Suarez, et al., Case No. 18-20175-CR-Cooke(s) On June 12, 2018, Nieves Suarez, 48, Arlety Guerra Prieto, 45, and Mariela Quintana, 49, all of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and four counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, Suarez was the president and registered agent of Golden Owl Pharmacy & Discount Corp. (''Golden Owl Pharmacy''), a Miami pharmacy that purportedly provided prescription drugs to Medicare beneficiaries, from January 3, 2011 to November 30, 2012, and secretary from November 30, 2012, to on or about March 10, 2015. Prieto was president and registered agent of Golden Owl Pharmacy from November 30, 2012, until the dissolution of the corporation on September 25, 2015. Quintana was a co-owner of Golden Owl Pharmacy. From October 2012 through March 2015, the defendants submitted and caused the submission of approximately $915,784 in claims for reimbursement to the Medicare Part D program, via interstate wires, that falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily prescription drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by Golden Owl Pharmacy. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors made payments funded by the Medicare Part D Program to the corporate bank accounts of Golden Owl Pharmacy in the approximate amount of $915,784. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Clark. 32. United States v. Raiza Del Carmen De Leon and Julio Cesar De Leon, Case No. 18-20436-CR-Scola On May 24, 2018, Raiza Del Carmen De Leon, 38, and Julio Cesar De Leon, 42, a husband and wife of Miami Springs, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud and eight counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, the defendants defrauded the Medicare Part D prescription drug program through Miramar Pharmacy and Discount Inc. (''Miramar Pharmacy''), a retail pharmacy co-owned by the De Leons and located in Miramar, Florida. From October 2014 through November 2015 the defendants submitted and caused the submission of fraudulent claims for reimbursement to the Medicare Part D program, via interstate wires, that falsely and fraudulently represented that prescription drugs were

medically necessary and had been provided by Miramar Pharmacy. The indictment also alleges that the scheme involved payment of kickbacks to patient recruiters in exchange for the referral of fraudulent prescriptions. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, Medicare prescription drug plan sponsors made payments funded by the Medicare Part D Program to Miramar Pharmacy in the approximate amount of $700,000. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jon Juenger. 33. United States v. Yordanka Pedroso, Case No. 18-20451-CR-Scola On May 31, 2018, Yordanka Pedroso, 41, of Miami, Florida, was indicted on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and pay and receive healthcare kickbacks. According to the indictment, Pedroso allegedly participated in the fraudulent scheme by agreeing with the owners and operators of pharmacies to receive kickbacks and bribes in exchange for providing her own personal Medicare information, as well as the personal information of a co-conspirator Medicare beneficiary who she recruited. The pharmacies then allegedly used this information to bill Medicare for medical items and services that were medically unnecessary, not provided to the defendant and her co-conspirator, and never purchased. The defendant also paid her co-conspirator Medicare beneficiary kickbacks and bribes. As a result of Pedroso's participation in the scheme, Medicare paid approximately $134,799 to the pharmacies. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Yisel Valdes. 34. United States v. Ricardo Vento, Case No. 18-CR-20559-Williams On June 27, 2018, Ricardo Vento, 71, of Miami, Florida, was charged by information with one count of soliciting and receiving illegal health care bribes and kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The information alleges Vento received approximately $16,200 in kickbacks. In total, Medicare paid more than $95,000 but less than $150,000 for services purportedly provided to the Medicare beneficiaries referred by Vento.

Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI, HHS-OIG and USSS. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Adam G. Yoffie. 35. United States v. Alexandria Suhanov, Case No. 18-20560-CR-Martinez On June 27, 2018, Alexandria Suhanov, 37, of Cornelius, North Carolina, was charged by information with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. According to the information, Suhanov was the receptionist of American Pain Management, a pain management clinic located in Tamarac, Florida. She later worked at Pacific Pharmacy, a Miami-area pharmacy. Both American Pain Management and Pacific Pharmacy were owned by Scott Novick, who was simultaneously charged by separate information with one count of conspiracy to dispense and distribute controlled substances (Case No. 18-20563-CR-Moore). According to the information filed against Suhanov, between January 2009 through April 2018, American Pain Management and Pacific Pharmacy submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, including claims for controlled substances and office visits that lacked any legitimate medical necessity. American Pain Management submitted approximately $785,420 in claims to Medicare, and Pacific Pharmacy submitted approximately $1,035,969 in claims to Medicare. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Timothy P. Loper. IV. HOME HEALTH CARE FRAUD '' Medicare Part A 36. United States v. Berto Arias Carrasco, Case No. 18-20558-CR-Moreno On June 27, 2018, Berto Arias Carrasco, 55, of Pembroke Pines, Florida, was charged by information with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The charge arises from Arias Carrasco's role as the nominee owner and operator of a Miami home health care agency, New Life Home HealthCare Inc. (''New Life''). The information alleges that Arias Carrasco falsely represented himself as the true owner of New Life, which was in fact owned by a co-conspirator. It further alleges that Arias Carrasco and a co-conspirator paid kickbacks to patient recruiters in exchange for referring Medicare beneficiaries, many of whom did not qualify for or need home health services, to New Life, and that Arias Carrasco and a co-conspirator issued checks to be

cashed in order to pay kickbacks. As a result of this scheme, Medicare paid over $15 million in false and fraudulent claims. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Leslie Wright. Maryland Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Collins, formerly of the Fraud Section, assisted in charging this case. 37. United States v. Maricela P. Chavez et al., Case No. 18-20501-CR-Altonaga On June 12, 2018, Maricela P. Chavez, 57, of Miami, Florida, Rene Guerra, 57, of Miami Beach, Florida, Esther Aguilera Escalona, 60, of Miami, Florida, Ricardo Fajardo, a/k/a ''Evelyn Tiffany,'' 63, of Miami, Florida, Yurisday Hernandez, 45, of Miami, Florida, and Arelys Perez Cuesta, 50, of Hialeah, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and pay and receive healthcare kickbacks and payment of kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. Guerra was also charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and pay and receive healthcare kickbacks. According to the indictment, the defendants participated in a scheme to defraud Medicare using their connections to ACM Home Health Corp., located in Miami, and TC Home Health Care, Inc., located in Hialeah, home health agencies. The indictment alleges that Guerra was the registered owner of TC Home Health Care, Inc., while Chavez was the operator of, and Escalona, Fajardo, Hernandez, and Cuesta were patient recruiters for, ACM Home Health Corp. and TC Home Health Care, Inc. The defendants allegedly conspired to defraud Part A of the Medicare program of $14 million by billing for home health services that were not rendered and paying kickbacks to patient recruiters and patients in exchange for patient referrals. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. Assistant U.S. Attorney Miesha Shonta Darrough is prosecuting this case. 38. United States v. Alexander Ros Lazo and Misleidy Ibarra, Case No. 18-CR-20536-Martinez On June 21, 2018, Alexander Ros Lazo, 53, of Homestead, Florida, an owner and operator of T.L.C. Health Services, Inc. (''T.L.C.''), a home health agency in Miami-Dade County, and Misleidy Ibarra, 45, of Homestead, Florida, a licensed massage therapist, were

indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud. Misleidy Ibarra was also indicted on three counts of health care fraud. Ros Lazo was also indicted on four counts of health care fraud, one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and pay and receive health care kickbacks, and two counts of payment of bribes and kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The charges stem from Ros Lazo's alleged role in a fraud scheme where he paid kickbacks and bribes to his co-conspirators in exchange for home health services prescriptions and the referral of Medicare beneficiaries to T.L.C. Ros Lazo and Ibarra also agreed with their co-conspirators to commit health care fraud by arranging for Ibarra to render physical and occupational therapy services to Medicare beneficiaries when Ibarra was not licensed to provide these services. As a result of the defendants' role in the fraudulent scheme, Medicare paid approximately $8.6 million to T.L.C. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of FBI and HHS-OIG and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine. The case is being handled by DOJ Trial Attorney Yisel Valdes. 39. United States v. Evelio Ramirez and Rossana P. Ramirez, Case No. 18-20534-CR-Cooke On June 21, 2018, Evelio Ramirez, 58, and Rossana P. Ramirez, 58, both of Miami, Florida, were charged by information with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The charge stems from their alleged roles at F&E Home Health Care, Inc., a home health agency in Miami that defrauded Part A of the Medicare program of $7.1 million and Medicaid of $368,972 by billing for home health services that were not provided to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and paying kickbacks to patient recruiters in exchange for patient referrals. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI, HHS-OIG and the State of Florida Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Miesha Shonta Darrough is prosecuting this case. 40. United States v. Nelson Anzardo Calzadilla, et al., Case No. 18-20512-CR-Martinez On June 14, 2018, Nelson Anzardo Calzadilla, 55, and Milena Gonzalez, 53, both of Miami, were charged by indictment in connection with their alleged roles in a home health care fraud and kickback scheme involving numerous Miami-area home health

agencies. Calzadilla was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks. Gonzalez was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks and three counts of receiving health care kickbacks. The indictment alleges that Calzadilla, who owned three home health agencies, concealed the ownership interest of his co-owner, paid kickbacks to patient recruiters in return for referring Medicare beneficiaries, and caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims for services that were not medically necessary, not rendered, and procured through kickbacks and bribes. The indictment alleges that Gonzalez referred Medicare beneficiaries to various Miami-area home health agencies in exchange for kickbacks and that she paid kickbacks to the owners and operators of a Miami-area medical clinic in order to purchase home health therapy prescriptions. The indictment further alleges that, as a result of false and fraudulent claims submitted as part of the charged conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, Medicare made payments of at least $6.1 million. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Leslie Wright. Maryland Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Collins, formerly of the Fraud Section, assisted in charging this case. 41. United States v. Margarita Palomino, et al., Case No. 18-20487-CR-Martinez On June 7, 2018, Margarita Palomino, 54, of Homestead, Florida, and Norma Zayas, 29, of Miami, Florida, were indicted in connection with their alleged roles in several home health care fraud and kickback schemes involving at least six Miami-area home health agencies, which fraudulently billed Medicare for claims that were not necessary, for services not rendered, and for claims procured through kickbacks and bribes. Palomino and Zayas were charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, arising from their involvement with several home health agencies, including Sunshine Home Health Care Services, Inc., Empire Home Health Agency, Inc., and Mildred & Marce Home Hea1th Care Services, Inc. The indictment alleges that, as a result of false and fraudulent claims submitted as part of this conspiracy, Medicare made payments of at least $4.65 million.

Palomino was also charged with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks, and two counts of making false statements relating to health care matters arising from her conduct involving Summer Health Care, Inc. and Excellent Home Health Care, Inc. The indictment further alleges that, as a result of this health care and wire fraud conspiracy, Medicare made payments of at least $1.89 million. Finally, Zayas was also charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks and two counts of paying health care kickbacks arising from her involvement with Nursing Care PRN, Inc. As a result of this kickback conspiracy, the indictment alleges that Medicare paid Nursing Care PRN, Inc. at least approximately $1.12 million. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Leslie Wright. Maryland Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Collins, formerly of the Fraud Section, assisted in charging this case. 42. United States v. Daymi Arias Bofill, Case No. 18-20562-CR-Cooke On June 27, 2018, Daymi Arias Bofill, 41, of Miami, Florida, was charged by information with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The charge arises from Arias Bofill's role as an operator of New Life Home HealthCare Inc. (''New Life Home Health''), Empire Home Health Agency, Inc. (''Empire Home Health''), City of Angels Home Health Care, LLC (''City of Angels Home Health''), and Miami-Dade Home Health Care Inc. (''Miami-Dade Home Health''). The information alleges that Arias Bofill falsely and fraudulently represented herself as the owner of City of Angels Home Health and Miami-Dade Home Health, which in fact were owned by a co-conspirator. The information further alleges that Arias Bofill and a co-conspirator paid kickbacks to patient recruiters in return for the referral of Medicare beneficiaries, many of whom did not qualify for or need home health services, to New Life Home Health, Empire Home Health, City of Angels Home Health, and Miami-Dade Home Health. As a result of false and fraudulent claims submitted in connection with the scheme, Medicare made payments totaling over $4.6 million. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Leslie Wright. Maryland Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Collins, formerly of the Fraud Section, assisted in charging this case.

43. United States v. Liannelys Gonzalez, Case No. 18-20450-CR-Moore On May 31, 2018, Liannelys Gonzalez, 28, of Miami, Florida, was charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud and ten counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, Gonzalez was the owner of Exclusive Home Care, Inc. (''Exclusive''). The indictment alleges that Gonzalez and her co-conspirators submitted claims to Medicare via interstate wire transfers which fraudulently and falsely represented that home health care services were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and provided to Medicare beneficiaries when, in fact, they were not medically necessary and not provided. As a result of these false and fraudulent claims, Medicare made approximately $4,460,679 in payments to Exclusive. Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney James V. Hayes, formerly an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida. 44. United States v. Juliette Anais Tamayo, Case No. 18-20535-CR-Altonaga On June 21, 2018, Juliette Anais Tamayo, 53 of Miami, Florida, was charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to pay and receive illegal health care bribes and kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program, one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and two counts of health care fraud. The indictment charges Tamayo with participating in a conspiracy that allegedly caused a loss of approximately $3.6 million to the Medicare program. The charges arise from Tamayo's ownership of Sunshine Medical Care Group, Inc., which submitted claims to Medicare for services that did not occur, and unlawfully sold prescriptions for medically unnecessary home health services. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI, HHS-OIG and USSS. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorneys Drew Bradylyons and Adam G. Yoffie. 45. United States v. Gilberto Hernandez, Case No. 18-20488-CR-Gayles On June 7, 2018, Gilberto Hernandez, 43, of Miami, Florida, was charged by indictment with three counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, Hernandez was the

owner of Advance Home Care Services, Inc. (''Advance''). The indictment alleges that Hernandez submitted claims to Medicare which fraudulently and falsely represented that home health care services were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and provided to Medicare beneficiaries when, in fact, they were not medically necessary and not provided. As a result of these false and fraudulent claims, Medicare made approximately $3,386,162 in payments to Advance. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted DOJ Trial Attorney James V. Hayes, formerly an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida. 46. United States v. Jaqueline Monteserin, et al., Case No. 18-20537-CR-Martinez On June 21, 2018, Jaqueline Monteserin, 45, of Homestead, Florida, and Cela Loaces Hernandez, 54, and Alejandro Fernandez, 47, both of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and pay and receive health care kickbacks, and two counts each of receiving health care kickbacks. The charges stem from the defendants' involvement with D&Y Pharmacy Discount, Corp. (''D&Y Pharmacy'') and Florida Pharmacy, Inc. (''Florida Pharmacy''), which fraudulently billed Medicare for prescription drugs that were medically unnecessary, not eligible for reimbursement, and never provided. The indictment alleges that from approximately February 2014 to July 2016, the defendants accepted kickbacks in return for referring Medicare beneficiaries to D&Y Pharmacy and Florida Pharmacy to serve as patients. The indictment further alleges that the defendants provided fraudulent prescriptions obtained from medical clinics, including two clinics operated by Monteserin and Loaces '' Double R Therapy Center, Inc. (''Double R'') and Mediglez Wellness Center, Inc. (''Mediglez'') '' for the recruited beneficiaries. The indictment also charges Monteserin and Loaces with an additional count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, based on their roles in a home health care fraud scheme. The indictment alleges that from approximately December 2014 to June 2015, Monteserin and Loaces accepted kickbacks in return for home health prescriptions from Double R and Mediglez for Medicare beneficiaries, many of whom did not need or qualify for home health services. The indictment further alleges that Monteserin and Loaces accepted kickbacks in return for referring Medicare beneficiaries

to D&D&D Home Health Care, Inc. (''D&D&D'') to serve as patients, and that they provided falsified prescriptions for the beneficiaries they referred to D&D&D. According to the indictment, as a result of false and fraudulent claims submitted by D&D&D and other Miami-area home health agencies in connection with the scheme, Medicare made payments of at least $3.2 million. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Leslie Wright. Maryland Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Collins, formerly of the Fraud Section, assisted in charging the case. 47. United States v. Israel Rodriguez Medina, Case No. 18-20551-CR-Scola On June 26, 2018, Israel Rodriguez Medina, 40, of Miami, Florida, the owner of First RN, Inc., a home health agency located in Miami, was charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and three counts of health care fraud for his alleged role in a $1.6 million scheme. The charges arise from his ownership of First RN, which billed Medicare for home health services that were not medically necessary and/or not provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Stewart and DOJ Trial Attorney Adam Yoffie. 48. United States v. Tania Gudin, Case No. 18-20505-CR-Moore On June 12, 2018, Tania Gudin, 54, of Miami, Florida, was charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and pay and receive health care kickbacks, and five counts of receiving health care kickbacks. The indictment alleges that from approximately July 2011 to November 2014, Gudin accepted kickbacks in return for referring Medicare beneficiaries to various Miami-area home health agencies to serve as patients. The indictment further alleges that Gudin and her co-conspirators caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for home health services purportedly provided to the recruited beneficiaries, as a result of which Medicare made payments of at least $1.36 million.

Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Leslie Wright. Maryland Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Collins, formerly of the Fraud Section, assisted in charging this case. 49. United States v. Niurka Herrera, Case No. 18-20539-CR-Moore On June 21, 2018, Niurka Herrera, 49, of Hialeah, Florida, a patient recruiter was indicted on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and pay and receive healthcare kickbacks, and three counts of receipt of kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The charges stem from the defendant's alleged role in a scheme where she agreed with her co-conspirators to pay and receive kickbacks and bribes in exchange for referring Medicare beneficiaries to home health agencies and a medical clinic. As a result of the defendant's role in the scheme, Medicare paid approximately $153,772.28 to various home health agencies. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of FBI and HHS-OIG. The case is being handled by DOJ Trial Attorney Yisel Valdes. 50. United States v. Rosa Maria Baez, Case No. 18-20428-CR-Ungaro On May 22, 2018, Rosa Maria Baez, 44, of Hialeah, Florida, the owner of home health agency Eternity Life Health Care, Inc., in Miami Lakes, was charged by indictment with conspiracy to defraud the United States and pay health care kickbacks and payment of kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The charges stem from her involvement in a home health fraud scheme involving kickback payments to patient recruiters, patients, and clinic owners in exchange for patient referrals. The loss amount is approximately $253,049. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. Assistant U.S. Attorney Miesha Shonta Darrough is prosecuting this case. 51. United States v. Yamilet Diaz, Case No. 18-20473-CR-Cooke On June 5, 2018, Yamilet Diaz, 50, of Hialeah, Florida, was charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and receive health care kickbacks

and four counts of receiving health care kickbacks. The charges stem from Diaz's alleged role as a patient recruiter for Good Friends Services, Inc. (''Good Friends''), a now-defunct home health agency located in Hialeah Gardens, Florida. The indictment alleges that from approximately October 2012 to June 2013, Diaz received kickbacks in return for referring Medicare beneficiaries to Good Friends to serve as patients. The indictment further alleges that Diaz and her co-conspirators caused Medicare to make over $600,000 in payments to Good Friends based upon claims for home health services submitted on behalf of the beneficiaries recruited by Diaz. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Leslie Wright. 52. United States v. Miriam Pardo, Case No. 18-20504-CR-Moreno On June 12, 2018, Miriam Pardo, 72, of Miami, Florida, was charged by indictment with one count of conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks. The indictment alleges that from approximately July 2009 to at least November 2013, Pardo accepted kickbacks in return for referring Medicare beneficiaries from her clinic, Gables Medical Care Inc. (''Gables Medical Care''), to various Miami-area home health agencies to serve as patients. The indictment further alleges that Pardo accepted kickbacks in return for prescriptions for home health care and related medical records signed by a physician who worked at Gables Medical Care. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Leslie Wright. V. PRIVATE INSURANCE FRAUD (NON-MEDICARE) 53. United States v. Carlos Aguilar and Lyzt de Dios, Case No. 18-20382-CR-Lenard On May 8, 2018, Carlos Aguilar, M.D., 75, and Lyzt de Dios, 32, both of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud health care fraud and four counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, Star Relief Center, LLC was a Miami medical clinic that purportedly provided private insurance beneficiaries with various medical treatments and services. Carlos Aguilar was a practicing physician. From January 2016 through

September 2017, Dr. Aguilar and Lyzt de Dios submitted and caused the submission of claims, via interstate wires, totaling approximately $1,170,570 which allegedly falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily physical therapy and injectable drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by caused Star Relief Center to insurance beneficiaries of BCBS. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, BCBS made payments to the corporate bank accounts of caused Star Relief Center in the approximate amount of $748,632. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Clark. 54. United States v. Frederick J. Baptista and Rafael Andres Cepeda, Case No. 18-20476-CR-Ungaro On June 5, 2018, Frederick Jose Baptista, 42, and Rafael Andres Cepeda, 48, both of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and six substantive counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, Baptista was the registered agent and president and Cepeda the vice-president of B&C Rehabilitation Center, a Miami medical clinic that purportedly provided private insurance beneficiaries with various medical treatments and services. From January 2014, through April 2017, Baptista and Cepeda submitted and caused the submission of claims, via interstate wires, totaling approximately $3,404,524, which allegedly falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily physical therapy and injectable drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by B&C Rehabilitation Center to insurance beneficiaries of BCBS. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, BCBS made payments to the corporate bank accounts of B&C Rehabilitation Center in the approximate amount of $568,175. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Clark. 55. United States v. Pavel Hernandez Merino, et al., Case No. 18-20381-CR-Altonaga On May 8, 2018, Pavel Luis Hernandez Merino, 36, Pablo Armando Orozco, 42, Pablo D. Orozco, 66, Carlos Ernesto Aguilar, 75, Juan Francisco Nin, 32, and Yosniel Blanco

Salcines, 35, all of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud health care fraud and eighteen counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, Merino, Pablo A. Orozco, and Pablo D. Orozco owned medical clinics that purportedly provided private insurance beneficiaries with various medical treatments and services. Aguilar was a practicing physician. Nin and Salcines recruited patients that were referred to BBB Medical, Michael Professional, Anthony Professional, Sun Medical, and Americare, Miami medical clinics that purportedly provided private insurance beneficiaries with various medical treatments and services. From July 2014 through July 2017, Merino, Pablo A. Orozco, Pablo D. Orozco, Aguilar, Nin, and Salcines submitted and caused the submission of claims, via interstate wires, totaling approximately $30,365,060 which allegedly falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily physical therapy and injectable drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by BBB Medical, Michael Professional, Anthony Professional, Sun Medical, and Americare to insurance beneficiaries of BCBS. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, BCBS made payments to the corporate bank accounts of BBB Medical, Michael Professional, Anthony Professional, Sun Medical, and Americare in the approximate amount of $13,615,398. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Clark. 56. United States v. Sergio Lemus Carratala, Francel Rodriguez, Case No. 18-20368-CR-Williams On May 8, 2018, Sergio Lemus Carratala, 30, and Francel Rodriguez, 39, both of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and six counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, Carratala and Rodriguez were employees of Billing USA, Corp., a medical billing company that served as an intermediary between medical offices and clinics, and insurance companies. From January 2013 through February 2017, Carratala and Rodriguez, together with unindicted conspirators, submitted and caused the submission of claims, via interstate wires, totaling approximately $5,692,102, which allegedly falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily physical therapy and injectable drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by Blue Diamond Medical Center Inc. (''Blue Diamond''), to insurance beneficiaries of BCBS. Blue Diamond was a Miami medical clinic that

purportedly provides private insurance beneficiaries with various medical treatments and services. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, BCBS made payments to the corporate bank accounts of Blue Diamond in the approximate amount of $653,893. The indictment additionally alleged that Carratala and Rodriguez, along with unindicted conspirators, submitted and caused the submission of claims, via interstate wires, totaling approximately $5,943,053, which falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily physical therapy and injectable drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by Salvus, LLC, to insurance beneficiaries of BCBS. Salvus, LLC was a Miami medical clinic that purportedly provides private insurance beneficiaries with various medical treatments and services. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, BCBS made payments to the corporate bank accounts of Salvus, LLC in the approximate amount of $1,638,378. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Clark. 57. United States v. Yosbel Otano Melendez and Yareli Paula, Case No. 18-20502-CR-Martinez On June 12, 2018, Yosbel Otano Melendez, 39, and Yareli Paula, 41, both of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and eight counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, Melendez and Paula allegedly recruited patients that were referred to Atlantic Mobile Services, Inc., a Miami medical clinic that purportedly provided private insurance beneficiaries with various medical treatments and services. From February 2013 through May 2016, Yosbel Otano Melendez and Yareli Paula submitted and caused the submission of claims, via interstate wires, totaling approximately $1,517,600, which falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily physical therapy and injectable drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by Atlantic Mobile Services to insurance beneficiaries of BCBS. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, BCBS made payments to the corporate bank accounts of Atlantic Mobile Services in the approximate amount of $980,243. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Clark.

58. United States v. Clara Salazar-Vust, et al., Case No. 18-201243-CR-Altonaga On April 3, 2018, Clara Salazar-Vust, 68, Olga Alvarado, 47, and Roberto Perez, 47, all of Miami, Florida, were charged by indictment with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and four substantive counts of health care fraud. According to the indictment, Salazar-Vust, Alvarado, and Perez owned Salvus, LLC, a medical Miami clinic that purportedly provided private insurance beneficiaries with various medical treatments and services. From January 2013 through March 2018, the defendants allegedly submitted and caused the submission of claims, via interstate wires, totaling approximately $5,943,053, which falsely and fraudulently represented that various health care benefits, primarily physical therapy and injectable drugs, were medically necessary, prescribed by a doctor, and had been provided by Salvus, LLC, to insurance beneficiaries of BCBS. As a result of such false and fraudulent claims, BCBS made payments to the corporate bank accounts of Salvus, LLC in the approximate amount of $1,638,378. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Clark. 59. United States v. Ivan Sierra, Case No. 18-20548-CR-Gayles On June 25, 2018, Ivan Sierra, 54, of Miami, Florida, was charged by information with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The information charges Sierra with laundering approximately $937,000 for various physical therapy clinics in the Miami area. The cash generated from the laundering activity was allegedly used to pay kickbacks to patients for whom the clinics billed physical therapy services that were not medically necessary to private insurance companies. Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the FBI and HHS-OIG. This case is being prosecuted by DOJ Trial Attorney Timothy P. Loper. A criminal complaint, information, or indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations are part of a joint initiative between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country. The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operates in nine locations nationwide. Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force has charged over 3,700 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for over $14 billion. Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:09

Egypt and four other countries have said they will refuse to host migrants aiming for the European Union. The "reception centers" are part a broader plan to more evenly distribute asylum seekers in Europe.Egypt said on Sunday that it will not build refugee camps for migrants deported from the European Union if asked. The announcement came after details of a new EU-wide migration deal revealed that bloc leaders will seek to build centers for asylum seekers in "partner countries" in the Middle East and Africa.

"EU reception facilities for migrants in Egypt would violate the laws and constitution of our country," Egyptian Speaker of the House of Representatives Ali Abdel Aal, to Germany's Welt am Sonntag newspaper.

Read more: Chancellor Angela Merkel unveils immigration plan to allies

Aal, who co-authored Egypt's 2014 constitution, said that his country "already has about 10 million refugees from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Sudan, Somalia and other countries," and that as all asylum seekers are entitled to free health care and education, Egypt was already at capacity. The only exception, Aal said, was migrants who arrived in the country legally.

The leaders of Albania, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria have also said they will refuse to build reception centers for migrants attempting to reach the EU.

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 video

Germany's SPD rejects reception centers

The reception centers were part of an EU deal the German Chancellor Angela Merkel described in a letter to coalition partners on Saturday. The deal also includes the rapid return of migrants who have already registered in a different EU country and the strengthening of the EU's border patrol agency Frontex.

Merkel is currently facing one of the most serious crises in her government since the 2015 refugee influx as herInterior Minister Horst Seehofer threatens to close Germany's borders over her protests. The pair are set to meet and discuss the new EU plan later on Sunday.

For their own part, Merkel's coalition partners, the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), released their own plan to Spiegel magazine that rejects the call for reception centers outside the European Union.

es/aw (AFP, Reuters)

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 11:47

Jul. 01,2018 14:14

France will not open any migrant processing centers since it is not a country of first entry to the European Union, French President Emmanuel Macron said on Friday.

"France is not the country of first entry [to the EU]. Some tried to push us toward this, but I refuse because we should not review our principles and work methods again and again," Macron told a press conference at the end of a two-day European Council meeting in Brussels.

The French leader stressed that rescue at sea is the responsibility of the country closest to those in need of aid.

However, he said the EU could share the responsibility for the centers, similar to the center on the Greek island of Lesbos.

Macron is behind the decision adopted by the EU's 28 leaders to create such processing centers -- on a voluntary basis -- in the countries where migrants arrive first: in Italy, Spain, and Greece.

The 28 leaders agreed to consider setting up ''disembarkation platforms'' outside the bloc, most likely in north Africa, in a bid to stem migrants and refugee influx.

Anadolu Agency

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:40

A podcaster says he spoke on the phone to US President Donald Trump on Air Force One for almost four minutes by pretending to be a Democratic senator '-- and the President did not realise.

A voice purportedly belonging to Mr Trump discussed topics including immigration in the phone call with John "Stuttering John" Melendez, who pretended to be Senator Bob Menendez.

The recording was included in an episode of Melendez's Stuttering John Podcast.

Melendez, a comedian known for his time on the Howard Stern Show, said he was first put through to Mr Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, who asked him what he wanted to talk to the President about.

After he told him he wanted to discuss immigration, Melendez said Mr Kushner responded: "OK, cool, I'll tell him."

He said he was "shocked" Mr Trump then returned his call '-- from his plane.

Video Donald Trump purportedly speaks with comedian John Melendez

"Hi, Bob. Congratulations on everything. We're proud of you. Congratulations, great job," Mr Trump purportedly began the conversation.

"You went through a tough, tough situation and I don't think a very fair situation, but congratulations."

He did not specify what he was referring to, but New Jersey's Senator Menendez recently won his primary contest, after a hung jury spared him a conviction in a federal bribery case last year.

Republicans are reportedly pleased about his win and hope to use his legal troubles to tar other Democrats.

Image Comedian John Melendez claims to have spoken to Mr Trump.(Facebook: John Melendez)

'I'd like to do the larger solution', 'Trump' saysMelendez, as Senator Menendez, asked what he could tell his "constituents" Mr Trump was going to do about the separation of children from their parents at America's border.

"Bob, let me just tell you, I want to be able to take care of the situation every bit as much as anybody else at the top level," Mr Trump purportedly responded.

Image Mr Trump allegedly returned the podcaster's call from Air Force One.(AP: Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

"I'd like to do the larger solution, rather than the smaller solution. They're doing them step by step. I think we can do the whole thing.

"I have a good relationship with the party, you have a good relationship with the party.

"And I think we could do a real immigration bill.

"We have to have security at the border '... and that's a good issue for the Democrats too, Bob.

"It's not like it's good for you, or good for me. It's good for all of us.

"People are tired, you know, of the problem."

Image The podcaster pretended to be Democratic senator Bob Menendez.(Reuters: Joshua Roberts)

Melendez then turned the conversation to the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, and asked if Mr Trump would choose a moderate or conservative as his replacement.

"I have a big list of people, Bob, and we'll take a look at it and we're going to make a decision," Mr Trump allegedly said.

"I'll probably make it over the next couple of weeks."

US media reported that the White House did not respond to requests for comment regarding the purported phone call.

People used social media to criticise the White House's security.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:12

Photo by Flickr user CAFNR.

AUSTIN, Texas '-- Your cognitive capacity is significantly reduced when your smartphone is within reach '-- even if it's off. That's the takeaway finding from a new study from the McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin.

McCombs Assistant Professor Adrian Ward and co-authors conducted experiments with nearly 800 smartphone users in an attempt to measure, for the first time, how well people can complete tasks when they have their smartphones nearby even when they're not using them.

In one experiment, the researchers asked study participants to sit at a computer and take a series of tests that required full concentration in order to score well. The tests were geared to measure participants' available cognitive capacity '-- that is, the brain's ability to hold and process data at any given time. Before beginning, participants were randomly instructed to place their smartphones either on the desk face down, in their pocket or personal bag, or in another room. All participants were instructed to turn their phones to silent.

The researchers found that participants with their phones in another room significantly outperformed those with their phones on the desk, and they also slightly outperformed those participants who had kept their phones in a pocket or bag.

The findings suggest that the mere presence of one's smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity and impairs cognitive functioning, even though people feel they're giving their full attention and focus to the task at hand.

''We see a linear trend that suggests that as the smartphone becomes more noticeable, participants' available cognitive capacity decreases,'' Ward said. ''Your conscious mind isn't thinking about your smartphone, but that process '-- the process of requiring yourself to not think about something '-- uses up some of your limited cognitive resources. It's a brain drain.''

In another experiment, researchers looked at how a person's self-reported smartphone dependence '-- or how strongly a person feels he or she needs to have a smartphone in order to get through a typical day '-- affected cognitive capacity. Participants performed the same series of computer-based tests as the first group and were randomly assigned to keep their smartphones either in sight on the desk face up, in a pocket or bag, or in another room. In this experiment, some participants were also instructed to turn off their phones.

The researchers found that participants who were the most dependent on their smartphones performed worse compared with their less-dependent peers, but only when they kept their smartphones on the desk or in their pocket or bag.

Ward and his colleagues also found that it didn't matter whether a person's smartphone was turned on or off, or whether it was lying face up or face down on a desk. Having a smartphone within sight or within easy reach reduces a person's ability to focus and perform tasks because part of their brain is actively working to not pick up or use the phone.

''It's not that participants were distracted because they were getting notifications on their phones,'' said Ward. ''The mere presence of their smartphone was enough to reduce their cognitive capacity.''

The full study can be found here.

For more information, contact: Samantha Harris, Red McCombs School of Business, 512-471-6746.

1) it’s my Obama phone Trump won’t upgrade me.

2) I work for the TSA and this is a new portable naked body

scanner ( point phone at Person and say smile)

3) I'm from an alternate dimension where Bernie won the

election and the government now supplies everyone with these phones.

4) it’s the next generation iPhone model 33 Bakelite

edition. Can get it with optional rotary dial wall mount and hardwire.

5) Michael Jackson gave me this phone back in my MTV days so

he could Always reach out to me. Now I can’t bear to part with it.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:37

By Dr. Mercola

Google and Facebook are two of the largest and clearest monopolies in the world, and between them, the harvesting of your personal information goes far beyond what most people realize was even possible.

I have recently removed Google Search from this website and replaced with a search engine without the privacy concerns, but has similar capabilities. The search bar at the top of the website is the most used and essential feature for you to research the many thousands of pages I've published over the last 20 years.

Google catches every single thing you do online if you're using a Google-based feature, and Facebook has a record of everything you've ever said or "liked." All of this data is being used to build very powerful personality profiles that are sold for profit and used in a variety of different ways. As previously reported by Gawker:1

"Every word of every email sent through Gmail and every click made on a Chrome browser is watched by the company. 'We don't need you to type at all,' [Google co-founder Eric] Schmidt once said. 'We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about.'"

Facebook Sells Your User Data, and It Can Be Used Against YouAccording to CNN Money,2 98 percent of Facebook's revenue comes from advertising, totaling $39.9 billion last year alone. The company is now facing a firestorm after The New York Times and British media outlets reported Cambridge Analytica used "improperly gleaned" data from 87 million Facebook users to influence American voters.3

This is not the first time political parties have utilized facebook data without your knowledge, and it won't be the last. Political parties will continue to fight about who used what data to manipulate voters in the least worst way. What is important to understand is that you and your network of friends are being heavily watched and this data is sold with the intent to manipulate your actions.This manipulation is not just about politics, it's making YOU the product. The intimate details about you, your family and friends are being sold because it is valuable to entities that want to influence you.

In the video above, Cambridge Analytica data scientist Christopher Wylie, who blew the whistle on his employer, revealing the company built "a system that could profile individual U.S. voters in order to target them with personalized political advertisements" during the presidential campaign. As noted by CNN:

"If the Cambridge Analytica scandal leads to tougher data protection regulations '-- as some policymakers are demanding '-- or puts people off sharing as much about themselves online, that could hurt Facebook's revenue, and that of all social media platforms."

It's important to realize that Google is also the world's greatest artificial intelligence (AI) company, having purchased DeepMind for $400 million several years ago. DeepMind now employs over 700 AI researchers, the largest collection anywhere in the world.

They are responsible for defeating the human Go champion in 2017, which far exceeds the complexity of defeating a human chess champion. With this level of AI, it is not hard for them to sort through all your data with their deep learning algorithms to detect patterns that can be exploited for profit.

What Kind of Data Does Facebook and Google Really Have on You?In a March 30 article for The Guardian,4 Dylan Curran takes a deep dive into the data harvesting going on between Facebook and Google, and for anyone concerned about their privacy, the results are disconcerting to say the least. Here's a summary list of the kind of information these two corporations collect, track and store on each and every single user:

Extremely detailed location tracking

If you have a Google-enabled device on your person that has location tracking turned on, it will store the exact details of where you are at any given moment, and this data accumulates from the first day you started using Google on the device. To review the details of your own data, see this Google Maps Timeline link.5

Complete search histories on all devices

Google keeps tabs on everything you've ever searched for, on any device, including search histories you've deleted from an individual device. To check your own search data, see Google's MyActivity page.6

Personalized advertisement profile

Based on your data profile '-- location, gender, age, work and private interests, relationship status, income, health concerns, future plans and so on '-- Google creates personalized advertisements that might interest you. Have you ever done a search for a particular product or service and suddenly found yourself flooded with ads for that precise thing? That's your data profile at work. To see your personalized ad profile, see Google's Ads Settings.7

App usage

Do you use apps and extensions? If so, Google knows which ones you're using, how often, when, where and with whom you're interacting when you do. To see your app usage data, check out Google's Security Permission Settings.8

YouTube history

Much can be gleaned from the types of videos you're interested in, and Google keeps tabs on every single one you've ever searched for, watched and commented on. To review your own data, see your Youtube Feed History page.9

Facebook interactions

Like Google, Facebook records, tracks and stores every single thing you do on Facebook: Every post, comment, "like," private message and file ever sent and received, contacts, friends lists, login locations, stickers and more. Even the recurrent use of certain words is noted and can become valuable currency for advertisers.

When Curran downloaded all of the information Facebook has stored on him, he ended up with a 600MG file, or roughly 400,000 word documents. For individuals who start using Facebook at a young age, the lifetime data harvest could be inconceivably large. To view and download your Facebook data, see Facebook's Download Your Info page.10

Clandestine microphone access

Disturbingly, both Facebook and Google have the ability to access your microphone without your knowledge. If you suddenly find yourself on the receiving end of ads for products or services you just spoke about out loud, chances are one or more apps are linked into your microphone and are eavesdropping. Below is a video by Safer Tech describing how to disable the microphone on your device to prevent Facebook and Google apps from listening in.11

Clandestine webcam access

Your built-in webcam on your phone, tablet, laptop or computer can also be accessed by various apps. To learn more about app permissions, see "How to Master Your App Permissions So You Don't Get Hacked '-- The Full Guide," by Heimdal Security.12

As noted in this article, "For a long time, app permissions were something the regular PC user had no idea about. When installing new software on a computer, we were never asked if application X could access our web camera, our list of contacts, etc. '... App permissions may seem like a nuisance, but the better you know how they work, the safer you can keep your data."

Event tracking

By tracking your Google calendar entries, combined with your location data, Google knows what events you've attended, when and for how long.

Your fitness routine

If you use Google Fit, all the details about your fitness routine and workouts, down to how many steps you've taken on any given day, are recorded and stored.

A lifetime of photographic evidence

Twenty years ago, photos were a private matter, reminisced over in photo albums and displayed around the home. Today, people's lives are on public display online, and Google captures it all. When combined with facial recognition software and other technological identification applications, including metadata detailing the time and place of each snap, your photos are a treasure trove of private information.

A lifetime of emails

Google also has every single email you've ever sent, received and deleted.

Deleted files and information

You probably delete files and information every now and then for the sake of safety, right? You might decide to delete that list of passwords from your phone, for example, in case you lose it or it gets hacked. Well, Google still has all of that information.

As noted by Curran, showing a screen shot of his downloaded Google data, "This is my Google Drive, which includes files I explicitly deleted, including my resume, my monthly budget and all the code, files and websites I've ever made, and even my PGP private key, which I deleted, that I use to encrypt emails."

If you've done it or researched it, Google and Facebook have a record of it

Like Facebook, Google allows you to download a copy of the data they have stored on you. Curran's personal data cache from Google was 5.5GB big, equal to about 3 million word documents. Essentially, your Google account contains a detailed diary of everything you've ever done or planned to do, and where you were when you did it. To download your own Google cache, see Google's Takeout page.13

How Is Your Personal Information Being Used? Google has "your bookmarks, emails, contacts, your Google Drive files '... your YouTube videos, the photos you've taken on your phone, the businesses you've bought from, the products you've bought through Google '... data from your calendar, your Google Hangout sessions, your location history, the music you listen to, the Google books you've purchased, the Google groups you're in, the websites you've created, the phones you've owned, the pages you've shared, how many steps you walk in a day," Curran writes, noting his own data cache included:14

"'... Every Google Ad I've ever viewed or clicked on, every app I've ever launched or used and when I did it, every website I've ever visited and what time I did it at, and every app I've ever installed or searched for.

They also have every image I've ever searched for and saved, every location I've ever searched for or clicked on, every news article I've ever searched for or read, and every single Google search I've made since 2009. And then finally, every YouTube video I've ever searched for or viewed, since 2008.

This information has millions of nefarious uses. You say you're not a terrorist. Then how come you were Googling Isis? '... Manage to gain access to someone's Google account? Perfect, you have a chronological diary of everything that person has done for the last 10 years."

Indeed, the 2013 article, "What Surveillance Valley Knows About You,"15 is an eye-opening read that may be well worth your time, describing just how grossly invasive this data collection and distribution is, and how dangerous it can be if you end up on certain lists. Unfortunately, many still fail to see the problem Google presents.

Its services are useful and practical, making life easier in many ways, and more fun in others. That's the bait, and many have swallowed it hook, line and sinker, not giving any thought to the ultimate price paid for such conveniences, or simply underestimating the threat that all of this personal data collection poses. If you fall into this category, I ask you to give this issue some serious thought, because monopolies threaten our very way of life, and in more ways than one.

Employees Uneasy About Militarization of GoogleGoogle's data harvesting is particularly concerning in light of its military connections,16 and the fact the company has repeatedly been caught infringing on privacy rights and misrepresenting the type and amount of data it collects and shares on its users. Make no mistake about it: Capturing user data is Google's primary business.17 The fact that it provides practical services while doing so only serves as a convenient distraction from the fact that privacy violations are taking place.

Earlier this month, more than 3,100 Google employees signed a letter to CEO Sundar Pichai, urging him not to go ahead with plans to provide AI technology to the Pentagon's drone program, known as Project Maven. As reported by Fox News,18 "Google's AI contribution could '... improve the system's ability [to] analyze video and potentially be used to identify targets and civilians." The letter also urges Pichai to establish a corporate policy that disallows it from participating in "warfare technology."

Email correspondence obtained via freedom of information act requests also reveal Google has maintained an intimate relationship with the National Security Agency (NSA) for a number of years. In 2014, Al Jazeera19 published correspondence between NSA director general Keith Alexander and Google executives Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt. At the time, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden had gone public about the NSA's ability to spy on civilians.

In a 60 Minutes special, NSA cyberdefense chief Debora Plunkett claimed the agency had thwarted a plot by the Chinese to capitalize on a technical vulnerability in the basic input/output system (BIOS) of computers sold to the U.S. System BIOS refers to the firmware that initializes hardware activation when you start up your computer, and provides runtime services for the operating system and various programs. Plunkett claimed the NSA worked with computer manufacturers to fix the vulnerability.

However, according to Al Jazeera, the NSA did "exactly what Plunkett accused a nation-state of doing during her interview," namely inserting back doors into BIOS, thereby gaining access to the raw data of any given computer. According to a 2013 article by Spiegel Online, an internal NSA catalog reveals the agency in fact has back door access for a number of different end-user devices.20

The Making of an Orwellian State Some experts believe the plan to combine Alphabet-Google's data harvesting with a military 5G network is a very bad idea. "What could possibly go wrong with a nationalized, dual-use, military-civilian, secure 5G wireless network to centralize all military and civilian U.S. transportation traffic control and management with Alphabet-Google as the only commercial wireless ISP 'financing/anchor tenant?' Way too much," Scott Cleland, former White House deputy coordinator for international communications and information policy, writes on his blog.21

"'... National Security Council Staff apparently have a network vision for a secure 5G wireless network for the U.S. military, that is ultimately capable of C3I (command, control, communications, and intelligence) of the 'total situational-awareness,' necessary for the 21st century, 'Internet of the Battlefield' of integrated, autonomous warfare of vehicles, drones and robots '...

Who could compete with a new government-sanctioned, Alphabet-Google, 'information transportation superhighway' monopoly? Who's going to watch these watchers? And what are the incorruptible proposed checks and balances to prevent the near absolute power of a 'Google-GoverNet' from becoming a modern Orwellian Big Brother Inc.? '...

Consumer networks are the primary security vulnerability for national security networks. Alphabet-Google has well-documented hostility to cybersecurity, privacy, and accountability to government. Comingling Google's unmatched civilian surveillance database with military C3I artificial intelligence capabilities on the same network is a recipe for abuse of power '... And Alphabet-Google warrants antitrust scrutiny and prosecution, not antitrust absolution."

Protect Your Privacy by Avoiding Google and Facebook Indeed, Alphabet, the rebranded parent company of Google and its many divisions, has turned into an octopus-like super entity with tentacles reaching into government, food production, health care, education, military applications and the creation of AIs that may run more or less independently. A key component of many of these enterprises is incredibly detailed personal usage data.

Ultimately, your user data and personal details can be used for everything from creating personalized advertising to AI-equipped robotic warfare applications. As noted in previous articles, Google's involvement in education and health care also has far-reaching ramifications, and in these settings your personal data could potentially be used to influence not only your personal lifestyle decisions but also to shape society at large.

Today, being a conscious consumer includes making wise, informed decisions about technology, and two of the greatest personal data leaks in your life are Google and Facebook. Here's a summary of action steps you can take right now, starting today, to protect your privacy. For more information, see Goopocalypse.com's boycott Google page.

1. Sign the "Don't be evil" petition aimed at Google, created by Citizens Against Monopoly

2. Avoid any and all Google products:

a. Stop using Google search engines. So far, one of the best alternatives I've found is DuckDuckGo22

a. Uninstall Google Chrome and use the Opera browser instead, available for all computers and mobile devices.23 From a security perspective, Opera is far superior to Chrome and offers a free VPN service (virtual private network) to further preserve your privacy

b. If you have a Gmail account, close it and open an account with a non-Google affiliated email service such as ProtonMail,24 and encrypted email service based in Switzerland

c. Stop using Google docs. Digital Trends has published an article suggesting a number of alternatives25

d. If you're a high school student, do not convert the Google accounts you created as a student into personal accounts

3. Minimize your use of Facebook, and be mindful of what you post, click and comment on while there

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:01

AB807:v94#DOCUMENT Bill Start Assembly BillNo. 807 CHAPTER 60 An act to add Section 6808 to the Government Code, and to repeal Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Daylight Saving Time Act, an initiative measure approved at the November 8, 1949, special election, relating to daylight saving time.

[ Approved by Governor June 28, 2018. Filed with Secretary of State June 28, 2018. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 807, Chu. Daylight saving time.

Existing federal law establishes the standard time of the United States for each of 9 zones and advances the standard time of each zone by one hour during the period commencing at 2 a.m. on the 2nd Sunday of March of each year and ending at 2 a.m. on the first Sunday of November of each year. Existing state law, the Daylight Saving Time Act, which was adopted as an initiative measure by the voters at the November 8, 1949, special election, provides that the standard time within the state is that which is known, described, and designated by federal law as United States Standard Pacific Time. The act also requires, from 1 a.m. on the last Sunday of April, until 2 a.m. on the last Sunday of October, the standard time within the state to be one hour in advance of United States Standard Pacific Time.

This bill would repeal the Daylight Saving Time Actand would require the standard time within the state to be that of the 5th zone designated by federal law as Pacific standard time. The bill would require the advancement of this time by one hour during the daylight saving time period commencing at 2 a.m. on the 2nd Sunday of March of each year and ending at 2 a.m. on the first Sunday of November of each year, and would authorize the Legislature to amend these provisions by a 2/3 vote to change the dates and times of the daylight saving time period, consistent with federal law. The bill would also authorize the Legislature to amend these provisions by a 2/3 vote to provide for the application of year-round daylight saving time when authorized by federal law.

The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature toamend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective when approved by the electors.

This bill would provide that it would become effective only upon approval of the voters. It would also provide for submission of this measure to the voters for approval at the next statewide general election.

Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO

Bill TextThe people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. If federal law authorizes the state to provide for the year-round application of daylight saving time and the Legislature considers the adoption of this application, it is the intent of the this act to encourage the Legislature to consider the potential impacts of year-round daylight saving time on communities along the border between California and other states and between California and Mexico.

6808. (a) The standard time within the state is that of the fifth zone designated by federal law as Pacific standard time (15 U.S.C. Secs. 261 and 263).

(b) The standard time within the state shall advance by one hour during the daylight saving time period commencing at 2 a.m. on the second Sunday of March of each year and ending at 2 a.m. on the first Sunday of November of each year.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the Legislature may amend this section by a two-thirds vote to change the dates and times of the daylight saving time period, consistent with federal law, and, if federal law authorizes the state to provide for the year-round application of daylight saving time, the Legislature may amend this section by a two-thirds vote to provide for that application.

SEC. 8. Sections 2 to 7, inclusive, of this act amend the Daylight Saving Time Act, Proposition 12, an initiative statute approved by the voters at the November 8, 1949, special election, and shall become effective only when this act is submitted to and approved by the voters. The Secretary of State shall submit Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, of this act to the voters at a statewide election in accordance with Section 9040 of the Elections Code.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:23

TLC's "I Am Jazz" star and transgender activist Jazz Jennings says she's doing well after gender confirmation surgery. On Thursday, she wrote on Instagram, "I'm doing great, thanks for all of the love and support," and posted a hospital selfie. Jennings was assigned male at birth, but has lived as a female with the support of her family since the age of 5.

Jennings, 17, has been one of the most high-profile teen activists in the U.S. In 2014 and 2015, Time named her one of the country's most influential teens. She has been the star of the documentary series "I Am Jazz" since 2015, which just finished its fourth season.

Jennings has been candid throughout her journey, telling fans in a YouTube video about her plans for surgery and that she was "so looking forward to it."

She also said, "I've been ready for this my entire life," and added that she wanted to be open about her surgery to help other transgender teens and their families.

In 2017, the first transgender doll on the market was based on Jennings. Robert Tonner, founder and CEO of Tonner Doll Company, said, "Jazz stands for everything I respect from a human nature point of view -- she's incredibly brave, intelligent, warm-hearted and creative."

Jennings has been in the public eye for more than a decade. She was on a Barbara Walters "20/20" special at 6 years old.

(C) 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Jun 2018 20:42

The notorious White Helmets have brought chemicals, protective gear and cameras to militant-controlled Idlib in Syria, in an apparent preparation of yet another false-flag attack, locals told the Russian Reconciliation Center.

A convoy of six vehicles, bearing the emblems of the White Helmets, reportedly arrived in the capital of Idlib province over the weekend, the head of the Russian Reconciliation Center, major general Aleksey Tsygankov, told journalists on Wednesday.

READ MORE: White Helmets: A tool for 'regime change' in Syria that's too important to stop funding?

One of the trucks was loaded with missiles and canisters containing unknown substances, as well as protective gear and filming equipment. Local residents reported seeing four persons, wearing hazmat protection gear, filling the warheads with this liquid and some unknown powder. The convoy then reportedly left for the small town of Maarat al-Numaan, south of the city of Idlib.

White Helmets have on several occasions become the first to provide footage of alleged chemical attack sites in Syria and the aftermath scenes, including the Khan Shaykhun and Douma incidents. Their photos and videos served as solid-enough proof for the US and its allies to immediately conduct 'retaliatory' strikes against the Syrian government forces in April 2017 and in April 2018.

The self-styled volunteer first-responders have also been mired in controversy by their links to al-Qaeda terrorists and other extremist groups in Syria. The group operates exclusively in militant-held areas of Syria, and its members have repeatedly been photographed and filmed fraternizing with jihadists.

Despite all the controversy, the group is praised as heroic by the mainstream media and receives funding from Western governments. While Washington briefly stopped financing the group, it apparently soon realized their usefulness and released $6.6 million for the ''vital, life-saving operations'' of the so-called Syrian Civil Defense activists. London also vowed to keep financing the group, while the British Prime Minister Theresa May even pledged to increase their funding.

READ MORE: Militants manufactured poisonous agents in Syria using Western-made hardware '' Russian military

Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry repeatedly warned that it had credible intelligence that militants in Syria are involved in orchestrating false flag chemical attacks to justify Western airstrikes on Syrian government forces '' and even accused US Special Forces of helping to stage such provocations.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

“Give ‘em the whole nine yards”

Meaning: really give it to them hard

Origin: the ammo belts on B17 warplanes were 9 yards long.

In world war 2 this was how airmen encouraged each other before a sortie or

during a dogfight.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 17:33

Getty Images

Coils of steel stand on trains in front of the ThyssenKrupp steel mill on March 5, 2018 in Duisburg, Germany.

Germany's Thyssenkrupp and India's Tata Steel signed a final agreement on Saturday to establish a long-expected steel joint venture, the European steel industry's biggest shake-up in more than a decade.

The final agreement comes after months of negotiations since an initial agreement was announced in September. Both companies hope it will help them respond to challenges in the volatile steel industry, including overcapacity.

The largest deal in Europe's steel industry since the takeover of Arcelor by Mittal in 2006, the 50-50 joint venture - to be named Thyssenkrupp Tata Steel - will have about 48,000 workers and about 17 billion euros ($19.9 billion) in sales.

Based in the Netherlands, it will be the continent's second-largest steelmaker after ArcelorMittal. It forms the core of Thyssenkrupp CEO Heinrich Hiesinger's plan to turn his steel-to-submarines conglomerate into a technology company.

"The joint venture not only addresses the challenges of the European steel industry," Hiesinger said. "It is the only solution to create significant additional value of around 5 billion euros for both Thyssenkrupp and Tata Steel due to joint synergies which cannot be realized in a stand-alone scenario."

Tata Steel Chairman Natarajan Chandrasekaran, in a separate statement, said the joint venture will create "a strong pan- European steel company that is structurally robust and competitive".

The deal comes as European steel makers face tariffs of 25 percent on their exports to the United States, their biggest market. That might force local market to absorb more volume as a result.

Since the tariffs were announced in late May, shares in European steelmakers ArcelorMittal, Thyssenkrupp, Salzgitter and Voestalpine have lost 8 to 17 percent.

Fresh termsHiesinger had faced pressure from activist shareholders Cevian and Elliott to extract more commitments from Tata Steel, whose European business has performed worse than Thyssen's since the agreement was first announced, creating a valuation gap.

Thyssenkrupp said the deal included "proper compensation" for the gap, which it said was in the mid-triple-digit million- euro range: if the joint venture makes a widely expected initial public offering it would get a bigger share of the proceeds.

Thyssenkrupp said it also secured the right to decide when a listing might take place, adding the joint venture was aiming for a dividend payout in the low-to-mid-triple-digit million- euro range.

The German group also said it now expects annual synergies of 400 million to 500 million euros from the transaction. It said additional synergies were possible through managing capital expenditure and optimising working capital.

Tata Steel will remain liable for environmental risks in Britain, where its Port Talbot factory, the least profitable of the joint venture, is based, said Markus Grolms, vice chairman of Thyssenkrupp's supervisory board.

He also said that Tata Steel's Dutch unit would be part of the joint venture's cash-pooling mechanism. That had been a key demand for German workers concerned that Tata would give its own workers better conditions in the new company.

"Yes, we do want to protect people. But we also want a company with better chances and less risks," Grolms said.

Thyssenkrupp's management will present a refined strategy to its supervisory board in the second week of July. Sources said that may include a sale of its Materials Services unit and further cost cuts.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Jun 2018 20:43

London's murder rate is soaring because "feral" youths are stabbing people multiple times with zombie knives, making it virtually impossible for paramedics to save them, one of Scotland Yard's most senior officers has suggested.

Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, Martin Hewitt, said the level of violence had got significantly worse over the past five years with his officers now routinely administering "trauma medicine" on the streets of the capital.

His comments came as a 20-year-old man was found fatally stabbed in north London after reports of a fight on Wednesday evening.

The Metropolitan Police said officers were called shortly after 6.30pm to reports of a brawl between men armed with baseball bats in Cavendish Road, Edmonton. The victim had stab wounds and was pronounced dead at the scene.

A 16-year-old boy was later arrested on suspicion of murder and was in hospital for treatment before being taken to a north London police station for questioning, officers said.

Speaking at a knife crime summit, organised by the Mayor of London, Mr Hewitt said the trend towards using so-called zombie knives was making medics' jobs even more difficult because of the seriousness of the wounds being inflicted.

He said: "The violence is getting greater. If I was stood here five years ago, I would probably be talking about knife offences where there was generally a single puncture wound.

"We are now routinely seeing multiple stabbings. That is one individual stabbing somebody multiple times.

"And increasingly seeing group offending as well. By that I don't mean there's a group and one person is stabbing, I mean there's a group of people who are all using weapons.

"Some of the CCTV footage that we see is shocking and quite frankly feral when you look at a group of individuals bearing down on another person."

Mr Hewitt added: "You will have all spotted the other trend change which is the nature of the weapons being used. These so called zombie knives, the hunting knives and machetes.

"We have all seen the imagery which quite frankly is shocking and horrific from the perspective of how people view London."

There have been more than 80 murders in the capital this year with more than half of them involving knives. If the current trend continues 2018 could be London's bloodiest year for more than a decade.

Met Police Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt

But highlighting the murder of 15-year-old Jordan Douherty, who was stabbed to death in Romford, east London, on Saturday night, Mr Hewitt said the police were often met with a wall of silence when investigating the crimes.

He said: "The murder that took place over the weekend in Romford was outside a party where there were very many numbers of people none of whom saw anything that they were prepared to talk to the police about."

Mr Hewitt said while knife crime had increased across the country, it was the nature of the attacks in the capital that was driving the murder rate up.

He explained: "Every single time anybody uses a knife against another person that is potentially a murder. The reason it doesn't become a murder is often luck in terms of where the wound goes in and sometimes by the intervention that my officers are doing on the street.

"I have large numbers of officers now all over London who are routinely administering what you would call trauma medicine on the pavement and on the street in London to people who have been stabbed. And then the work obviously of paramedics and the doctors and everybody else that comes in.

"But the more violent the offences, the more chance there is that somebody is going to receive a fatal wound and I think that is part of why we have ended up where we are with the murder rate."

Mr Hewitt said while the rise in violence could not be attributed to any one reason and affected communities of all ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.

He said while the police had a ''fundamental and critical role'' to play, in tackling violence, other agencies had to play their part in addressing the causes of crime.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:27

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, right, administered the oath of office to Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a former Kennedy clerk and President Trump's first Supreme Court pick, at the White House last year. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times WASHINGTON '-- President Trump singled him out for praise even while attacking other members of the Supreme Court. The White House nominated people close to him to important judicial posts. And members of the Trump family forged personal connections.

Their goal was to assure Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that his judicial legacy would be in good hands should he step down at the end of the court's term that ended this week, as he was rumored to be considering. Allies of the White House were more blunt, warning the 81-year-old justice that time was of the essence. There was no telling, they said, what would happen if Democrats gained control of the Senate after the November elections and had the power to block the president's choice as his successor.

There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation on Wednesday, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening. ''In the past half-century, presidents have repeatedly been dying to take advantage of timely vacancies,'' said Laura Kalman, a historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

But in subtle and not so subtle ways, the White House waged a quiet campaign to ensure that Mr. Trump had a second opportunity in his administration's first 18 months to fulfill one of his most important campaign promises to his conservative followers '-- that he would change the complexion and direction of the Supreme Court.

When Mr. Trump took office last year, he already had a Supreme Court vacancy to fill, the one created by the 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But Mr. Trump dearly wanted a second vacancy, one that could transform the court for a generation or more. So he used the first opening to help create the second one. He picked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had served as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, to fill Justice Scalia's seat.

And when Justice Gorsuch took the judicial oath in April 2017 at a Rose Garden ceremony, Justice Kennedy administered it '-- after Mr. Trump first praised the older justice as ''a great man of outstanding accomplishment.''

''Throughout his nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court,'' Mr. Trump said, ''Justice Kennedy has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service.''

That was an overstatement. Justice Kennedy is reviled by many of Mr. Trump's supporters for voting to uphold access to abortion, limit the death penalty and expand gay rights. Conservatives have called for his impeachment. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, once called Justice Kennedy ''the most dangerous man in America.''

Mr. Trump himself said he wanted to appoint justices who would overrule Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. Justice Kennedy has voted to reaffirm Roe's core holding. And Mr. Trump has not hesitated to criticize far more conservative members of the Supreme Court, notably Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

''Justice Roberts turned out to be an absolute disaster, he turned out to be an absolute disaster because he gave us Obamacare,'' Mr. Trump said in 2016, presumably referring to Chief Justice Roberts's votes to sustain President Barack Obama's health care law.

There is reason to think, then, that Mr. Trump's praise of Justice Kennedy was strategic.

Then, after Justice Gorsuch's nomination was announced, a White House official singled out two candidates for the next Supreme Court vacancy: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati.

The two judges had something in common: They had both clerked for Justice Kennedy.

In the meantime, as the White House turned to stocking the lower courts, it did not overlook Justice Kennedy's clerks. Mr. Trump nominated three of them to federal appeals courts: Judges Stephanos Bibas and Michael Scudder, both of whom have been confirmed, and Eric Murphy, the Ohio solicitor general, whom Mr. Trump nominated to the Sixth Circuit this month.

One person who knows both men remarked on the affinity between Mr. Trump and Justice Kennedy, which is not obvious at first glance. Justice Kennedy is bookish and abstract, while Mr. Trump is earthy and direct.

But they had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice.

''Say hello to your boy,'' Mr. Trump said. ''Special guy.''

Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy's son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank's global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.

During Mr. Kennedy's tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump's most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.

About a week before the presidential address, Ivanka Trump had paid a visit to the Supreme Court as a guest of Justice Kennedy. The two had met at a lunch after the inauguration, and Ms. Trump brought along her daughter, Arabella Kushner. Occupying seats reserved for special guests, they saw the justices announce several decisions and hear an oral argument.

Ms. Trump tweeted about the visit and posted a photo. ''Arabella & me at the Supreme Court today,'' she wrote. ''I'm grateful for the opportunity to teach her about the judicial system in our country firsthand.''

If the overtures to Justice Kennedy from the White House were subtle, the warnings from its allies were blunt. Last month, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, went on Hugh Hewitt's radio program to issue an urgent plea.

''My message to any one of the nine Supreme Court justices,'' he said, was, '''If you're thinking about quitting this year, do it yesterday.'''

Mr. Grassley said speed was of the essence in light of the midterm elections in November. ''If we have a Democrat Senate,'' he said, ''you're never going to get the kind of people that are strict constructionists.''

Intermediaries pressed the point with Justice Kennedy privately, telling him that Donald F. McGahn II, Mr. Trump's White House counsel, would in all probability leave after the midterms. Mr. McGahn has been a key architect of Mr. Trump's successful efforts to appoint wave after wave of conservative judges, they said, and his absence would complicate a Supreme Court confirmation.

There is nothing particularly unusual in urging older justices to retire for partisan reasons. During the Obama administration, prominent liberals called for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire so that Mr. Obama could name her successor.

Justice Kennedy waited until the last day of the term to announce his retirement. The move disappointed liberals who had hoped that he would not want Mr. Trump to name his successor. But the justice, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family, betrayed no hesitation.

His departure is a triumph for Mr. Trump, who has taken particular satisfaction in his judicial appointments. Naming justices and judges is easier than forging legislative compromises, and Mr. Trump understands that his judicial appointments represent a legacy that will long outlast his presidency.

Replacing Justice Scalia with another conservative did not alter the basic ideological balance of the court. But replacing Justice Kennedy, who for decades held the decisive vote in many of the court's closely divided cases, would give Mr. Trump the opportunity to move the court sharply to the right.

Justice Kennedy visited the White House on Wednesday to tell Mr. Trump of his retirement and to deliver a letter setting out the details. Its warm opening words '-- ''My dear Mr. President'' '-- acknowledged a cordial relationship between the two men, as well as the success of the White House's strategy.

Adam Liptak reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Charlie Savage contributed reporting from Washington, and David Enrich from New York.

A version of this article appears in print on

, on Page

A

1

of the New York edition

with the headline:

Behind Scenes, Urging Justice To Move Aside

. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:50

Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress and political scientistBrendan Nyhan recently had a fascinatingdiscussion on Twitter'--a phrase I don't often use'--about the condition ofAmerican democracy (not good, all agreed) and what that meant for the next timeDemocrats gained control of both Congress and the White House. Even with a unifiedgovernment, anti-democratic features in the American system, including aSupreme Court that leans right thanks to a stolen seat, will make genuineprogress difficult to impossible. So what should Democrats do? The discussionessentially concerned what the legal scholar Mark Tushnet labeled ''constitutionalhardball'': that is, the use of legal but non-normative means to pursuepositive ends. When it comes to the Supreme Court, Millhiser wrote, Democrats ''mayneed to make some very difficult choices'', including whether to pack the Court.

While the judiciary in America has accrued a substantialamount of power, this power is muchmore fragile than is commonly assumed. Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the powerto establish (or not) lower courts as it sees fit, and also to expand the sizeof the Supreme Court. Congress can alsomake ''exceptions'' and ''regulations'' to the appellate jurisdiction of thecourts. These potentially powerful tools make the judiciary vulnerable toconstitutional hardball.

Why has judicial power paradoxically thrived given theweapons that Congress can theoretically use to cut it down to size? Quitesimply, because political (C)lites generally favor it. This shouldn't be allthat surprising. Supreme Court justices, after all, are nominated by presidentsand confirmed by Senate majorities, and despite the myth of the courts as a''counter-majoritarian institution,'' the Supreme Court is rarely far outside thepolitical mainstream. In some cases, like the conservative courts of the GildedAge or the Warren Court at the height of liberalism under LBJ, the courts areactive partners of a dominant national governing coalition.

Since early in the Nixon administration, the median vote on the Court has been a moderate Republican, such as Lewis Powell, Sandra DayO'Connor, and now Anthony Kennedy. These courts have generally beenconservative, but deliver enough victories to both sides to maintain elite andpopular support for the institution. Indeed, in part because liberal victoriesunder the Roberts Court have been fewer but tend to be higher-profile (mostnotably on same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and two cases involving theAffordable Care Act), the Court is actually morepopular among liberals than conservatives.

But it's crucial to remember that this equilibrium iscontingent, not inevitable. Republicans during Reconstruction manipulated thesize of the Court, briefly adding a tenth member, and while FDR's initialCourt-packing proposal'--which was presented in an uncharacteristicallyham-handed manner'--failed, the constitutional crisis that compelled it quicklyfaded as Justice Owen Roberts startedvoting with the Court's liberals to uphold New Deal programs. Soon after,retirements allowed FDR to make enough nominees to ensure a Court that wouldnot interfere with the core New Deal agenda.

It would be very wrong, however, to assume that theoverwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress would have continued to donothing had the Court kept striking down critical New Deal programs. Had theCourt refused to back down in 1937, it very likely would have resulted in somecombination of Court-packing and jurisdiction-stripping.

Our contemporary elite polarization means thatthe center-right Courts of the last four decades will be a thing of the past assoon as Justice Kennedy leaves: The median vote of the Court will be either a conservativelike John Roberts or Sam Alito, or a liberal in the mold of Elena Kagan or RuthBader Ginsburg. That the Court will be strongly aligned with one politicalfaction during a time of close partisan competition is tinder that could easilyfuel a constitutional crisis.

As Nyhan argued, drastic steps like Court-packing carry realcosts and should not be undertaken lightly. A Democratic Congress adding twoseats to the Court would not be the end of the story, but the beginning of anescalating cycle of constitutional hardball in which the size of the Court ismanipulated through both Court-packing and the refusal of the Senate to confirmnominees to fill vacancies during time of divided government. As Millhiser acknowledged,''packing the Court would effectively destroy the legitimacy of the federaljudiciary and potentially embolden right states license to ignore decisionsthey don't like. No more Roe. No moreObergefell. No more Fourth Amendment.''All things being equal, the nine-member Court equilibrium is preferable totit-for-tat attacks on the judiciary.

If the Democrats take over Congress and the White House in2021 with Anthony Kennedy as the median justice'--giving them a realistic chanceof replacing him'--it would be wise for Democrats to hold their fire, barring theSupreme Court serially striking down major legislation on speciousconstitutional grounds (which the decisions of the Obama era suggest isunlikely).

But what if Donald Trump is able to replace Kennedy, and,God forbid, justices Stephen Breyer and/or Ginsburg as well? There is no goodoutcome in this scenario. Republicans would have a hammerlock on a nine-member Court for decades. If Trump gets two nominees, this Court is likely to be wellto the right of the current Roberts Court and likely to go to war with aDemocratic Congress.

Even worse, the decisive nominations would be a product of aRepublican Senate refusing to allow a president who won two majorities to filla vacancy, and then confirming multiple nominees of a president who lost thepopular vote by a substantial margin. Court-packing is bad, but allowing anentrenched majority on the Supreme Court to represent a minority party thatrefuses to let Democratic governments govern would not be acceptable ordemocratically legitimate, either.

For this reason, it would be very unwise for Democrats torule anything out. They should be careful not to blow up the power of judicialreview without good cause. But if desperate Republicans try to establish an anti-Democratic rearguard on the Supreme Court before they get swept out ofoffice, Democrats have to leave all options on the table.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:12

LAS VEGAS '-- Police officer Cordell Hendrex should resign and not be praised by Las Vegas politicians.

But that's not happening.

The local politicians are not blaming Hendrex and the three-armed Mandalay Bay security officers who remained on the 31st floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel as Stephen Paddock's gunfire, one floor above them, was raining down bullets that were slaughtering and wounding Route 91 Music Festival attendees on the night of the worst mass shooting in modern American history.

Las Vegas officials had only praise for the police response after they viewed the video footage from Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Officer Elif Varsin's body-worn camera according to a story published Satruday by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

That footage showed that Varsin, Officer Cordell Hendrex and three armed Mandalay Bay security managers remained on the 31stfloor and failed to take any action to get to the 32ndfloor to confront Paddock.

Las Vegas Councilman Steve Seroka told the newspaper he was impressed with how the officers were proceeding. ''I saw nothing but professionalism and so much courage.''

Clark County Commissioner, Steve Sisolak, who is the Democratic candidate for Nevada Governor, told the newspaper it was difficult for him to form an opinion on what he saw on the video without knowing what previous orders or instructions the officers may have received.

Las Vegas City Councilman, Bob Coffin told the newspaper, ''They could have done nothing more except shoot their own people on the floor above.''

Clark County Commissioner, Jim Gibson told the newspaper he supported the actions the officers took.

Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman, wife of former Las Vegas Mayor and mob attorney, Oscar Goodman told the newspaper that there is protocol and a process for law enforcement and that everyone must follow protocol.

What protocol and what previous orders and instructions would police officers need during an active shooter incident that is occurring in real time?

There is only one protocol; Get to the shooter and neutralize the threat. That's it period.

How anyone could watch that video and justify Hendrex's actions is not only disgraceful, but it is an insult to all 22,000 concert attendees, the 58 who were murdered, the 422 who were wounded by gunfire and the families of the deceased.

Hendrex is a ten-year police veteran and a field training officer and the leader that night of an armed contingent of four. They did nothing but listen to the gunfire and the police radios as the horror continued.

As his own fellow officers were risking their lives running through the gunfire to get into the Mandalay Bay Hotel to get to the shooter, Hendrex cowered on the 31stfloor.

To all those Las Vegas politicians, you are not only ignorant, but you are a disgrace to your public office. Keep towing the political line and doing damage control.

In an October 9, 2017, New York Times article, the Times quoted Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo who runs the LVMPD, that during their interview with Lombardo he said, ''You have to give authority to boots on the ground to act, without having to ask for permission.''

I guess Mayor Goodman, that Hendrex must not have gotten that message, as you said they have a protocol to follow.

One more thing. Mr. Coffin, there were no other police officers on the 32ndfloor during the time Hendrex was retreating on the 31stfloor.

I watched the video of Hendrex cowering on that floor and it made me sick.

How many lives could have been saved had some action been taken, we will never know.

On Thursday we all saw another tragedy when a gunman entered the offices of the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis Maryland and killed five people and wounded two others. The police response to that active shooter incident was damn near perfect. The police didn't wait for backup, they went right in to confront the threat.

The police in Annapolis didn't know where in the building the shooter was or how he was armed.

Hendrex was told while on the 31st floor that the gunfire was coming from 32-135 and he did nothing.

The only protocol a police officer has is to act to save lives.

If you are wearing a badge and you can't accept that responsibility, then have the courage to resign. That would be act of bravery. Don't disgrace the police profession by remaining on the job. You will dishonor all the law enforcement officers who have given their lives in the line of duty protecting the public.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:51

An active volcano has been unexpectedly discovered beneath a rapidly vanishing glacier in Antarctica by a team of scientists studying the melting ice shelf.

While rising temperatures in the polar oceans are still by far the biggest contributor to Antarctic melting, volcanoes buried deep beneath the ice are a ''wild card'' that are likely also playing a role.

Scientists have warned this hidden source of heat must be taken into consideration when predicting future sea level rise.

Read more Antarctica melting faster than ever before, according to major study

West Antarctica is thought to contain well over 100 volcanoes, but finding them and understanding their contribution to ice melting has proved difficult.

During a survey conducted in 2014, a team of British and American scientists stumbled across one of them while exploring the effect of warming ocean waters on the ice shelf.

Chemical data from water samples revealed an active source of volcanic heat beneath the Pine Island glacier, which is the fastest-melting glacier in the entire region.

Though there have been no eruptions in Antarctica for more than 2,000 years, the heat from this hidden volcano could be contributing to this rapid decline.

Hawaii Kilauea volcano eruption: in pictures 1/30 Channelized lava emerges on Kilauea Volcano's lower East Rift Zone on Hawaii. The USGS said on its website that "a fast-moving pahoehoe lava flow that emerged from fissure 20... continues to flow southeast," with the quickest of three "lobes" progressing at 230 yards (210 meters) per hour.

AFP/US Geological Survey

2/30 Lava erupts and flows from a Kilauea volcano fissure in Leilani Estates, on Hawaii's Big Island

Getty Images

3/30 A plume of ash rises from a crater in the Mount Kilauea volcano after a magnitude 6.9 earthquake struck the area, near Pahoa, Hawaii

EPA/USGS HANDOUT

4/30 Kilauea has opened 14 lava-and-gas spewing fissures in total

Rex

5/30 United States Geological Survey

6/30 Lava from a Kilauea volcano fissure advances up a residential street in Leilani Estates, on Hawaii's Big Island, on May 27, 2018 in Pahoa, Hawaii

Mario Tama/Getty Images

7/30 A massive flow of lava consumes houses in Leilani Estates

EPA/PARADISE HELICOPTERS

8/30 Lava flows past trees on the outskirts of Pahoa during ongoing eruptions of the Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii.

REUTERS

9/30 A plume of ash rises from Kilauea Volcano after a series of earthquakes over the last couple of days

USGS/Handout via Reuters

10/30 Lava emerges from the ground after Kilauea Volcano erupted

11/30 Steam rises from a fissure on a road in Leilani Estates subdivision on Hawaii's Big Island

AFP/Getty

12/30 This thermal image (looking south) shows the active overflows from the lava lake (upper left) onto the Halema'uma'u crater floor. View is toward the south.

Rex

13/30 The results of the eruption from Kilauea Volcano on Hawaii's Big Island

AP

14/30 Lava is seen coming from a fissure in Leilani Estates subdivision on Hawaii's Big Island

FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

15/30 An aerial view of a flow of lava moves to the doorsteps of the Puna Geothermal Venture facility after a new fissure eruption within Leilani Estates sending a fast moving flow of lava began to consume homes and property, near Pahoa, Hawaii

EPA/BRUCE OMORI/Paradise Helicopters

16/30 Smoke rises from the Pu'u 'O'o crater on the Kilauea volcano in Hawaii

EPA

17/30 Up to 10,000 people were ordered to evacuate as flows of red lava entered residential areas

Reuters

18/30 A fissure erupts in Leilani Estates, one of the communities most vulnerable to Hawaii's Kilauea volcano

AP

19/30 Smoke billows from Pu'u 'O'o crater on the Hawaii's Big Island

EPA

20/30 Remote image released by U.S. Geological Survey, shows a new lava fissure on Kilauea Volcano's lower East Rift Zone on Makamae and Leilani Streets

USGS via AP

21/30 Kilauea volcano's Pu'u O'o vent on Hawaii's main island

AP

22/30 Lava flows over a road in the Puna District as a result of the eruption from Kilauea on Hawaii's Big Island

Byron Matthews via AP

23/30 Kilauea volcano erupts

AP

24/30 Lava flowing over Mohala Street in the Leilani Estates area near Pahoa

Hawaii Electric Light via AP

25/30 An aerial view of a massive surface flow entering the sea at Malama Flats

EPA

26/30 Satellite photo provided by DigitalGlobe shows lava coming out of fissures caused by Kilauea

AP via DigitalGlobe

27/30 The fissure complex, pictured in the upper right, continues to feed a meandering lava flow (in the center). into the Pacific Ocean in southeast of Pahoa during ongoing eruptions of the Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii

REUTERS

28/30 Lava erupts from a Kilauea volcano fissure

Getty Images

29/30 A U.S. National Guard soldier (R) takes photos as lava erupts and flows from a Kilauea volcano fissure in Leilani Estates, on Hawaii's Big Island

Getty Images

30/30 Getty Images/iStockphoto

1/30 Channelized lava emerges on Kilauea Volcano's lower East Rift Zone on Hawaii. The USGS said on its website that "a fast-moving pahoehoe lava flow that emerged from fissure 20... continues to flow southeast," with the quickest of three "lobes" progressing at 230 yards (210 meters) per hour.

AFP/US Geological Survey

2/30 Lava erupts and flows from a Kilauea volcano fissure in Leilani Estates, on Hawaii's Big Island

Getty Images

3/30 A plume of ash rises from a crater in the Mount Kilauea volcano after a magnitude 6.9 earthquake struck the area, near Pahoa, Hawaii

EPA/USGS HANDOUT

4/30 Kilauea has opened 14 lava-and-gas spewing fissures in total

Rex

5/30 United States Geological Survey

6/30 Lava from a Kilauea volcano fissure advances up a residential street in Leilani Estates, on Hawaii's Big Island, on May 27, 2018 in Pahoa, Hawaii

Mario Tama/Getty Images

7/30 A massive flow of lava consumes houses in Leilani Estates

EPA/PARADISE HELICOPTERS

8/30 Lava flows past trees on the outskirts of Pahoa during ongoing eruptions of the Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii.

REUTERS

9/30 A plume of ash rises from Kilauea Volcano after a series of earthquakes over the last couple of days

USGS/Handout via Reuters

10/30 Lava emerges from the ground after Kilauea Volcano erupted

11/30 Steam rises from a fissure on a road in Leilani Estates subdivision on Hawaii's Big Island

AFP/Getty

12/30 This thermal image (looking south) shows the active overflows from the lava lake (upper left) onto the Halema'uma'u crater floor. View is toward the south.

Rex

13/30 The results of the eruption from Kilauea Volcano on Hawaii's Big Island

AP

14/30 Lava is seen coming from a fissure in Leilani Estates subdivision on Hawaii's Big Island

FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

15/30 An aerial view of a flow of lava moves to the doorsteps of the Puna Geothermal Venture facility after a new fissure eruption within Leilani Estates sending a fast moving flow of lava began to consume homes and property, near Pahoa, Hawaii

EPA/BRUCE OMORI/Paradise Helicopters

16/30 Smoke rises from the Pu'u 'O'o crater on the Kilauea volcano in Hawaii

EPA

17/30 Up to 10,000 people were ordered to evacuate as flows of red lava entered residential areas

Reuters

18/30 A fissure erupts in Leilani Estates, one of the communities most vulnerable to Hawaii's Kilauea volcano

AP

19/30 Smoke billows from Pu'u 'O'o crater on the Hawaii's Big Island

EPA

20/30 Remote image released by U.S. Geological Survey, shows a new lava fissure on Kilauea Volcano's lower East Rift Zone on Makamae and Leilani Streets

USGS via AP

21/30 Kilauea volcano's Pu'u O'o vent on Hawaii's main island

AP

22/30 Lava flows over a road in the Puna District as a result of the eruption from Kilauea on Hawaii's Big Island

Byron Matthews via AP

23/30 Kilauea volcano erupts

AP

24/30 Lava flowing over Mohala Street in the Leilani Estates area near Pahoa

Hawaii Electric Light via AP

25/30 An aerial view of a massive surface flow entering the sea at Malama Flats

EPA

26/30 Satellite photo provided by DigitalGlobe shows lava coming out of fissures caused by Kilauea

AP via DigitalGlobe

27/30 The fissure complex, pictured in the upper right, continues to feed a meandering lava flow (in the center). into the Pacific Ocean in southeast of Pahoa during ongoing eruptions of the Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii

REUTERS

28/30 Lava erupts from a Kilauea volcano fissure

Getty Images

29/30 A U.S. National Guard soldier (R) takes photos as lava erupts and flows from a Kilauea volcano fissure in Leilani Estates, on Hawaii's Big Island

Getty Images

30/30 Getty Images/iStockphoto

''The west Antarctic ice sheet has existed for tens of thousands of years and it has happily coexisted with volcanic activity happening within and underneath it,'' Dr Rob Larter, a marine geophysicist at the British Antarctic Survey told The Independent.

''Because of the episodic nature of volcanic activity it's something that's very difficult to factor into future projections '' it's a wild card.''

Measuring volcanism in Antarctica is problematic as the traditional means of assessing volcanoes '' heat and smoke '' are difficult to assess in sources buried deep below the ice.

In their current study, published in the journal Nature Communications, a team led by Professor Brice Loose of the University of Rhode Island measured a form of helium in the water they described as ''a fingerprint for volcanism''.

Read more Climate change could trigger volcanic eruptions across the world

Recent analysis revealed that ice melting in Antarctica '' particularly west Antarctica '' is taking place faster than ever before.

The Pine Island glacier is particularly unstable, and made headlines in 2017 when it lost a chunk of ice four times the size of Manhattan.

''The discovery of volcanoes beneath the Antarctic ice sheet means that there is an additional source of heat to melt the ice, lubricate its passage toward the sea, and add to the melting from warm ocean waters,'' said Professor Karen Heywood of the University of East Anglia, who was the expedition's chief scientist.

''It will be important to include this in our efforts to estimate whether the Antarctic ice sheet might become unstable and further increase sea level rise.''

Dr Robert Bingham, a glaciologist at the University of Edinburgh who has discovered dozens of Antarctic volcanoes, said the melting was probably not a major contributor.

New land forms as lava from Hawaii volcano meets the ocean''I don't think people should look at volcanoes underneath west Antarctica as a serious concern for causing instability,'' he said.

However, Dr Bingham, who was not involved in the new study, suggested that as climate change-induced melting increases, volcanic activity could also increase.

''If you have got thinning ice cover over a volcanic region there is every reason to suggest it will increase the volcanism,'' he said.

As the pressure exerted on the mantle by the glacier decreases and allows more heat to escape, this could cause a feedback loop in which the melt rate continues to increase.

The researchers behind the new study said understanding the rate of sea level rise due to a melting Antarctica will be crucial in the coming years, and monitoring the region's volcanoes will be a key part in this process.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 13:08

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 13:35

by Leah McSweeney

First off, let me say that I can't believe I even have to write this. I wanted to keep this piece more about facts and less about my personal opinion, but it's impossible for me to do that. I need to get this shit out of my system. Because enough is enough.

On June 8th, celebrity chef, author, and food show host Anthony Bourdain hanged himself in his French hotel room. Although Bourdain had openly talked about his battles with addiction and depression, the world was shocked that he had taken his own life. The question on everyone's minds: Why would he do this?

However, as the days went by and the press storm raged on, another question arose, this one not about why Bourdain committed suicide, but about how his girlfriend, actress Asia Argento, and a friend of the couple, actress Rose McGowan, came to be feminist heroes to so many American women.

How are these things connected, besides the fact that Argento was dating Bourdain when he died?

Hear me out, because what has unfolded in the wake of Bourdain's death is a display of chronic, predatory narcissism from Argento and McGowan. These two women have used and abused the #MeToo movement'--which they have been at the front lines of since the beginning'--for their own personal gain. I know it's uncouth for me to say that, but I'm saying it. I'm uncouth. Kick me off the planet, ladies.

I'm not arguing that Argento's public indiscretions with French journalist Hugo Cl(C)ment caused Bourdain's death. (More on that later.) People cheat on one another. I've been there. Most of us have. Lust has a hard time steering your moral compass when you're drunk on pheromones. It's not the adulterous sex that eats you up inside, but the lie afterwards.

I, for one, have made a daily'--okay, weekly, maybe monthly'--commitment to owning my shit. That's the only way I've been able to quiet the noise inside my head and find any kind of peace in my life. (That, along with therapy, exercise, 12-step meetings, antidepressants, and so on.) To me, it's all about personal responsibility. Which is why I would never blame anyone for someone else's decision to kill themselves.

That said, it's ironic that since Bourdain's suicide, we have witnessed a display of totally irreconcilable behavior from two women who are among the most prominent faces of a movement that centers around accountability.

Born in Rome, Asia Argento was raised in a family of famous Italian artists. Her father, Dario Argento, is a director and screenwriter best known for his innovative and influential horror movies. Her mother is the actress Daria Nicolodi, who starred in several of her husband's films. Beyond this, Argento has a lineage of family members who were musicians and composers, including her maternal grandfather, Alfredo Casella.

On October 10th of last year, journalist Ronan Farrow published a bombshell New Yorker article in which 13 women made allegations against Hollywood kingpin Harvey Weinstein, sharing accounts not only of sexual misconduct and harassment, but also rape.

Credited with initiating the contemporary #MeToo movement, the article detailed what it called Argento's ''rape'' experience with Weinstein, one very similar to Rose McGowan's own experience with the producer. Wrote Farrow: ''Asia Argento, an Italian film actress and director, said that she did not speak out until now'--Weinstein, she told me, forcibly performed oral sex on her'--because she feared that Weinstein would 'crush' her.'' Argento went on to tell Farrow, ''I know he has crushed a lot of people before. That's why this story'--in my case, it's twenty years old, some of them are older'--has never come out.''

And you know what? I wasn't going to go there. But fuck it. I'm going there. I'm going there because someone needs to. American journalists today are scared. They are cowards. Their opinion pieces are timid when it comes to topics like this, while they share a much different view when texting in private. So here is the ugly fucking truth everyone, because you have all been spoon-fed a bunch of idealistic garbage over and over and over.

Argento and McGowan describe Weinstein giving them oral sex, and both say they faked an orgasm in hopes of getting the experience over with as fast as possible. Calling this ''rape'' is doing our society, including sexual-assault survivors, a disservice on so many levels. I was raped when I was 15 years old. I know a lot of women will accuse me of victim-blaming, but at some point we have to remove the impenetrable shield that one receives when she is considered a victim.

Argento went on to have a consensual relationship with Weinstein for several years. The New Yorker article is what thrust the Italian actress into America's cultural conversation. Before this, the American media knew little about her.

Make no mistake, Weinstein is a monster. He is a total predator, and I consider the women who spoke out against him to be very brave. But what Argento and McGowan are doing is not brave. In fact, it's disingenuous. Rape and sexual transactions are worlds apart, and they need to stay worlds apart.

Argento was not blackmailed. She was not threatened. She had a sexual relationship with Weinstein which resulted in a transactional, consensual union, because'--let's be honest'--that's how Hollywood works. Fast-forward a few years and Argento saw a bigger opportunity: She could brand herself as a survivor.

Anthony Bourdain met Argento on the set of his wildly popular CNN show Parts Unknown when he was filming in Rome. Argento, a single mother of two and Italian celebrity, ended up a guest on the show. In February 2017, not long after they met on camera, the New York Post confirmed the two had started dating. One quick scroll through the couple's individual social media accounts reveals that Bourdain was completely smitten with Argento, posting photos of her on the regular with heartwarming comments.

Bourdain was openly supportive of Argento's involvement in the #MeToo movement as she rose to be one of its most prominent and vocal crusaders. Bourdain never held back when standing up for her or any part of the #MeToo movement, even defending McGowan and her feminist activism. The #MeToo movement had accrued a strong new male ally in Bourdain.

Bourdain had built his brand around captivating storytelling and a ''no fucks given'' attitude. He was honest about his shortcomings'--struggles with drugs and alcohol and depression'--while also detailing the craziness of the culinary world. My sister Sarah put me on to him after she read his memoir Kitchen Confidential. I stole her book when she was done, and I was hooked. We both were. How could you not be? Tall, successful, smart as fuck, bad boy, deep with a dark streak. The country swooned for Anthony Bourdain. He became our very own American ambassador. He made us proud, representing our nation while he traveled the world filming his series.

Bourdain gushed publicly over Argento, and when it came to her career, he was her biggest supporter. This is what you do when you love someone and believe in them. He wanted her to succeed because he adored her. His influence led to her new role as a judge on the Italian version of X-Factor, and he hired her to direct an episode of Parts Unknown when the series filmed in Hong Kong. The segment aired on June 3rd. In the closing scene, Bourdain stated what many of his fans had already figured out when it came to his feelings for Argento: ''To fall in love with Asia is one thing. To fall in love in Asia is another. Both have happened to me.''

But in the days leading up to his suicide, things between the couple seemed to get rocky.

On June 5th, three days before Bourdain's suicide, paparazzi photos of Argento and the young French reporter Cl(C)ment, 28, were published in the Italian gossip magazine Chi. The photos showed the two holding hands, kissing, hugging, and dancing in a bar in Rome.

Argento fought to have the photographs pulled. Bourdain was mysteriously no longer following his girlfriend on Instagram. Argento then posted an Instagram story of herself in a Sid Vicious shirt that said Fuck Everyone, and captioned the image: ''You know who you are.'' Three hours later he killed himself. And she deleted the image off of her instagram story.

Hours after it was confirmed that Bourdain had died, Argento quickly posted a statement regarding her boyfriend's death on Instagram. We've all seen the message. It floated through the American media for weeks. Argento inserted herself into the coverage surrounding Bourdain's suicide, and received an outpouring of sympathy, while Bourdain's wife of ten years, Ottavia (the couple separated in 2016), remained silent and removed from the circus.

Why was Argento'--who had only been dating Bourdain for a year and a half'--speaking out on his behalf, instead of the woman he was legally married to at the time of his death, the mother of his 11-year-old daughter? Why has the American media been tiptoeing around the scandalous, romantic photos of Argento and Cl(C)ment?

As numerous eloquent tributes to Bourdain were published, Argento decided she was too grief-stricken to continue speaking publicly, and handed the torch to Rose McGowan. The former Charmed star penned a letter to the public on behalf of Argento, which McGowan's publicist, Nathaniel Baruch at Brigade Marketing, promptly emailed to Rolling Stone.

McGowan's letter opens by saying Argento is now a victim not only of rape but of suicide.

''Sitting across from me,'' she writes, ''is the remarkable human and brave survivor, Asia Argento, who has been through more than most could stand, and yet stand she does. She stood up to her monster rapist and now she has to stand up to yet another monster, suicide. The suicide of her beloved lover and ally, Anthony Bourdain. I write these truths because I have been asked to.''

McGowan then discusses Bourdain and Argento's alleged ''open relationship'' in an obvious attempt to justify the photos with Cl(C)ment. It's too bad Bourdain isn't here to confirm her statement that he and Argento were ''free birds'' who ''loved without borders.''

McGowan reminds the reader to ''NOT do the sexist thing and burn a woman on the pyre of misplaced blame,'' and then says that Bourdain allegedly reached out to a doctor for help with his depression but did not take his advice. (How the fuck she knows that information and why she chose to disclose it remains a big fat question mark.)

McGowan also states that both Argento and Bourdain suffered from depression, but ''she did the work to get help, so she could stay alive and live another day for her and her children,'' while Bourdain's depression usurped him. ''His decision, not hers,'' McGowan writes. ''His depression won.''

What is brave about manipulating a narrative surrounding a man's death? What is courageous about having McGowan speak on Argento's behalf, while Ottavia Bourdain has to tell her 11-year-old daughter that her father is never coming home? I can't even find a word to describe what that is. It is stomach-turning. To hide behind the story of being a rape survivor and to shelter one's self with the #MeToo movement is disgusting.

As the mother of an 11-year-old girl, I've tried to imagine being in Ottavia's shoes. I imagine having to tell my daughter how her father died. Then I imagine that the most grief that Ottavia is feeling is not that Bourdain is dead and gone, but that she can't fix it. She can't take that pain away from her child. Thinking about it makes me feel so sad. Yet, Ottavia remains stoically silent. She has to protect her family. It blows my mind that McGowan and Argento never thought about Bourdain's daughter before kick-starting their media circus with that open letter.

Why is the American media protecting Argento and McGowan's victim narrative? Why are they feeding it like the ugly, insatiable beast that it is? Have we forgotten that the #MeToo movement was started in 2006 by 44-year-old Tarana Burke to inspire healing for sexual assault survivors in her black community in the Bronx? I interviewed Burke on my podcast, Improper Etiquette, and her selfless story is so far removed from the celebrities like Argento and McGowan who have co-opted it. That said, would #MeToo have the power it does now without Hollywood's endorsement? Probably not. But that's a matter separate from the behavior of Argento and McGowan in the aftermath of Bourdain's passing.

Although Argento claimed she was so distraught that she required McGowan to be her voice, she has been very active on her social media, filling her Instagram feed with stories and posts. In one of them she posed wearing a Suicidal Tendencies parody shirt while touting the hashtag #stayingalive.

In mid-June, a mysterious Instagram account called @justicefortony emerged, then shut down some days later (there were people on social media pushing for the account to be stopped.) However, when it was initially live, the first post was a black box with the following cryptic comment:

''Not surprised she blocked me. Having the truth out there was becoming too uncomfortable. She was a monster to him. She took an already very damaged and very sensitive man and destroyed him. His friends and coworkers tried their best to make him see what was going on, but he would just push everyone away. No one could say anything negative about Asia or Tony would try to remove them from his life.''

The post went on to describe how Bourdain had one of his longtime crew members fired at Argento's request, and how much Bourdain had changed after dating the actress.

''In the end those pictures were too much,'' wrote the creator of @justicefortony, referring to the paparazzi photos of Argento and Cl(C)ment. ''He must have finally realized what she was doing and his world came crushing down.''

So what led to Bourdain's death? Do we just say it was depression? I think suicide is a lot more complicated than that. It goes against everything our brain and body tell us to do. Most of us wake up every morning and try our best to stay alive. Basically, we do shit to avoid dying. But perhaps a person can hit their pain threshold, and everyone's is different.

Men don't deal with humiliation the same way women do. Men sometimes murder their lovers over humiliation. They also kill themselves over feeling humiliated. That doesn't mean that we women should be held responsible for men's behavior. Fuck no. But we should recognize how powerful we can be. We can choose to use our power any way we want. Maybe we should acknowledge that power, so we can proceed accordingly?

In the comment section of @justicefortony, its creator went on to detail the fighting that took place between Bourdain and Argento before his death.

''They started fighting on Tuesday,'' the person wrote. ''Tony had to leave the set multiple times to talk to her on the phone. Things escalated on Wednesday when by all accounts she told him she no longer wanted to be with him. Everyone was keeping an eye on him all day and night because he was incredibly distraught.''

@justicefortony went on to state that this was not the first time the couple had broken up, and that by Thursday, Bourdain seemed to be better and ''kind of wanted everyone to back off.''

Days later, @justicefortony continued, ''Knowing this, her posts about Tony being her love and her rock were particularly distasteful. If she just disappeared and stopped harassing everyone, if she didn't have Rose write that awful letter, if she didn't try to gain from his death, I wouldn't be here writing this.''

I would be skeptical of this random, anonymous reveal if it weren't for the fact that Ottavia Bourdain was following @justicefortony.

On May 20th at the Cannes Film Festival, Argento gave a speech about her 1997 alleged rape by Weinstein. (From the audience, Cl(C)ment filmed her address and posted it on his Twitter.) The Washington Post and other media outlets hailed the moment as ''powerful.''

I wouldn't call it powerful. Argento was onstage to present the award for Best Actress and used that spotlight to talk about herself and further her #MeToo agenda. Then she had the audacity to throw shade at Ava Duvernay for not giving her enough support as they shared the podium during her impromptu speech. Argento later tweeted to Mia Farrow that no one came up to her and acknowledged her speech except for Spike Lee. Did she give this speech with the expectation of praise, or to advocate for a movement she claims to deeply care about?

Earlier this year, McGowan published a memoir called Brave. It details her fight against the evil showbiz industry. Ironically, she then came out with an E! network reality show, Citizen Rose, to promote her book tour. So much for dismantling the evils of Hollywood.

When I first saw McGowan in the 1995 movie Doom Generation, I thought she was iconic. I was obsessed with that movie and her entire look. She had so many great moments during her career that I supported, including her barely-there chain dress on MTV's red carpet in the late nineties. And she had my support when she came out against Weinstein, but in hindsight, I question her claims and motives. I question if she understands how irresponsible it was to call her #RoseArmy to action when Weinstein released an email from her former manager that challenged her rape claims. (Her former manager, Jill Messick, committed suicide after the harassment from #RoseArmy.) So yeah, I question McGowan's movement . And it's my right to be able to do that.

Last month, McGowan hired accused child killer Casey Anthony's lawyer, Jose Baez, to represent her in court as she is facing up to ten years for cocaine possession. She claims that Weinstein planted the drugs in her wallet in an effort to delegitimize her.

Two women who dreamt of being famous movie stars have now selfishly and irresponsibly used the #MeToo movement to suck whatever amount of attention and fame they can from it. They have used this movement to help only themselves.

I don't think either of these women have a grasp of or are capable of understanding Tarana Burke's movement. And as much as I hate the term ''white feminism'' (that's the white feminist in me feeling defensive), these women are the epitome of what that is.

You can't hide shitty, awful behavior behind the excuse of misogyny. Not everything has to do with gender discrimination and the patriarchy, and to pretend that it does a disservice to the feminist movement. I am all about fighting toxic masculinity, but to demand that all women must agree and support one another because we are the same gender is ridiculous and illogical. (Toxic femininity exists. We can't continue to deny that.) Maybe McGowan and Argento are just two really damaged human beings? I don't know. What I do know is that you cannot heal unless you own up to your shit and get real honest with yourself about who you are. These two women seem to be completely incapable of being honest with themselves.

In this new climate of public reckoning, #MeToo, and the Trump regime, we are all walking on eggshells, terrified to criticize anyone at the risk of being branded a sexist, a racist, or a homophobe. The kind of outrage that disagreement causes in 2018 makes it nearly impossible to seek truth through an exchange of ideas. I am saddened that this discourages people from speaking up. But I refuse to live in fear. I refuse to live my life worrying about who I will offend by speaking my mind. And I encourage you to do the same.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 15:00

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:57

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:54

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:48

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:32

Tales of the New Cold War: The Two Origin Documents of Russiagate: 2 of 2: Stephen F. Cohen @NYU @Princeton eastwestaccord.com.AUTHOR.(Photo: The contemporary art of Russia (the ongoing series, issue II). Cossack Seeing-Off. Stirrup Cup by Sergey Gavrilyachenko. 1999\. Sergey Aleksandrovich Gavrilyachenko (born 1956) is a Russian painter, a People's Artist of the Russian Federation, a secretary of the Russian Union of Artists, a member of the art group Romantics of Realism. The stamp of Russia, 15.00 Rubles, 30 June 2012, PTC Marka Catalogue No 1613, Michel No 1846\. Coated paper, varnish coating, bronze paste. Offset printing. Perforation: comb 12:11¼. Size of the stamp: 50—37 mm. Print run: 240,000.)http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/contacthttp://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedulesTwitter: @BatchelorShowTales of the New Cold War: The Two Origin Documents of Russiagate: 2 of 2: Stephen F. Cohen @NYU @Princeton eastwestaccord.com.

Popout Listen on iPhoneListen on AndroidLoading...

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:32

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 13:40

Michael Moore appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher and urged fellow liberals not to give up hope on the inevitable confirmation of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee.

Bill Maher began by asking Moore about the ''Hail Mary'' plan he supposedly had to prevent the replacement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

''Listen, the Senate right now is 50-49. Sadly, McCain will not be able to vote, so it's a 50-49 vote,'' Moore declared. ''C'mon! We've got to push it off til after November.''

''And I don't trust every Democrat,'' Maher told Moore.

''We've got to hold the Democratic seats we have, but look, 90% of incumbents are always returned,'' Moore continued. ''The Democrats in Montana and North Dakota, West Virginia, they've got to do their job, they'll do their job. Our job is to win Nevada, Arizona, and Tennessee and they could all be won!''

Maher pushed back, insisting the confirmation will take place before the midterms in 2018, but the documentary filmmaker stressed that they need to ''find ways'' to prevent that.

'''Find ways?' What does that mean?'' Maher asked.

''I'll join a million other people surrounding the United States Capitol,'' Moore responded. ''I will stand there. I will put my- Bill, let me tell you something. If this judge goes through, for at least the rest of our lives, it's a right wing court. That's it. It's over.''

Watch the clip above, HBO

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 13:12

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:32

Log in Sign up POLITICO @ politico "Mr. President, will you stop calling the press the enemy of the people," CNN Journalist Jim Acosta shouted at the end of Trump's speech

pic.twitter.com/FqWT5afwUV 9:58 AM - 29 Jun 2018 Twitter by: POLITICO @politico Peep State @ MadaVentoux

24h Replying to

@politico Just because one nutter shot up a news room doesn't make the media less shitty.

View conversation · Sonja @ SandiSonja23

24h Replying to

@politico who dat guy all "shhhhhh"? ðŸ‚

View conversation · Jh1985 @ Jh1985brewer

23h Replying to

@MadaVentoux @politico It's not abt that it's abt the POTUS using his rhetoric to target ppl or organizations he doesn't like

View conversation · Sophie Resists @ Sophieresists

23h Replying to

@politico @aliasvaughn Who turned around and shushed him?!

View conversation · Halli Casser-Jayne Podcast🎸ðŸ¥ƒðŸ›(C)¸ @ TheHalliCJShow

23h Replying to

@politico This can't end pretty for Trump. It's just a matter of time before some madman takes a shot at a journalist in Trump's name.

goo.gl/tMwnPH View conversation · Wayne McEachron @ WayneMcEachron

23h Replying to

@politico Jim Acosta needs to understand is him shouting at the end of Trump's speech isn't helping. Acosta should be putting pressure on his company and other news organizations to be more impartial. Sticking to fair and balanced journalism is how to combat that perception about the press

View conversation · Chris Resists 🌊 @ ChrisResist

23h Replying to

@politico @Pajjr2016 @Acosta @Acosta is on the right side of history.

View conversation · Suffering No Fools @ cylinderspin

23h Replying to

@SandiSonja23 @politico Whoever he is, he is a true American hero.

View conversation · VK @ vjeannek

23h Replying to

@politico pic.twitter.com/Ap0E0oj3aS View conversation · samanthahsu @ lagugael

23h Replying to

@politico Who's the shushie in front of you? People need to stop worrying about decorum. Some things are so much more important.

View conversation · ElSeaFarmer @ TheSeaFarmer

23h Replying to

@cylinderspin @SandiSonja23 @politico Nothing more heroic than shushing someone who is trying to question the president during applause.

View conversation · Trace65Roses @ Trace65roses

23h Replying to

@politico @mehdirhasan @Acosta Thank you

@Acosta pic.twitter.com/LX1cbqcu8f View conversation · VK @ vjeannek

23h Replying to

@ChrisResist @politico and

2 others More people watch other people cooking food/The Food Network-than CNN.

View conversation · ðŸ--¥ðŸ²MandyðŸ--¥ðŸ² ''¤ðŸ'šðŸ''ðŸ'ðŸ'› @ mandymais

23h Replying to

@politico The guy shushing him is a visual representation of

#partoftheproblem. I'd be like louder! Then i'd join in.

View conversation · VK @ vjeannek

23h Replying to

@TheHalliCJShow @politico You have that backwards. It was the lefty media that incited this guy to shoot up a GOP ball field.

#BernieBro pic.twitter.com/IwEn7j9rEa View conversation · Suffering No Fools @ cylinderspin

23h Replying to

@TheSeaFarmer @SandiSonja23 @politico Acosta is unhinged and it isn't healthy. Allowed to continue going off the rails, he will absolutely end up being a mass shooter. People physically near him and people in his life need to get him under control before he shoots up a school.

View conversation · hilohattee @ gladiolaz

23h Replying to

@WayneMcEachron @politico trump's hypocritical speech was about murdered journalists. He called the press the enemy of the people and some nut went out and killed 5 innocent people. I think Acosta had every right to ask his question.

View conversation · Peep State @ MadaVentoux

23h Replying to

@Jh1985brewer @politico The nutter who shot up the news room was threatening them since 2011. Trump didn't run for president until 2015.

View conversation · Enter a topic, @name, or fullname

Settings Help Back to top ·

Turn images off

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 15:10

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:55

Link to Article

Archived Version

Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:18

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 29 Jun 2018 22:27

Author: Greg ArgosJune 28, 2018

Follow CBSPHILLY Facebook | Twitter

BUCKS COUNTY, Pa. (CBS) '-- Police made an arrest Thursday in a series of mysterious explosions that have rocked Bucks County for months. Law enforcement converged on two locations in Quakertown as part of the investigation '' a chemical company on Old Bethlehem Pike and the home of the owner of that company on Spinnerstown Road.

Police Investigating Another Mysterious Explosion In Bucks County After Tractor Cutting Grass Strikes Device

David Surman Jr. is being charged with possession of weapons of mass destruction. He would not speak when entering for his arraignment and made no comments about the disturbing finds in his home.

''This was what we believe to be a large bomb that was capable of mass destruction,'' said Bucks County District Attorney Matt Weintraub.

The FBI and ATF have worked the case with Pennsylvania State Police for months. They have been investigating 30 rattling booms which terrorized those living in Upper Bucks County since April 2.

The investigation turned on Thursday as authorities secured search warrants on two separate scenes: the Consolidated Chemical and Solvent Company which Surman Jr. owned on Bethlehem Pike and his home on Spinnerstown Road.

Federal agents conducts four controlled explosions across the street from his business.

Besides other bombs and chemicals, agents uncovered strange drawings and pictures, some with hate symbols, and others showing Surman Jr. and his girlfriend driving away from a bombing scene.

''You can see some of the musings that were found in the defendant's house,'' said Weintraub.

Weintraub says a motive is unclear and warns that there could be more planted bombs.

Mysterious Booms, House-Rattling Sounds In Pennsylvania Under Investigation By FBI

''I am a little concerned there may be unexploded bombs out there,'' said Weintraub.

Neighbors, though, hope this is the end of the frightening booms which have terrorized them for months.

''I'm glad it's over, for not only me, but the residents out here,'' said one person. ''We're a close knit family and I'm just glad it's over, if it's over.''

Surman Jr. is being held on $750,000 bond.

To date, police say no one has reported any injuries related to the explosions.

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 29 Jun 2018 22:26

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:48

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:11

Link to Article

Archived Version

Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:55

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Jun 2018 22:23

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Jun 2018 22:21

PolygamyForMen @ PolygamyForMen

Feb 27 They (the antifa kids AND the media) want to provoke some conservatives into getting violent with these kids so they can blow up a narrative about conservative violence, alt right, violent Trump Nazi's, etc... Maybe CNN was hiding in the bushes egging on passerby to fight them..

View conversation ·

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Jun 2018 22:11

Secret 12 '' Vitamin B12

Limited Advanced Release

39.95

29.95

Discover the benefits of super advanced vitamin B-12 with the Infowars Life Secret 12 proprietary formula.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/s12-300.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/secret-12-vitamin-b12-2.html?ims=idwpx&utm_campaign=Secret+12&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com&utm_content=Secret12

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/secret-12-vitamin-b12-2.html?ims=idwpx&utm_campaign=Secret+12&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com&utm_content=Secret12

Secret 12 '' Vitamin B12

39.95

29.95

Discover the benefits of super advanced vitamin B-12 with the Infowars Life Secret 12 proprietary formula.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/s12-300.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/secret-12-vitamin-b12-2.html?ims=idwpx&utm_campaign=Secret+12&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com&utm_content=Secret12

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/secret-12-vitamin-b12-2.html?ims=idwpx&utm_campaign=Secret+12&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com&utm_content=Secret12

Secret 12 '' Vitamin B12

39.95

29.95

Discover the benefits of super advanced vitamin B-12 with the Infowars Life Secret 12 proprietary formula.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/s12-300.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/secret-12-vitamin-b12-2.html?ims=idwpx&utm_campaign=Secret+12&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com&utm_content=Secret12

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/secret-12-vitamin-b12-2.html?ims=idwpx&utm_campaign=Secret+12&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com&utm_content=Secret12

Secret 12 '' Vitamin B12

39.95

29.95

Discover the benefits of super advanced vitamin B-12 with the Infowars Life Secret 12 proprietary formula.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/s12-300.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/secret-12-vitamin-b12-2.html?ims=idwpx&utm_campaign=Secret+12&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com&utm_content=Secret12

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/secret-12-vitamin-b12-2.html?ims=idwpx&utm_campaign=Secret+12&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com&utm_content=Secret12

Brain Force Plus

39.95

29.95

Flip the switch and supercharge your state of mind with the all-new Brain Force PLUS

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/bf-300-1.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/brain-force.html?ims=akmnp&utm_campaign=Brain+Force+Plus&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com&utm_content=Brain+Force+Plus

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/brain-force.html?ims=akmnp&utm_campaign=Brain+Force+Plus&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com&utm_content=Brain+Force+Plus

Brain Force Plus

39.95

29.95

Flip the switch and supercharge your state of mind with the all-new Brain Force PLUS

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/bf-300-1.jpg

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/brain-force.html?ims=akmnp&utm_campaign=Brain+Force+Plus&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com&utm_content=Brain+Force+Plus

https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/brain-force.html?ims=akmnp&utm_campaign=Brain+Force+Plus&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com&utm_content=Brain+Force+Plus

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Jun 2018 20:38

Thursday's The View started off with an astounding nearly 10-minute-long meltdown over Justice Kennedy's retirement from the Supreme Court, and the second chance for President Trump to appoint a judge for the highest court of the land, during his first two years in office. Liberal Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar were the most upset about the news with Whoopi angrily attacking host Meghan McCain, Republicans and Christians for potentially challenging Roe v Wade.

''Many people are reeling'' from this announcement, Whoopi began, before playing a clip of President Trump telling supporters at a North Dakota rally last night that he needed to appoint more Republican judges. That sent the table into an uproar.

''Yeah. Let's have everybody a Republican. The Supreme Court, the Congress, the presidency!'' Joy Behar raged. ''What is that called? Dictatorship I believe!'' she said in disgust.

She continued ranting about how the Founding Fathers were ''rolling over in their graves'' at this news. ''What happened to separation of powers? What happened to checks and balances in this country? Gone!'' she complained.

Meghan McCain try to explain to Behar calmly that the pendulum was simply swinging in the direction of Republicans after Democrats had control of all three branches at one point in Obama's presidency.

It was then Whoopi's turn to rage that abortion rights we're going to be ''taken away'' from Republicans who ''don't care'' about women's rights:

I don't like hearing, again, that I'm trying to take your rights away. I have to tell you, as a woman, I think you're trying to take my rights away. Okay? You don't care. [ Applause ]

And as a person, who believes in the constitution which tells me that I have the right to be myself and do the things I want to do, and I don't have to listen to what your religion is, and I don't have to listen to what you want it to be I have to make sure that as an American citizen, I'm doing the right stuff and taking care of business.

I don't like this line that I, as a Democrat, or an independent or whatever is trying to take away anything from you. I'm trying to hold onto my personal rights so that you can have the rights you want. See? Because if you take mine, I feel like you're the one with the problem. If you take my right away from me, to judge what I do for my family and my body, I got a little problem with that. You got a problem. You don't want people to take your guns? Get out of my behind! Get out of my vagina! Get out![ Applause ]

Sunny Hostin calmly interjected to give the lawyer's perspective on the legal legacy Kennedy left behind, noting he was an important advocate of personal liberties on the court. ''I do fear that's going to change,'' she noted, referring to affirmative action and abortion rights. Meghan McCain again tried to explain why this was a win for pro-life Republicans and why the right to life was secured in the Constitution as well:

''We are guaranteed in this country, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life as I define it, does not include abortion. I believe abortion is murder. This is where the line delineates,'' she said but Whoopi angrily cut in again to lecture McCain on how Republicans certainly didn't care about children:

WHOOPI: You have the right not to have an abortion. That's your interpretation of your -- listen. You are not -- I'm not okay when people say Listen Iwant my stuff, but you can't have yours.

[applause]

The government has said I have the right if I need an abortion, that I can have one. And I feel that you have every right to have the guns you want. There are some guns I feel shouldn't be out there, but I don't say you can't have your damn guns. I don't want anybody saying to me, I'm going to make this decision for you because I know how your life is, and I know how you feel and I know what your religious beliefs are. You don't, and you don't know my life, and if there was even a modicum of belief that somebody gave us a dog gon -- and I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the big government.

If I thought that they gave a damn about children and being able to raise them. If somebody has a kid because they can't raise them, they throw them out the window. Come on!

Joy Behar and Sara Haines agreed with Whoopi that Republicans were heartless.

''Do they really care about children in this country? Does Donald Trump really care about children that are non-white? No!'' Behar gushed.

As McCain explained again that she thought abortion was murder, ''plain and simple,'' Whoopi pressed, ''What about slow starvation?''

McCain lamented that she knew it would be a hard day at the panel but that Democrats were going to continue losing with their still fractured party since they lost the election because this was one of the main reasons why people voted for Trump.

''Well the Russians were involved too. Let's not forget that!'' Whoopi added. ''And the FBI!'' Behar quipped.

Sara Haines also attacked Republicans for not caring about kids because of the border situation, griping about conservatives being ''up in her uterus:''

I think we're all pro-life which you say here all the time. I feel so often when this conversation comes up, we forget about moms because that's a life involved with this choice as well, and also with the borders I always find it funny that people are up in my uterus, but when it comes to a baby that's already alive and out there, they don't fight. [ Applause ]

Link to Article

Archived Version

Thu, 28 Jun 2018 20:34