NewzIntel.com

Category: KB

  • MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates Delivers Remarks at Civil Rights Division Awards Ceremony

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Thank you, Vanita [Gupta], for that kind introduction – and for your extraordinary leadership of the Civil Rights Division. I so admire your confidence and clear vision for what the Division is and should be, and you’ve made the last two years some of the most impactful in the Division’s long history.

    It’s a privilege to stand with you today, and it’s a pleasure to welcome all of you to the Department of Justice – not only today’s honorees, but also the many proud friends, family members and colleagues who have joined us to celebrate this special occasion. You know better than anyone what this job entails – both the passion it inspires and the dedication it demands. Your loved ones have accepted the formidable challenge of defending – and expanding – the civil and constitutional rights of everyone who calls this nation home. Thank you for sharing them with us as they pursue that vital mission and thank you for joining us today to help honor this outstanding group of attorneys, investigators and support staff.

    Today’s awardees stood out in a crowded field of accomplishment in the Division this year – a level of accomplishment that is both wildly impressive and precisely what we have come to expect from the Civil Rights Division. I am incredibly proud of what this Division has achieved, not just in 2016, but from the earliest days of the Obama Administration. In fact, since this will be my last opportunity to speak to all of you as a group, if you’ll indulge me for a few minutes, I’d like to take a step back, and take stock of some of the many ways that this Division has used its inimitable strengths and boundless talent to write a new chapter in our nation’s history. This was already a storied Division. But these last eight years have added to that story in once-unimaginable ways.

    When former Attorney General [Eric] Holder and former Assistant Attorney General [Tom] Perez arrived in 2009, they came ready to rev up the engine of the Civil Rights Division – and many of you were ready to be empowered, too. It took a serious commitment to restoring this Division’s traditional role as the conscience of the Justice Department. AG Holder liked to refer to the Civil Rights Division as the “crown jewel” of the Department, but you all know that that reputation didn’t come easily. It was hard-earned and painstakingly built by many of the people sitting in this hall today.

    In 2009, it was impossible to imagine just how far we’d come, just how far you would take us, in eight short years. For example, at the dawn of this Administration, only two states – Massachusetts and Connecticut – allowed same-sex couples to marry. But in the years that followed, thanks to the courage and struggle of leaders both within and far beyond these walls, we saw that number climb rapidly to 50 – and 50 is where it will stay.

    Building on that success, the Civil Rights Division took a groundbreaking stance this year in support of the fundamental equality and dignity of the transgender community. That’s exactly what the Civil Rights Division was created to do. And if you ask me, in the not-too-distant future, the nation will look back on our position and wonder how this issue could ever have been so fiercely contested.

    Of course, adversity often comes with the job. On voting rights, we all remember the day in 2013 when the Division and the country suffered a major setback in the protection of the most fundamental of all rights in the Shelby County case. While the Supreme Court eliminated our most powerful tool to combat discrimination in our voting laws, true to the spirit of this Division, you absorbed the blow, sharpened our remaining tools and stood ready the next day to fight even harder to combat voter suppression. And with what feels like new assaults every day to the voting rights that are at the very foundation of our democracy, the potentially disenfranchised need you now more than ever.

    In recent years, as the interaction between the police and the communities they serve has revealed a festering distrust that threatens the safety of those communities and our police officers and undermines confidence in law enforcement, the nation has looked to the Civil Rights Division for leadership born of experience, and guidance born of expertise. You have taken up the charge and while there is still much to be done, you have offered a blueprint for moving forward with mutual trust and respect.

    And, when it comes to our nation’s criminal justice system, this Division has done vital work to ensure that we treat all our citizens with the fairness and compassion they deserve. Whether it’s scrutinizing bail practices, making our legal views known in local courts, or giving guidance on courthouse fines and fees, you are lighting a path forward for courts and law enforcement bodies nationwide and demonstrating how critical it is that we end the criminalization of poverty once and for all.

    In these and so many other ways, this Division has made a powerful difference by fighting for the core rights and freedoms of every individual – no matter where they live, who they are, or how much money they make. These are not just theoretical concepts. In every corner of our country, from schools to mosques, in housing and lending markets, from border areas to boardrooms, you have made real – and lasting – differences in the lives of the people of our country.

    Recounting these past victories, I know that many of you are thinking of the future, as well. With change on the horizon, you might be uncertain about whether these accomplishments will last. But I don’t believe that these achievements are as precarious as you might assume. The progress that you have forged is now woven into the fabric of our country. The Supreme Court has held that the right to marry the person you love is protected within the timeless words of our nation’s founding document. The injustices of poverty that you’ve brought to the nation’s attention will not be soon forgotten. Transgender Americans will always remember the recognition and validation they felt when the Department of Justice stood with them. And the citizens of this country will demand that every American’s right to vote is not something merely recited in our Constitution, but rather that this cornerstone of our democracy lives and breathes in every community.

    One of the promises we make to young people who come to the Department – whether as interns, paralegals, assistants, or attorneys – is that, if they’re here long enough, they’ll get their chance to touch history. It’s no secret that, in the Civil Rights Division, that chance can come around more often than elsewhere. But what distinguishes all of you is not that you had a chance to touch history – but that, when you did, you grabbed hold of it with confidence and bent it, inexorably, toward justice.

    Not long ago, I was drawn to visit the Lincoln Memorial again. I stood on that step where Dr. King stood for the March on Washington and looked out over the reflecting pool. And I thought about all of you. You are civil rights leaders in our day; you are trailblazers. You open minds and change hearts through your unshakable commitment to fairness and justice, to opportunity and equality. That commitment is contagious – and your voice  as the protectors of our fundamental rights is every bit as potent now and in the years to come as it has been over the years that have passed.

    Come January 20th, political appointees like Vanita and I will be private citizens. But the fact of the matter is that political appointees are just a tiny fraction of this legendary workforce. It’s you, the career men and women of the Department of Justice, who have always defined this Department –  defined who we are and what we stand for. So even though I will no longer be a part of this Department, I, like millions of your fellow citizens, will be counting on you going forward – counting on you to continue to bend the arc toward justice. And I know that responsibility couldn’t be in better hands. I take heart in that. And you should take heart in yourselves. 

    I know that you have fought hard battles. But progress without resistance is just inevitability – simple and easy.  But nothing you have achieved in these eight years was simple or easy. None of it was inevitable. It happened because you made it happen. Because you made it happen.

    Thank you once again for allowing me to join you on this important occasion and for allowing me the privilege, for a moment in our nation’s history, of standing shoulder to shoulder with you. It’s an honor to count you as colleagues and friends.

    At this time, I’ll turn things over to your truly fearless leader, Vanita Gupta.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell Delivers Remarks Highlighting Cybercrime Enforcement at Center for Strategic and International Studies

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Good morning, and thank you, Jim [Lewis], for that kind introduction.  I am pleased to be here speaking to you today, and I want to thank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) for having me.  

    Over the past two and a half years, I have had the honor of serving as the Justice Department’s Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division – and with that, the responsibility of ensuring that the division and its over 700 prosecutors have the support and authorities they need to fulfill their responsibilities to the American people.  I have also had the opportunity to see first-hand the dedication, rigor, intelligence and respect that America’s prosecutors bring to their work every day.  As my time as the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division comes to a close, I am incredibly proud of where the division stands today and all that we have accomplished together.

    One constant truth about investigating and prosecuting crime is that it is never without its challenges, although the precise nature of the difficulties and obstacles we face changes with the times.  Today, some of the most significant hurdles we encounter relate to technology and the Internet.  

    Innovation in computing, the Internet, and related services has had tremendous benefits for our economy, our ability to connect with others, and the convenience, efficiency, and security of our everyday lives.  It has also transformed how we in law enforcement do our jobs by expanding our ability to detect, investigate and prosecute criminal activity.  

    However, these same innovations permit criminals to more easily victimize Americans, including from afar, while concealing their identities and enabling destruction of evidence.  We face an enormous task in responding to these new threats – ranging from botnets and ransomware to online child sexual exploitation and firearms trafficking, to name just a few – and that task is not getting any easier.  This morning I will focus on four challenges that have been and must continue to be the center of our work if we intend to succeed: 
    •    First, the growth of sophisticated, global cyber threats; 
    •    Second, dangerous loopholes in our legal authorities; 
    •    Third, the widespread use of warrant-proof encryption; and, 
    •    Fourth, inefficient cross-border access to electronic evidence.

    As I will explain in more detail, the past few years have marked some significant progress in some of these areas.  We have grown more nimble and effective in cooperative international law enforcement efforts to bring cyber criminals to justice and remediate cybercrime.  And we have managed to effect some targeted and common-sense improvements in legal authorities.  But in other areas, the challenges remain, and in some cases have become more prominent.  Let me begin with the threat.  The global nature of the Internet means that criminals now can easily victimize more people within the United States in more dangerous ways, all without ever setting foot here.  Some of the most significant criminal activity in recent years is the result of sophisticated criminal groups reaching across our borders from perceived safe harbors.  As we rely more and more on network communications to handle virtually every aspect of our lives, the cost of cybercrime will only rise – to over two trillion globally by 2019, according to some estimates – and the United States is a uniquely attractive target.

    We have responded first and foremost by aggressively identifying, apprehending, and prosecuting offenders.  This past October, for example, the Russian cybercriminal Roman Seleznev was convicted by a jury in Seattle.  Seleznev was a hacker who, from the other side of the world, pilfered data for millions of payment cards from the computer systems of small business owners across America – a crime that strikes at the trust and security of our everyday financial transactions.  Seleznev was the son of a member of the Russian parliament, and the Russian government filed diplomatic protests and tried to pressure us into releasing him.  But that’s not how justice in America works, and he is now in an American prison.

    We recognize that we cannot prosecute our way out of cybercrime, but prosecution must remain an integral component of our response to global cyber threats.  That is why foreign hackers like “Guccifer” – who hacked into the email and social media accounts of about a hundred Americans, including two former U.S. presidents – as well as Vladimir Drinkman and Dmitriy Smilianets – who, along with co-conspirators, conducted a worldwide hacking scheme that compromised more than 160 million credit card numbers – have likewise found themselves within the reach of American law enforcement.  Thanks to the work of our colleagues in the National Security Division, the same holds true for individuals like Su Bin – who conspired with Chinese military hackers to steal cutting-edge U.S. aircraft designs – and Ardit Ferizi – who shared stolen PII belonging to 1,300 U.S. military and government personnel with a member of ISIL, for publication on a hit list.  All have now been brought to the United States to face justice.  

    The department’s strong track record in this area is a critical deterrent to would-be attackers.  Over the last twenty years, for example, our Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) – the centerpiece of our prosecutorial response to criminal cyber threats – has successfully prosecuted cases involving more than one billion stolen pieces of information, including payment card data, email addresses and social security numbers – more than three pieces of data for every American alive today.

    Our international partnerships make this work possible.  And they have been key in another way as well.  Even when prosecution is not yet an option – for example, because we have been unable to identify or apprehend a criminal target – we have developed operational expertise in disrupting cybercriminal infrastructure in the United States and abroad.  For example, we have worked hand-in-hand with our foreign partners to address technical threats like botnets, so-called “bulletproof” hosts, Darknet markets and international hacking forums.  

    Indeed, just last week, the department led a multinational operation to dismantle a vast network of dedicated criminal servers known as “Avalanche,” which allegedly hosted more than two dozen of the world’s most dangerous and persistent malware campaigns.  The Avalanche network served clients operating as many as 500,000 infected computers on a daily basis and is associated with monetary losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide.  We were joined in this effort by investigators and prosecutors from more than 40 jurisdictions across the globe.  We must maintain existing international law enforcement cooperation – and develop new mechanisms to work with foreign partners – if we hope to continue these successes.

    These efforts have also benefitted from growth in our technical and investigative capacity.  The Criminal Division has steadily increased resources for CCIPS, along with its in-house Cybercrime Lab, over the last two years.  The Cybercrime Lab has become the go-to resource across U.S. law enforcement for intractable problems in accessing and understanding digital evidence, whether that means uncovering evidence that a defendant accessed online terrorist radicalization materials to rebut a claim of entrapment, or cracking passwords to dozens of devices that hold key evidence of serious crimes.

    We have also found that augmenting our own expertise and legal authorities with insight from private sector institutions allows us to identify and develop new, creative responses.  For example, in 2014, the FBI, in conjunction with a coalition of nearly a dozen foreign countries and a group of elite computer security firms, dismantled the Gameover Zeus botnet.  That botnet, which infected more than one million computers around the world, inflicted over $100 million in losses on American victims alone, and was responsible for the spread of the Cryptolocker ransomware.  The Gameover Zeus operation represents what we can achieve when law enforcement agencies collaborate with private sector experts, and indeed, many private organizations provided similar assistance in the recent Avalanche take-down.  I hope that it will continue to serve as a model for the department’s future work.

    This relationship works in both directions.  The investigative experience of our CCIPS prosecutors can offer important lessons for private sector entities.  In addition, navigating the federal laws that govern network monitoring practices – laws in which CCIPS specializes – can be fraught for organizations seeking to improve their cybersecurity.  That is why, two years ago, we created the Cybersecurity Unit, a group of CCIPS prosecutors who can leverage their case-related experience to develop and share practical cybersecurity advice with the private sector.  The Unit has also played an integral role in implementation of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA).  So not only have we benefitted from private sector experts for our operational needs, but we have made a practice of sharing our knowledge base as well.

    Even as the department addresses technical obstacles to preventing and prosecuting cybercrime, however, we confront a second challenge: arbitrary gaps in the law that frustrate some of our most pressing investigations.  One example of such a loophole was the venue provision of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

    As that Rule existed prior to Dec. 1, 2016, when law enforcement sought court approval for a search warrant, it generally was required to seek authorization from a court sitting in the same geographic district where the property to be searched was located.   This Rule made perfect sense in dealing with the physical world.  But in the cyber-world, we increasingly face scenarios where criminals use technology to hide the location of their computers, meaning that we could not know where the computers were located.  In those circumstances, federal law did not clearly identify which judge could authorize a search.   

    Similarly, we regularly encounter crimes like mass hacking through botnets that are carried out in multiple districts at once, all across the country.  But in order to respond in a timely, comprehensive manner, the prior version of the Rule arguably required authorities to obtain a warrant in each district – up to 94 in all, across 9 time zones, ranging from the Virgin Islands to Guam.  

    Last week, a three year effort, spearheaded by the Criminal Division, and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, culminated in a targeted, procedural fix to the venue provisions of the Rule to ensure that technology does not render our investigative abilities obsolete.  The update to the Rule does not alter the probable cause or other standards we must meet to obtain a search warrant.   What the Rule does change is that now, when criminals hide the location of their computers through anonymizing technology, we don’t have to figure out in which federal district the computers are physically located before we can act to stop criminal activity.  Likewise, when a criminal deploys a botnet that indiscriminately infects computers nationwide – as many botnets now do – we don’t have to go to as many as 94 different judges. 

    The need to update Rule 41 was not theoretical.  Today, dozens of websites on Tor – a proxy network – openly distribute images of child rape and sexual exploitation, where they are frequented by tens of thousands of pedophiles.  These sites can thrive in the open because proxy networks, like Tor, hide the locations of the criminals’ servers and the identities of their administrators and users.  While law enforcement – and the general public – can easily find images of child sexual exploitation by visiting one of these sites, we often cannot locate and shut down the websites or identify and apprehend the abusers.  More troubling, the child victims stand little chance of rescue.

    The recent investigation of “Playpen,” a Tor site used by more than 100,000 pedophiles to encourage child sexual abuse and trade sexually explicit images of that abuse, illustrates why a Rule 41 fix was necessary.  In that case, authorities were able to wrest control of the site from the administrators, and then obtained court approval to use a remote search tool to retrieve limited information, including the user’s IP address, only if a user accessed child pornography on the site.  This enabled a traditional, real-world investigation, leading to more than 200 active prosecutions and the identification or rescue of at least 49 American children who were subject to sexual abuse.  

    Yet in some of the resulting cases, federal courts relying on the language of the prior version of Rule 41 found that even though the probable cause and other standards for obtaining a warrant were satisfied, evidence obtained in searches nevertheless had to be excluded because the judges who issued warrants lacked venue over the computers, which turned out to be physically located outside their geographic districts.  This is a perverse result, as it would mean that criminals who are savvy enough to hide their locations – which is not difficult given current technologies – could place themselves beyond the reach of law enforcement.  

    This is a good example of why the amendments to Rule 41 are such a crucial step forward.  They make clear which courts are available to consider whether a particular warrant application comports with the Fourth Amendment, without altering in any way the substantive requirements for – or privacy protections provided by – a warrant.  This will ensure that criminals who use anonymizing technologies are not immune from justice, and that threats like botnets are not too big to investigate and remediate effectively.

    This fix is a not a cure-all, however.  Our response to cyber threats requires revisiting laws that simply did not anticipate and cannot adjust to modern technology.  We must continue to move forward – not backward – to ensure that our laws protect Americans from criminals, and not the other way around.

    I now want to turn to some challenges that, despite the best efforts of many, will continue to confront policymakers in the years to come.  As society’s use of computers and the Internet has grown, so too has the importance of digital evidence in criminal investigations.  In nearly every criminal investigation we undertake at the federal level – from homicides and kidnappings to drug trafficking, organized crime, financial fraud and child exploitation – critical information comes from smart phones, computers and online communications, often instead of physical evidence.  Yet, these materials are increasingly unavailable to law enforcement as a result of certain implementations of encryption, even when we have a warrant to examine them.

    This is because, in an attempt to market products and services as protective of personal privacy and data security, companies increasingly are offering products with built-in encryption technologies that preclude access to data even when a court has issued a search warrant.  Service providers with more than a billion user accounts, that transmit tens of billions of messages per day around the world, now advertise themselves as unable to comply with warrants.  And device manufacturers that have placed hundreds of millions of products in the market have embraced the same principle.  We in law enforcement often describe this sort of encryption as “warrant-proof encryption.”  

    Let me be clear: the Criminal Division is on the front lines of the fight against cybercrime.  We recognize that the development and adoption of strong encryption is essential to counteracting cyber threats and to promote our overall safety and privacy.  But certain implementations of encryption pose an undeniable and growing threat to our ability to protect the American people.  Our inability to access such data can stop our investigations and prosecutions in their tracks.

    Inaction is not a suitable response.  Our occasional success in accessing information protected by seemingly “warrant-proof encryption” is unpredictable and inadequate.  There are devices in evidence lockers across the country that remain locked.  

    As the President reminded us recently, the Government has different responsibilities – a different “balance sheet” and different “stakeholders” – than a corporation.  There is nothing wrong with companies pursuing profits and marketing strategies, but no one should expect that they will take into account all of the societal interests that are at stake.  And that is especially true for our public safety mission.  Our ability to protect Americans from crime has become dependent, in thousands of cases, on the business decisions of for-profit corporations.  More troublingly, even when companies have the technical ability to reasonably assist us in accessing encrypted information, they have refused to do so for fear of “tarnishing” their image.  Regardless of which side of this issue you are on, we can all agree that market-driven decisions are not and have never been a substitute for sound public safety policies. 

    Business decisions made by for-profit companies have had enormous effects on our public safety in other ways as well.  Data held by major Internet service providers can be crucial to identifying and holding accountable the perpetrators of virtually every federal crime we handle.  Increasingly, however, American providers and other providers subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are storing such information outside the United States, and not always at rest and in the same location.  The data can be partitioned and stored in multiple locations, or moved about on an ongoing basis, and some providers may not even know where all data relating to a particular user is at a given time.  

    It is this last challenge – foreign-stored digital evidence – that I will close with today.  The department has worked diligently to increase the cross-border availability of data, through mechanisms like the 24/7 Network, which facilitates the preservation of digital evidence, as well as mutual legal assistance treaties and the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which enhance international cooperation in obtaining that evidence.  The Criminal Division has also directed additional resources toward a dedicated cyber mutual legal assistance unit in our Office of International Affairs, which has seen a 1,000 percent increase in incoming requests for computer records since 2000.

    But while these are important crime-fighting tools, they have significant shortcomings.  The United States has mutual legal assistance treaties with less than half the countries in the world, some of which place limitations on when assistance is available or the types of evidence that can be obtained.  Even then, obtaining evidence can take months, if not years.  Ireland, for example, reports that in routine cases it takes 15 to 18 months to execute a request for assistance from a foreign country.  In less experienced or less cooperative countries, the process can take even longer.  Sometimes we never receive a response at all.  

    Recently, the difficulties caused by foreign-stored data for public safety have become more acute.  In July, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in the so-called “Microsoft Ireland” case, held that U.S. authorities cannot use a search warrant issued by a U.S. court pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA) to compel a U.S. service provider, such as Microsoft, to produce data that it chooses to store for its own business purposes (and typically without the knowledge or input of its subscribers) outside the United States.

    So, what is already a difficult and time-consuming process of gathering electronic evidence may now also become an impossible one, for both the United States and our partners.  Since the Microsoft decision was handed down, U.S. providers such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! have refused to produce information that they have chosen to store abroad in response to search warrants issued by courts even outside the Second Circuit.  This has been the case even in instances where the account-holder was an American citizen residing in the United States, and when the crime under investigation is carried out on American soil.  And this includes warrants obtained on behalf of foreign countries pursuant to mutual legal assistant requests.

    U.S. law generally does not require our providers to store this data in a particular location or make it accessible in any particular way.  But as a result, the ability of law enforcement to effectively investigate serious crime may now be determined entirely by a provider’s data management practices, well-intentioned or not.  One major American provider, for example, is unable to determine the country in which foreign-stored data is located; and even if it could, the data is frequently moved and may not be in the same country from day to day.  Under the Second Circuit’s decision, a SCA warrant is not available.  But sending an MLAT request to a foreign country could result – after months of delay – in a notification that the relevant data is no longer there.

    It is for this reason that, in October, the department filed a petition for the case to be reheard by the entire Second Circuit en banc.  It is also why we intend to submit legislation to Congress to address the decision’s significant public safety implications.  This issue must be resolved before we move to other important initiatives, such as legislation to implement a cross-border data agreement with the United Kingdom.

    Looking forward, I cannot predict how the rehearing petition, or the broader concerns implicated by the Microsoft decision, will play out.  And I suspect that, whether the issue relates to warrant-proof encryption or cross-border access to evidence, reaching a resolution will be challenging.  But these decisions must be made in the policy arena, not by the private sector alone.  We cannot allow changing technologies or the economic interests of the private sector to overwhelm larger policy issues relating to the needs of public safety and national security.  And we must let government fulfill its fundamental responsibilities to protect the American people.

    I know that the panel to follow will focus on some of these challenges for the future, but let me offer my own thoughts here.  In each of these areas, we must proceed thoughtfully and balance multiple different legitimate interests.  Yet several basic principles should be obvious.  First, sitting back and doing nothing is not an acceptable option.  The world is changing around us, and those seeking to do harm are evolving with it; if those responsible for ensuring public safety do not have the same ability to adapt, public safety will suffer.  Second, these changes pose policy challenges, and we need to develop policy responses.  Rather than let evolutions in technology dictate our responses, we must think ahead as a society and develop appropriate frameworks to address new and upcoming challenges before they become crises.  And finally, when there are multiple interests at stake – public safety, cybersecurity, international comity and civil rights and civil liberties – we cannot allow the most consequential decisions to be made by a single stakeholder, or leave them to the whim of the commercial marketplace.  We would never tolerate that approach in other areas of importance to society, and we should not do so here.  Thank you.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Delivers Remarks at Memorial Service for Former Attorney General Janet Reno

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Good morning, everyone. To President [Bill] Clinton; Sandy D’Alemberte; distinguished guests; and most importantly Maggy [Reno Hurchalla], Hunter [Reno] and all of Ms. Reno’s family: I bring you greetings and remembrances from her Department of Justice family.

    Early in her career, someone famously told Janet Reno that “ladies don’t become lawyers.” This being free advice, she took it for exactly what it was worth. And I am so grateful – as is our nation – that she did. Further, it is absolutely fitting that history books will pay no notice to whoever uttered that pithy absurdity, but they will certainly pay tribute to Janet Reno. In so many ways – as the first woman to serve as Attorney General in American history; as our nation’s chief law enforcement officer in a tumultuous and eventful time; and as a straight-talking, no-nonsense public servant of the highest integrity – Ms. Reno was a historic figure. She broke barriers and defied expectations. The Department of Justice she left was one that was stronger, wiser, and more compassionate than the one she had inherited.

    Janet Reno was undoubtedly aware of her historic role. But she never let her place in history – or anyone for that matter – define her. The weight of her responsibilities never got in the way of her fundamental kindness, a fact that so many department employees still recall. And in a life filled with achievement, one of her proudest was that she cared for her mother as she was dying of cancer, and ensured that her final days were spent in comfort, peace and love. Because she always knew that what really mattered in this life were the connections we have with one another. That acknowledgement of those connections – the blessed ties that bind all of us, as caretaker of our loved ones, as stewards of this land and of the law, as Americans – was at the core of her strength.

    When I was thinking of my remarks for today – in the five-minute time frame Maggy so generously gave me – I thought about focusing on the meetings I had with Ms. Reno around her conference room table, now mine. I thought about focusing on the many consequential matters I saw her consider with wisdom and grace. But what kept coming to my mind and to my heart were the first time I met her and the last time I saw her.

    When Janet Reno became Attorney General, I was a young federal prosecutor in Brooklyn. A few years into a job that I loved, I must confess that to me and so many of my colleagues, especially the women, Main Justice was a somewhat mysterious place down I-95 populated mostly by dark-suited men whose main distinguishing characteristic seemed to be whether they were grey or whether they were balding. When Janet Reno came onto the scene – a woman, a Southerner, an original who famously “didn’t do spin” – we were electrified. I was inspired by her. I wanted to be like her. Despite my best efforts, I was not able to achieve 6’2”.  I had to settle for being Attorney General instead. It has not been a bad trade.

    I first met Janet Reno at the National Black Prosecutors Conference, being held in Washington in her first year in office. She spoke to us about the importance of having prosecutors who based their decisions on what was best for the country, not what was best for their careers. She told us never to forget the many experiences and backgrounds that had brought us there, because that would be our strength as prosecutors. After her talk, she was swarmed with well-wishers. We wanted to shake her hand, to take a photo, to just be near her. And she stayed and spoke with every person who wanted her attention. She posed for pictures, and she asked each of us, thoughtfully and seriously, about ourselves. Maya Angelou once said that “people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” Even today, no one in that room has forgotten how Ms. Reno made us feel – she made us feel valued, she made us feel heard, she made us feel that we could do anything.

    That was one of her great gifts. She was one of the best listeners you’ll ever meet. The last time I saw her was earlier this year, in the house her mother had built. She was dealing with difficult health challenges, but she didn’t want to discuss her own health or make idle chitchat. She wanted to hear about the Department of Justice. She wanted to hear about our work in civil rights and in community policing. She wanted to hear about the tough decisions before our department – the kind of tough decisions she had faced every day. And as I spoke, she listened – with that same patient, intent gaze I remembered from so many years ago. And because it was a good day for her, we were able to speak together as well. And as she had so many years ago, she made me feel that I could do anything.

    I know that all of us here today have similar stories of how she inspired us in ways large and small. We’re here to honor and remember her. And both the lesson and the challenge she has left for all of us is to decide – how will our actions make others feel? So, as we leave here today with our hearts still full, let us do so with a mission. A mission to carry Janet Reno’s legacy with us, and make the people in our lives feel valued, feel heard, and feel that they, too, can do anything.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Delivers Remarks at Interfaith Event on the Justice Department’s Commitment to Combatting Hate Crimes

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Thank you, Imam [Mohamed] Magid, for your kind words; for your hospitality in welcoming me today; and for your outstanding leadership of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center, especially during what I know has been a difficult time for many Muslim Americans.  I am proud to stand beside you today.  I also want to thank all of the inspiring faith leaders that we just heard from for their moving words.  And I want to thank all of you – faith leaders and community leaders; activists and advocates – for all that you do, each and every day, to strengthen, empower and unite our communities.

    It is truly inspiring to stand in this space, in front of this audience.  This morning, we have gathered under this roof, in this mosque, as men and women of all races, creeds and colors.  Some of us were born in the United States, our immigration status having been resolved several generations ago; some of us came here more recently in search of a better life.  We may speak different languages; we may read from different books of scripture; we may call our God by different names.  But we all love this country and the ideals for which it stands.  We all want our children to lead lives of safety and opportunity.   We all proudly claim the title of American.  And we all hold, as Justice Brandeis proclaimed, “the most important political office … that of the private citizen.”  In this assembly, I see a living expression of the American promise: the conviction that every person’s dignity is inherent and equal. 

    That promise is as old as our nation itself.  Twelve score years ago, our forefathers boldly proclaimed that “all men are created equal.”  But of course, when those words were written, a large gap existed between America’s founding ideals and America’s founding reality.  The very hand that put those words on parchment had also signed the deeds for the sale and purchase of other human beings.  For many of our ancestors – for women, African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants and countless others – the promise of American life rang hollow. 

    But the declaration’s revolutionary statement of equality was too plain and powerful – too “self-evident”, in Jefferson’s words – for that state of affairs to endure.  Generation after generation of Americans heard the promise set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and they demanded that it be fulfilled: women who endured ridicule and condescension for seeking the ballot; black soldiers who defended freedom overseas, only to return home to a nation that wouldn’t let them vote, and that sometimes repaid their service with angry violence; marchers who braved the jaws of police dogs at Birmingham, and the sting of cattle prods at Selma; LGBTQ individuals who fought for their civil rights at the Stonewall Inn – through the courage and determination of these and countless others who have gone before us, we have slowly built a society that more fully reflects our founding creed of liberty and justice for all.

    That does not mean our work is finished; as you are all well aware, the opposite is true.  We all know this work is never finished.   Just last month, the FBI released its statistics on the number of hate crimes committed in 2015.  The report was a sobering indication of how much work remains to be done.  Overall, the number of reported hate crimes increased six percent from 2014.  That figure includes increases in hate crimes committed against Jewish Americans, African Americans, and LGBTQ Americans.  And, perhaps most troublingly of all, it showed a 67 percent increase in hate crimes committed against Muslim Americans, and the highest total of anti-Muslim incidents since 2001, when 9/11 spurred so many reprehensible acts.  And we know that there are many more hate crimes in communities across the country that go unreported.  

    In addition, all of us have seen the flurry of recent news reports about alleged hate crimes and harassment – from hijabs yanked off of women’s heads; to swastikas sprayed on the sides of synagogues; to slurs and epithets hurled in classrooms.  The FBI is working with local authorities to review multiple incidents, and our agents and prosecutors are working to assess whether particular cases constitute violations of federal law.  

    These incidents – and these statistics – should be of the deepest concern to every American.  Because hate crimes don’t just target individuals.  They tear at the fabric of our communities, and they also stain our dearest ideals and our nation’s very soul.  There is a pernicious thread that connects the act of violence against a woman wearing a hijab to the assault on a transgender man to the tragic deaths of nine innocent African Americans during a Bible study at Mother Emanuel AME in Charleston, South Carolina.  As President Obama has said, it is “the moment we fail to see in another our common humanity – the very moment when we fail to recognize in a person the same hopes and fears, the same passions and imperfections, the same dreams that we all share.”  The reason we have a cross-section of so many leaders from different faiths here today is because we believe so deeply in certain common values.  Regardless of our faith, we believe that we must treat others as we would wish to be treated.  Regardless of our faith, we believe that every individual is precious.  Regardless of our faith, we believe in our common humanity, and we believe that, in the famous words of Martin Luther King Jr., “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”  That is why the Department of Justice – and the entire Obama Administration – regards hate crimes with the utmost seriousness, whether they target individuals because of their race, their religion, their gender or their sexual orientation.  And that is why we have worked tirelessly over the last several years to bring those who perpetrate these heinous deeds to justice.

    A cornerstone of that work is investigating and prosecuting hate crimes against Muslim Americans, as well as those perceived to be Muslim.  Muslim Americans are our friends and family members, our doctors and nurses, our police officers and firefighters.  They own businesses and teach in classrooms.  Thousands of them have fought for the American flag.  Many have died defending it.  And yet, too often – especially in the last year, following a number of tragic terrorist incidents, and amidst an increase in divisive and fearful rhetoric – we have seen Muslim Americans targeted and demonized simply because of their faith.  And to impose a blanket stereotype on all members of any faith because of the actions of those who pervert that faith is to go backwards in our thinking and our discourse, and to repudiate the founding ideals of this country.  This is unacceptable in a nation whose Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of religion in its very first clause, and the Department of Justice has vigorously prosecuted a number of these repugnant acts.   

    In recent months, our Civil Rights Division – led by Vanita Gupta, who is here with us today – along with our U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, have convicted a Connecticut man for firing a high-powered rifle at a mosque; a Florida man for threatening to firebomb two mosques and shoot their congregants; a Missouri man for the arson of a local mosque; and a North Carolina man who yelled at a woman and ripped off her hijab on an airplane.  And in October, our National Security Division and the U.S Attorney’s Office in Kansas charged three men in connection with their plot to detonate bombs at an apartment complex in Garden City, Kansas, which included a mosque where many members of the local Somali immigrant community gather to pray.  These are only a few examples of the Justice Department’s recent prosecutions.  There are many more matters that we, often in close partnership with our state and local law enforcement partners, are investigating.  

    The Justice Department is also working to protect the rights of religious communities to build houses of worship without unlawful interference or harassment.  Unfortunately, that task has only become more urgent in recent years.  Members of the Civil Rights Division have heard repeatedly about more overt discrimination in both the tone and framing of objections to planned religious institutions, especially mosques and Islamic centers.  Our primary tool to combat such discrimination is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA.  Since September 2010, the department has opened 50 RLUIPA land-use investigations, filed ten lawsuits involving land use, and filed eight amicus briefs in private parties’ RLUIPA cases to inform courts about the law’s provisions and requirements.  In the last six years, 38 percent of the Civil Rights Division’s RLUIPA land use cases involved mosques or Islamic schools – a dramatic increase over the percentage of such cases brought during the previous decade. 

    Religious institutions aren’t the only vulnerable spaces we are determined to keep free of hatred and bias.  We all know that in order for our children to learn and thrive, they need access to safe and inclusive classrooms.  Earlier this year, the Civil Rights Division launched a new initiative with our U.S. Attorneys’ Offices that will significantly advance our ability to address religious discrimination in schools.  And our Community Relations Service, or CRS – led by Paul Monteiro, who is also here with us today – works to ease tensions and promote understanding in communities and schools that have been rocked by traumatic incidents.  For example, after a student was allegedly forced to remove her hijab in a school in Massachusetts, the school invited CRS to present its Arab, Muslim, and Sikh Cultural Awareness Program to the school’s staff.  CRS also recently appointed its first ever National Program Manager for Muslim, Arab, Sikh and South Asian Communities, and I am so pleased that Harpreet Singh Mokha has joined us here today.   

    We are also concerned with crimes against our LGBT brothers and sisters.  In October, we commemorated the seventh anniversary of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded the federal definition of hate crimes to included crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity, and sexual orientation.  Here, too, we have been active, bringing hate crimes cases in a number of states around the country.  Tomorrow, I am traveling to New York to meet with LGBT youth, and to reaffirm the department’s steadfast commitment to the rights and well-being of all LGBTQ Americans.

    These are all important efforts, and their impact has been amplified by our efforts to train local and federal law enforcement agencies in how to recognize and investigate hate crimes; how to engage with communities; and how to encourage better hate crime reporting and data collection.  These initiatives have helped us to build stronger partnerships between law enforcement officers and the communities we serve, and I am hopeful that those partnerships will stand as a bulwark against hate crimes for years to come.

    I am encouraged by what we have accomplished together over the last eight years.  But I also know that we face many challenges in the years ahead – challenges that will require the Department of Justice to remain an active force for good in communities from coast to coast.  Our federal hate crimes laws are among the most powerful tools we have for creating a more just and equal nation, and career Justice Department prosecutors will continue to enforce them.

    Nevertheless, I know that many Americans are feeling uncertainty and anxiety as we witness the recent eruption of divisive rhetoric and hateful deeds.  I know that many Americans are wondering if they are in danger simply because of what they look like or where they pray.  I know that some are wondering whether the progress we have made at such great cost, and over so many years, is in danger of sliding backwards.  

    I understand those feelings.  I know that as we continue to demand a nation where all people are truly treated equally, we will be met with prejudice, bigotry and condemnation.  

    It is true that there is nothing foreordained about our march towards a more just and peaceful future.  There never has been.  Our centuries-long project of creating a more perfect union was not the product of fate, or destiny.  It was the result of countless individuals making the choice to stand up, to demand recognition, to refuse to rest until they knew that their children were inheriting a nation that was more tolerant, more inclusive and more equal.  That is why it is so fitting that we are here today in this beautiful house of worship, this place of deep and abiding faith.  It has been faith that has sustained this fight since the beginning.  

    Faith – a small band of colonies could separate from the most powerful nation on earth and chart a course of freedom and equality.

    Faith – a new nation and its ideas could survive a bloody and divisive civil war that arose from its original sin of slavery.  And not just faith – the works that made it so when there was no guarantee of success. 

    I have been fortunate to have such people in my life.  Two of them happen to be faith leaders: my grandfather and my father.  They both lived at a time when their country regarded them as less than fully human, simply because of the color of their skin.  And they both did their part to make the United States just a little more free and a little more fair.  In 1930s North Carolina – where the law offered little protection to people of color – my grandfather used to hide neighbors in trouble under the floorboards of his house.  My own father let civil rights activists meet in the basement of his church in Greensboro, North Carolina.  

    These were acts of enormous courage.  But they were also acts of enormous faith and hope.  Here were two men living in a country that put obstacles in their path to prevent them from voting; that told them they could only use certain drinking fountains; that told them that when the Declaration of Independence said, “All men are created equal,” it wasn’t referring to them.  But they knew what those words meant, and they chose to act accordingly.  They knew their portion of fear.  They knew their portion of anger.  And yet they never lost their hope that although their country was far from perfect, it was certainly capable of perfection.  They both risked a great deal for that faith – never knowing if would work out or not – never imagining that the daughter of one and the granddaughter of the other would one day become the chief law enforcement officer of the united states.

    My friends, that hope is still alive in our country.  You and I know what the declaration means when it says, “All men are created equal.”  You and I know what the Constitution means when it says, “We, the people.”  So let us leave here united in our confidence, inspired by our faith and strengthened by our courage.  Let us leave here with a renewed commitment to demanding nothing less than a country that is true to its founding promises.  And let us leave here in hope – the hope that has brought the United States so far in the last 240 years; the hope that I am confident will carry us even further in the days to come.

    Will this work be hard?  It has always been hard. 

    Will there be challenges ahead?  We have always known that “the price of freedom is constant vigilance.”  

    Will we persevere?  We always do.

    Let me recall a song from my faith, made famous by Mahalia Jackson: “Lord, don’t move the mountain, but give me the strength to climb.”

    I want to thank you for allowing me to spend a few moments with you today to talk about the country we all love, and the future we all cherish.  Thank you for all that you do in your congregations and your communities to vindicate the promise of American life.  And let me assure you that long after I leave the Attorney General’s seat, I will continue to stand beside you in the cause of liberty and justice for all.  Thank you.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: New Carrollton Man Sentenced to 20 Years in Federal Prison for Kidnapping Minors, Producing Child Sexual Abuse Material

    Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime News

    Greenbelt, Maryland – On January 31, 2025, U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman sentenced Julian Everett, 41, of New Carrollton, Maryland, to 20 years in federal prison and 20 years of supervised release, for kidnapping minors and producing child sexual abuse material.

    Erek L. Barron, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, announced the sentence with Special Agent in Charge William J. DelBagno, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Baltimore Field Office; Prince George’s County State’s Attorney Aisha N. Braveboy; and Chief Malik Aziz, Prince George’s County Police Department.

    According to the guilty plea, in 2005, 2015 and 2016, Everett acknowledged sexually abusing and capturing sexual abuse material of several victims at his New Carrollton home – four were minors.

    On July 11, 2005, Everett drove Victim 2 — who was16 at the time — from the Commonwealth of Virginia to his New Carrollton residence.  While at his residence, Everett provided Victim 2 with a beverage, before engaging in sexual intercourse without her consent. Everett also took nude photographs of the victim without her consent.

    Additionally, on August 23, 2015, Everett drove another victim — who was 18 at the time — from a Washington, D.C. night club to a gas station. While there, Everett created and provided Victim 3 with a beverage before driving her to his New Carrollton residence. Everett then engaged in sexual acts with Victim 3 without her consent.

    Then on August 21, 2016, Everett drove Victim 1 — who was then 17 at the time — from her Washington, D.C. residence to a Northwest D.C. barbershop where he worked. While at the barbershop, Everett created and provided Victim 1 with a beverage. Victim 1 drank it and eventually lost consciousness before waking up at Everett’s home while he was performing a sexual act on her. Additionally, Everett recorded the sexual encounter and took naked pictures of the victim without her consent.

    Authorities arrested Everett in Prince George’s County on March 21, 2019. Federal law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Everett’s electronic devices, revealing images of child sexual abuse material, including a video of Everett engaging in sexual intercourse with an unidentified fifth female victim. During the video, Victim 5 can be heard mumbling and is physically unresponsive with her eyes closed.

    On March 26, 2019, a fourth victim reported a sexual-assault incident to the Prince George’s County Police Department’s Criminal Investigation Division. Between March and April 2015, Everett transported Victim 4 — who was16 at the time — from her Washington D.C. residence to his New Carrollton home.  After arriving at his house, Everett mixed a drink for Victim 4 who drank it and became lightheaded. Everett then engaged in multiple sexual acts with Victim 4 without her consent, which he also digitally recorded. He also took nude photos of her. 

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorney’s Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc. For more information about Internet safety education, please visit www.justice.gov/psc and click on the “Resources” tab on the left of the page.

    U.S. Attorney Barron commended the FBI, Office of State’s Attorney for Prince George’s County, Maryland, and the Prince George’s County Police Department for their work in the investigation. Mr. Barron also thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Timothy Hagan and Thomas Sullivan who prosecuted the federal case.

    For more information about the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office, its priorities, and resources available to help the community, please visit www.justice.gov/usao-md and https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/community-outreach.

    # # #

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer Delivers Remarks Before the National Asian American Coalition and National Diversity Coalition

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Thank you Faith for those kind words and for your outstanding leadership of the National Asian American Coalition (NAAC).  The NAAC and its partners in the National Diversity Coalition have become important voices and strong advocates for communities – in particular, minority and poor communities – that far too often go unheard in our society.  Day in and day out, you provide hope and a helping hand to many hardworking Americans struggling to attain the American dream.  In my three years in this job, one highlight is meeting regularly with your coalition.  You are always informed and effective advocates on behalf of your communities.

    But I appreciate that advocating on behalf of consumers when you visit D.C. is only a small part of what the NAAC and the National Diversity Coalition do.  You provide training to the laid-off father searching for a job that will put food on the table and a roof over his family’s head.  You provide financial advice and resources to the mother hoping to start her own business.  You help families purchase their first home or refinance their mortgage so they can hold onto the home they purchased with their life savings.  You inspire countless young people to dream big and to strive for excellence by providing them with mentoring, after-school programs and scholarships.  I spoke with some of these students this morning.  I believe, as President Obama has noted, that “[t]here is no stronger weapon against inequality and no better path to opportunity than an education that can unlock a child’s God-given potential.”

    The mission of the Antitrust Division also involves ensuring economic opportunity for all consumers.  Our antitrust laws seek to promote fairness in our marketplaces, safeguard the economic freedom of our citizens and strengthen our economy through vigorous competition.  Our first antitrust law – the Sherman Act – was passed 125 years ago.  That law seeks to protect American consumers and businesses from the harm to competition that results when too much economic power is held by only a few corporations and individuals.  The Sherman Act became a vital tool under President Theodore Roosevelt – a progressive reformer often referred to as the “trust buster” – as he spearheaded the movement to bring fairness to the marketplace and to ensure that consumers benefit from healthy competition for their hard earned dollars.  Some years later, his distant cousin – President Franklin D. Roosevelt – established the Antitrust Division at the Justice Department to help continue the fight to protect hardworking Americans from the higher prices and reduced innovation that can result from the consolidation of economic power in a few hands.

    Here are a couple of examples of the Antitrust Division’s work.  Earlier this year, I stood with Attorney General Loretta Lynch when she announced the criminal guilty pleas of five of the world’s largest and most influential financial institutions – Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, UBS and The Royal Bank of Scotland – for manipulating the massive foreign currency exchange market.  As part of their guilty pleas, these institutions were required to pay almost $3 billion in criminal fines, including the largest antitrust fines ever obtained in the Justice Department’s 145-year history.

    A few years ago, we uncovered international conspiracies to fix the prices for all kinds of automobile parts, including seatbelts, airbags and antilock brake systems.  This illegal conduct made it more costly for companies like General Motors, Ford and Toyota to manufacture cars.  At the end of the day, we all know who paid the price for these cartels – the American consumer.  As of today, we have charged 58 corporate executives and 37 companies and obtained more than $2.6 billion in criminal fines.  And we are not done yet.

    Sometimes antitrust crimes are local.  Here in Northern California, our San Francisco office has spent the last several years prosecuting individuals who rigged the bids on foreclosed homes being sold at public auctions.  As you know, many Californians lost their homes during the Great Recession because they could not afford to pay their mortgages.  Some real estate investors saw the misfortune of these homeowners as an opportunity to line their pockets by agreeing not to bid against each other when these homes were auctioned.  They took turns winning these auctions at suppressed prices and deprived the banks and homeowners of the benefits of a competitive auction.  Thus far, we have charged more than 110 individuals who engaged in this type of bid rigging here in Northern California and other parts of the country.  Our San Francisco office also successfully prosecuted a conspiracy to fix the prices of liquid display panels sold worldwide.  LCDs are used in all kinds of electronic products, including flat screen televisions, computer monitors and tablets.  This conspiracy made it more expensive for companies to manufacture electronics, which, in turn, caused millions of Americans to pay higher prices.

    These cases showcase the Antitrust Division’s strong record of criminal antitrust enforcement during the Obama Administration.  Since President Obama took office, we have charged over 400 individuals and 140 corporations with criminal misconduct.  We obtained over $8.5 billion in criminal fines and penalties.  These large criminal fines and penalties serve an important deterrent effect because they directly affect something that corporate executives and investors care deeply about: a company’s bottom line.  But another thing to note: the criminal fines obtained by the Antitrust Division provide funding for the Justice Department’s Crime Victim’s Fund, which helps victims of all types of crime obtain the medical, legal and financial services that they need to move forward with their lives.  In California, this fund has helped victims of child abuse, domestic violence and sexual assault.

    We challenge other misconduct that raises – or threatens to raise – the prices that you as a consumer pay.  Here are some recent examples.

    Think about e-books, a popular alternative to hard copies.  Because they cost less to produce, they should be cheaper.  And until early 2010 they were.  Suddenly, prices shot up.  Why?  Because certain book publishers and Apple entered into an illegal agreement to raise prices.  We sued Apple and the publishers to put an end to their unlawful coordination.

    What happened to e-book prices when the publishers and Apple were forced to compete?  Prices for e-books fell.  In 2010, when the price fixing conspiracy was in place, you often had to pay $12.99 or $14.99 for a best-seller.  After we obtained judgments against Apple and the publishers, prices for best-sellers fell significantly, with many available for $9.99 or less.  Thus, competition, once restored, worked to benefit you and other consumers.

    But what about those who were victims of higher prices during the e-books conspiracy?  Based on the facts we developed, state attorneys general and private plaintiffs have thus far secured over $160 million in refunds for the victims of this conspiracy.  These refunds were directly credited to the consumers’ accounts with Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Apple.

    At the Antitrust Division we also worry about mergers between competitors that put the American public at risk of higher prices and lower quality products.  That was our concern a few years ago when AT&T wanted to buy its rival, T-Mobile.  AT&T claimed that by eliminating T-Mobile as a competitor, you, as a consumer, would be better off.  Our job at the Antitrust Division is to kick the tires on those claims and make sure they are accurate.  Here, the facts we uncovered told us that the elimination of T-Mobile as a competitor risked having you pay higher prices and receiving worse contract terms for mobile service.  We challenged the deal and AT&T ended up abandoning it.

    And guess what happened next?  Just like e-books, when the antitrust laws are enforced, competition flourishes.  T-Mobile went back to competing to win your business.  It spent billions of dollars improving the products it offers; it fought to woo customers by offering lower prices and better services; and it gave customers freedom of choice by offering to pay the early termination fees for those who switched to T-Mobile.

    And T-Mobile’s competitors were compelled to respond.  Sprint began offering lower prices and better plans.  AT&T targeted T-Mobile customers with a $200 credit, plus money for smartphone trade-ins, if they switched to AT&T.  T-Mobile responded by offering plans that allow customers to upgrade their phones twice a year.  AT&T, Verizon and Sprint all felt compelled to match these plans.

    A couple of months ago, in one of his final speeches as the lawyer for the American people, former Attorney General Holder summed up the role and purpose of antitrust enforcement.  He said: “In the appropriate enforcement of the antitrust laws we make real the promise of our democracy and our founding documents.  Vigorous competition in all spheres is what makes this nation exceptional.  It makes progress more likely and promotes the general welfare.”

    The hardworking men and women of the Antitrust Division remain true to this mission.  We should be proud of them and grateful to them.  They make the economy work for all of us.

    Similarly, we are grateful for the work that the NAAC and the National Diversity Coalition do on a daily basis to help some of our most vulnerable citizens and communities.  Together we can help to promote marketplaces where companies compete on price and quality for the hard earned dollars of American consumers.

    Thank you for your time today and congratulations on organizing another great conference.

    AAG Baer Remarks to NAAC 10-23-15 (53.39 KB)

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates Delivers Keynote Address at the 10th National Prosecution Summit

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Thank you, Karol [Mason], for that warm introduction and for everything you do at the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). 

    I am continually amazed by how much good work happens at OJP – and especially within the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).  BJA serves as a vital link between the Department of Justice and our friends in state, local and tribal government – a link that’s as important now as ever before.  So a special thank you to BJA’s director, Denise O’Donnell, for cultivating this very important bond, today and every day. 

    I’d also like to recognize all of the law enforcement officers here in the room, including our exceptional Acting Director of ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), Thomas Brandon.  I’ve worked with a lot of great agents and officers during my career and I know how hard you all work and how deeply you care about the cause of justice.  As a career prosecutor, it’s easy enough to draft a search warrant.  The tough part is executing that warrant – at 6:00 a.m., in the dark, not knowing what’s on the other side of that door.  I think I speak for all the prosecutors in the room when I say, thank you – for your courage, your commitment and so much more. 

    And finally, the prosecutors.  My fellow prosecutors.  It’s a privilege to be here with you.  In my new capacity as Deputy Attorney General, I give a lot of speeches now to a lot of groups.  But here, with you, I feel like I am with “my people.”  And I’m particularly grateful to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, who for 10 years have brought “my people” together for this important summit.  And it’s actually you – the prosecutors – who I want to speak about today – about the critical work prosecutors do and why we’re all so proud to do it.

    As Karol mentioned, I’ve been a prosecutor for a long time.  But I didn’t set out to be a prosecutor.  In fact, I would imagine that contrary to many of you, I didn’t feel the calling in law school.  I started my legal career in a big firm in Atlanta.  I was there for a few years and I had a good experience there.  But I didn’t find the work as satisfying as I had hoped, so I thought I would give the U.S. Attorney’s Office a shot, with the full expectation that I would go back to the firm after a few years.  And so I set off for the Justice Department and, in retrospect, I was totally unprepared for what I would encounter there.

    First, many people talk about the pressure of a big firm practice and those in private practice assume that it’s easier on the government side.  My experience was just the opposite.  First, the stakes are a lot higher as a prosecutor.  In private practice, or at least the private practice that I experienced, the lawyers were pretty much representing companies fighting over money.  Make no mistake, the money is important to the clients and often times it’s a whole lot of money, but in the big scheme of things, it’s just money.  No one is going to lose their liberty.  No child is going to grow up with a parent behind bars.  No victim is counting on you to hold accountable the person who robbed or raped or killed a family member.  So while all legal jobs require you to do your best work and vigorously represent the interests of your client, there is a whole lot more riding on how well you perform as a prosecutor.

    Secondly, as a prosecutor, in all but the largest or most complex cases, you’re often handling the case on your own.  There’s not a team of lawyers to draft your briefs and triple-check your footnotes and there’s no one else responsible when things go wrong.  It’s up to you and your judgment.  I was a young associate in private practice, so to be honest, no client was really relying on my advice.  I might write a memo to a partner about the legal issues or even give my opinion on strategy, but in the end, someone else was going to be making that call.  And the pressure on me was to do a good job to impress the partner.  But as a prosecutor, we have real, not artificial, pressure.  Prosecutors generally aren’t writing memos or staying at work late to impress anyone in the office.  Prosecutors are staying late to get their work done and to get it done well.  I always have to chuckle when a defense attorney from a large, well-resourced defense firm with an army of associates on a case mentions the “vast resources” of the government.  While the overall resources may be vast, at least at the federal level, it sure doesn’t feel that way when you’re the one standing by the copy machine late at night making sure your exhibits are ready for the next day, or sitting at your computer drafting last minute responses to defense motions, even though you still have an opening to craft, or putting together your own exhibit binders.  And when you combine the amount of individual work required with the stakes involved, that’s real pressure.

    So why do we do it?  Well, I can tell you why I do it.  Because, as corny as it sounds, we have the privilege of representing the people of the United States.  And this is indeed a privilege to treasure.  Think about it.  When you represent private clients, you pretty much have to take your clients as you find them.  It’s your ethical responsibility to represent their interests, regardless of whether you think they’re really right or whether you even like them.  But as a prosecutor, unless we believe that a defendant is in fact guilty and that it’s right and fair that he or she be charged, we don’t bring that case.  What other group of lawyers has that luxury?  What other group of lawyers has had the opportunity not simply to zealously represent the interests of an individual client, but to do what  is right and just and fair?  But with that privilege comes great responsibility.  The people of our country are counting on us to not only be the glue that holds together an orderly society; they are counting on us to do it in manner that engenders their trust and confidence.  We’re held to a higher standard than other lawyers.  And in my mind, that’s as it should be.  Because, in the famous words of Justice [George] Sutherland, a prosecutor is “The representative not of an ordinary party, but a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.”

    Over my 27 years as a prosecutor, as a Line Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA), Supervisor, U.S. Attorney and now as Deputy Attorney General, I have witnessed and been humbled by prosecutors’ commitment to that responsibility.  I have watched as prosecutors have spoken for victims who had no voice and who stood up for the vulnerable in our society so often overlooked. 

    I remember a human trafficking case during my time as U.S. Attorney in Atlanta.  The defendants in that case had lured impoverished young women and girls from Mexico to the United States on a promise of marriage and jobs.  When the women arrived in the United States, they were forced into prostitution, with more than 20 men on their first night.  They were beaten and tortured, diminished and treated as animals.  Our prosecutors worked hard on that case.  They convicted the perpetrators, some of whom received 40 years in prison.  I will never forget talking with these young women after sentencing, where they had bravely stared down their assailants to testify.  They told me afterward about their newfound dignity, made possible not simply because the case was prosecuted, but because of the way it was prosecuted.  These women found dignity – in part – because our prosecutors treated them with dignity.  They told me that they had their lives back now.  Because of these prosecutors, the defendants will never be able to victimize others in this way again.  Because of these prosecutors, these young women, who had been so brutally abused, had gained the strength to overcome horrors that most of us can’t imagine and to reclaim their lives.  Prosecutors across the country do this kind of work every single day.  And because of the work you do, the weak, the powerless, the silenced victims in this country are not only given voice, they reclaim their sense of self. 

    I have also been repeatedly humbled by prosecutors’ commitment to justice.  The prosecutors I know aren’t motivated by “winning” or amassing notches on their belts.  They don’t try to send everyone to prison for as long as possible.  They are motivated by their responsibility to enforce the law, to make their communities safe and to fairly administer justice.  And fairness and justice is what matters most of all. 

    These aren’t just ethereal concepts.  I have seen prosecutors live this every day.  When I was U.S. Attorney, we learned that a sitting judge in our district had been using illegal drugs with a woman with whom he was involved.  Even more troubling, we learned that during the course of this relationship, the judge had become jealous of the relationship that this woman had with an African American man and he told the woman that he sentenced African American men more harshly than white men.  As you might imagine, we were stunned.  While the case was being prosecuted by main justice, we knew that regardless of the outcome of the criminal case against the judge, we had to do something about the potential impact of the judge’s stated racial bias.  So we gathered the supervisors of our office around the conference room table and considered what we should do.  As it stood, it was unlikely that these statements were going to be publicly revealed during the judge’s criminal case.  But to the great credit of the prosecutors in our office, everyone agreed that we had an obligation to publicly disclose what we had learned and to do everything that we could to ensure that defendants who had appeared before this judge had been treated fairly.  So we publicly announced what we had learned about the judge’s statements and also announced that anyone who had a case before the judge after the time of the alleged statements would get an automatic “do-over.”  We agreed to have their case heard again by another judge.  And because we recognized that this kind of racial animus doesn’t arise overnight, we announced that, if requested, we would review the case of any defendant who had appeared before this judge, regardless of the timing, for any evidence of racial bias.  As you might expect, this was a huge undertaking.  Going back to review trial transcripts and sentencings from years-old cases was enormously time consuming.  But the remarkable part about this is that when we needed to have AUSAs review the transcripts, we didn’t once have to assign a case.  AUSAs raised their hands and volunteered.  They volunteered to take on this tedious and difficult work, on top of everything else they were doing, because they were committed to ensuring that the public had confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system.  They weren’t looking for stats – they were looking for justice. 

    As impressive as this is, it’s entirely consistent with the day-to-day devotion to justice that I’ve seen from the prosecutors I’ve known over all these years.  The prosecutors I know don’t play hide the ball or look to read their discovery obligations as narrowly as possible.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  As I watched prosecutors in our office agonize over whether they had tracked down every possible shred of exculpatory evidence or impeaching evidence, I often wished the public could see the lengths they went to ensure that they didn’t just meet their ethical obligations, but that they exceeded them. 

    This is made increasingly hard in an environment where it seems at least some defense counsel have made allegations of prosecutorial misconduct a standard litigation strategy, where some defense counsel seek to use that wonderful Justice Sutherland quote as a weapon rather than as a reflection of who we are and what we stand for.  Let me be clear, I have absolutely no tolerance for prosecutors who shirk their ethical obligations, discovery-related or otherwise.  I believe that we can and should be held to a higher standard than other lawyers – and if you don’t like that, you shouldn’t be a prosecutor.  But it’s because I believe that the overwhelming majority of prosecutors honor this obligation as one of the most fundamental parts of their job, that I take great exception to irresponsibility throwing around allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.  Prosecutors are in these jobs because we care about our solemn obligation to seek justice and when someone unfairly impugns that commitment, it strikes at the core of who we are. 

    I’m proud to be a prosecutor.  I’m proud to be a part of a profession that holds those who violate our law accountable, that makes our communities safer, that stands up for victims and that, above all else, seeks justice.  At the Department of Justice, we are proud every day to be your colleagues.  We are proud to stand with you and beside you on the side of justice as we seek to advance the values that all of you have spent your lives defending. 

    Thank you.  

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Director Ronald Davis of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Testifies Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Good afternoon, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Coons, and distinguished Members of the Committee.  Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the many ways in which the Department of Justice is providing valuable support and resources to the nation’s 800,000 law enforcement officers in the more than 16,000 local, state and tribal police agencies and sheriff’s offices across the country.

    I come to you today not just as the Director of the Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services – also known as COPS – but as one who has spent close to 30 years as a local police officer.  I served 20 years in the Oakland Police Department rising to the rank of Captain, and close to nine years as police chief for the city of East Palo Alto, California. For me, the decision to become a cop was an easy one – I simply followed my father’s footsteps, who served 25 years in the Philadelphia Police Department.

    I can tell you as a 30-year, second-generation cop, there is no greater or more noble profession than policing.  And, I can also tell you without hesitation that the men and women who answer this calling are truly America’s finest.  So, you can imagine the great satisfaction it brings me to lead the COPS Office and work for the Justice Department – an agency that provides tremendous support to local, state and tribal law enforcement. 

    For example, since 2009, COPS has awarded over $2 billion in hiring grants to create and preserve more than 10,000 police officer and deputy positions in nearly 2,600 law enforcement agencies.  For some agencies, providing funding for just one officer may mean the difference in having a full shift and making sure officers have sufficient cover and safety.

    COPS also supports the development of effective crime-fighting initiatives. As a police chief I implemented several of these initiatives which contributed to dramatic reductions in murders in my city – a city that was once dubbed the murder capital of the United States.

    Over the past 20 years, the COPS Office has provided training to over 700,000 officers and deputies, and supports valuable research releasing publications on a wide range of issues from homeland security to reducing gang violence to building community trust and enhancing officer safety and wellness.  These publications are critical to the field because most agencies have fewer than 50 officers and do not have the capacity to conduct this research on their own.  

    Just last month COPS released two valuable research reports – one addressing ambush attacks against police, and another presenting models for protecting the physical and psychological health of officers.  These reports will help officer safety and save lives.

    Through our executive sessions, COPS brings together the best and brightest minds in the field to tackle issues such as crime and violence, preventing violent extremism, handling mass casualty events, use of force and officer safety.  The information gleaned from these sessions is distributed to the field.  

    Another way we help the field is through the COPS Collaborative Reform Initiative.  At a law enforcement agency’s request, COPS examines key operational areas within the agency – such as training, internal investigations, use of force, and racial profiling – and provides recommendations that will enhance community trust and public safety.  COPS then works closely with the agency in implementing these recommendations.

    The Las Vegas police department was the first to complete this process and Collaborative Reform efforts are now underway in Spokane, Philadelphia, St. Louis County, Salinas, Calexico, and Fayetteville, with the latest request coming from the Milwaukee police chief.

    This voluntary process has received support from the Civil Rights Division and my esteemed colleague, Vanita Gupta.  It is considered in some cases as a viable option, when appropriate, over a pattern and practice investigation.

    Through our Catalyst grants, COPS works with and supports the major law enforcement organizations in addressing key challenges facing law enforcement such as the use of force, animal cruelty, leadership development and mentoring, and officer safety and wellness.

    The COPS Office also funds a Critical Response for Technical Assistance program that offers immediate, real-time assistance to agencies dealing with major public safety incidents.

    For example, within days of the start of mass demonstrations in Ferguson, COPS was able to connect regional police leaders with police executives with experience dealing with similar issues.  We have provided support to nearly a dozen agencies at their request.  And, as with all COPS projects, the lessons learned from these cities are shared with the over 16,000 law enforcement agencies throughout the United States.

    This year, the COPS Office provided administrative support to the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing – a task force comprised of law enforcement and community leaders – which issued 59 recommendations to help agencies and communities build trust and advance public safety. 

    While policing is primarily a local issue, the federal government has a critical role to play in helping our local law enforcement agencies respond to the challenges of policing in the 21st  century.  Under the leadership of President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the Department of Justice has made supporting local law enforcement one of the Administration’s top priorities.

    As a career police officer, I know firsthand just how important this support is, and I can say without hesitation that the men and women of the Department of Justice make this a priority every day.

    Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: Outcrop Silver to Present at the Metals & Mining Virtual Investor Conference

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Outcrop Silver (TSXV: OCG, OTCQX: OCGSF, DE: MRG) (“Outcrop Silver”) today announced that Ian Harris, President and CEO, will participate in the Metals & Mining Virtual Investor Conference on February 12-13, 2025.

    PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2025
    TIME: 3:00 pm ET
    LINK: https://bit.ly/3WN4CNo

    Outcrop Silver invites individual and institutional investors, as well as advisors and analysts, to attend real-time, interactive presentations on VirtualInvestorConferences.com

    Investors are invited to ask the company questions in real-time. If attendees are not able to join the event live on the day of the conference, an archived webcast will also be made available after the event.

    The management team is available for 1×1 meetings.

    It is recommended that investors pre-register and run the online system check to expedite participation and receive event updates.

    Investors can learn more about the event at www.virtualinvestorconferences.com.
    Details of these and other investor events are available on the “Events” section of Outcrop Silver’s website at www.outcropsilver.com

    Company Highlights

    • Flagship Project: Advancing the high-grade Santa Ana primary silver project in Colombia, recognized as one of the world’s highest grade primary silver projects.
    • Resource Quality: Indicated resource grade stands at 614 g/t AgEq.
    • Resource Categorization: 64% of the silver equivalent ounces are classified as indicated.
    • Resource Composition: The total mineral resources comprise 73% silver and 27% gold
    • Metallurgical Excellence: Achieved outstanding recoveries of 96.3% for silver and 98.5% for gold through advanced gravimetric and flotation methods.
    • Pathway to Growth: Recent drilling extended high-grade mineralization by 9 kilometres south of the resource area. Ongoing expansion drilling is complemented by efforts to de-risk the project through strengthened ESG performance, engineering advancements, and permitting progress.

    About Outcrop Silver

    Outcrop Silver is a leading explorer and developer focused on advancing its flagship Santa Ana high-grade silver project in Colombia. Leveraging a disciplined and seasoned team of professionals with decades of experience in the region, Outcrop Silver is dedicated to expanding current mineral resources through strategic exploration initiatives.

    At the core of our operations is a commitment to responsible mining practices and community engagement, underscoring our approach to sustainable development. Our expertise in navigating complex geological and market conditions enables us to consistently identify and capitalize on opportunities to enhance shareholder value. With a deep understanding of the Colombian mining landscape and a track record of successful exploration, Outcrop Silver is poised to transform the Santa Ana project into a significant silver producer, contributing positively to the local economy and setting new standards in the mining industry.

    CONTACTS:
    Outcrop Silver
    Ian Harris, Chief Executive Officer                       Kathy Li, Vice President Investor Relations
    +1 604 638 2545                                                       +1 778 783 2818
    harris@outcropsilver.com                                     li@outcropsilver.com www.outcropsilver.com

    About Virtual Investor Conferences®
    Virtual Investor Conferences (VIC) is the leading proprietary investor conference series that provides an interactive forum for publicly traded companies to seamlessly present directly to investors.

    Providing a real-time investor engagement solution, VIC is specifically designed to offer companies more efficient investor access. Replicating the components of an on-site investor conference, VIC offers companies enhanced capabilities to connect with investors, schedule targeted one-on-one meetings and enhance their presentations with dynamic video content. Accelerating the next level of investor engagement, Virtual Investor Conferences delivers leading investor communications to a global network of retail and institutional investors.

    Virtual Investor Conferences
    John M. Viglotti
    SVP Corporate Services, Investor Access
    OTC Markets Group
    (212) 220-2221
    johnv@otcmarkets.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Treasury Bond Auction Announcement – RIKB 27 0415 – RIKB 42 0217 – Switch Auction or Cash payment

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Series RIKB 27 0415 RIKB 42 0217
    ISIN IS0000036291 IS0000033884
    Maturity Date 04/15/2027 02/17/2042
    Auction Date 02/07/2025 02/07/2025
    Settlement Date 02/12/2025 02/12/2025
    10% addition 02/11/2025 02/11/2025
     
    Buyback issue RIKB 25 0612  
    Buyback price (clean) 99.8300  

    On the Auction Date, between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., the Government Debt Management will auction Treasury bonds in the Series, with the ISIN numbers and with the Maturity Dates according to the table above. Article 6 of the General Terms of Auction for Treasury bonds applies for the right to purchase an additional 10%. The Treasury bonds will be delivered in electronic form on the Settlement Date.

    Payment for the bonds can be made in cash or with the Buyback issue at the Buyback price.

    Payment in cash for the Treasury bonds must be received by the Central Bank before 14:00 on the Settlement Date. If payment is made with the Buyback issue, a notification of the amount must be received no later than by 14:00 on the Auction Date. In that case, the value of the Buyback bond is determined by the Buyback price plus accrued interest (i.e. dirty price).

    No fee is paid in relation to the purchase of RIKB 25 0612.

    Further reference is made to the description of the Treasury bond and the General Terms of Auction of Treasury Bonds.

    For additional information please contact Tryggvi Freyr Harðarson, Government Debt Management, at +354 569 9630.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: IADC OK-TX Panhandle Chapter Hosting Operator’s Panel on 27 Feb

    Source: International Association of Drilling Contractors – IADC

    Headline: IADC OK-TX Panhandle Chapter Hosting Operator’s Panel on 27 Feb

    On 27 February, the IADC Oklahoma-Texas Panhandle Chapter is hosting its 2025 Operator’s Panel at the Petroleum Club in Oklahoma City. The event will include cocktails and hors d’oeuvres starting at 4:30pm, followed by a panel discussion at 6pm. Members are encouraged to register early, as space is limited. 

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: IADC MIT Student Chapter Hosts International Workshop on Emerging Technologies

    Source: International Association of Drilling Contractors – IADC

    Headline: IADC MIT Student Chapter Hosts International Workshop on Emerging Technologies

    The IADC Maharashtra Institute of Technology (MIT) Student Chapter in Pune, India recently organized the International Workshop on Emerging Technologies 2025. Running from the end of January through the beginning of February, this workshop series provided excellent opportunities for students to explore how emerging technologies are transforming the oil & gas industry and shaping the future. Other universities were able to join the event virtually.

    The event included the following sessions, which were held from 3-5pm: 

    • 20-24 January: Mr. Atul Kunte – Drilling and Well Control Simulation (IWCF)
    • 25-26 January: Mr. Pranshu Shrivastava – CMG Simulation
    • 28 January: Mr. Sambhaji Devkar – Petrophysics
    • 29 January: Mr. Madhav Tilgulkar – Rig Selection & Inspection
    • 31 January: Miss Bhargavi Joshirao – Well Construction & Cementing
    • 5 February: Mr. Bhushan Gambhir – Challenges in Artificial Lifts

    Well done to the IADC MIT Student Chapter for organizing this insightful series of info sessions for students! 

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: IADC Attends 11th Session of IMO Ship Design & Construction Subcommittee

    Source: International Association of Drilling Contractors – IADC

    Headline: IADC Attends 11th Session of IMO Ship Design & Construction Subcommittee

    At this 11th session of the Ship Design & Construction Subcommittee meeting, IADC was particularly interested to participate in, and continue its observation of, the following agenda items:

    Further development of the Industrial Personnel (IP) Code and Associated Guidance

    • IADC participated in the Drafting Group convened by the Subcommittee Chair during this session to finalize draft amendments to Part IV of the IP Code and consider alignment of provisions between the IP Code and the Special-Purpose Ship (SPS) Code. This effort resulted in the Drafting Group establishing recommendations to the Subcommittee to orient onboard person weight/mass criteria for stability calculations with those utilized in the SPS Code. The subcommittee also tasked this Drafting Group with consideration of additional operational guidelines to be entered into the IP Code. Further action was put on hold until additional user experience can be gained through application of the Code by authorities and other stakeholder groups.

    Experience building phase for the Reduction of Underwater Radiated Noise (URN)

    • IADC participated in the Subcommittee’s plenary discussion to progress work on URN. As a result, the Subcommittee established a Correspondence Group to assess results of commissioned URN studies conducted so far. This assessment will assist with formulating additional steps to monitor the maritime industry’s “experience building phase” (EBP) so more detailed objectives can be identified to inform further development of provisions in the areas of technical application.

    Development of guidelines for emergency towing arrangements for ships other than tankers

    • IADC observed discussion of reassessment of tow-force calculations to ensure alignment with amended emergency towing requirements for ships other than tankers to come into force on certain new vessels in 2028. IADC anticipates that class societies (organizations that establish and maintain technical provisions for ships) will develop necessary additions to class rules to account for emergency towing amendments before the 2028 implementation date.

    IADC’s History with IMO

    Since 1975, IADC has retained its observer delegate status at IMO. One of two upstream oil and gas associations having such access, IADC is prominently recognized and frequently referenced by the global maritime community for its specialization and proficiency in Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs) concerns. IMO member countries regularly consult with IADC on safety and environmental matters unique to MODUs.

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Video: DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASHATILE DELIVERS A KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT THE LAUNCH OF SA SOCIAL COHESION INDEX

    Source: Republic of South Africa (video statements)

    DEPUTY PRESIDENT SHIPOKOSA PAULUS MASHATILE DELIVERING A KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT THE LAUNCH OF THE 2024 SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIAL COHESION INDEX (SASCI), IN WESTERN CAPE.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUN7r6R4j_Y

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Defense News: NPS, Industry Research Leads to First in Persistent, Ocean Acoustic Data Collection Technology

    Source: United States Navy

    The team’s successful development of an innovative, self-powered autonomous underwater drone, known as the Persistent Smart Acoustic Profiler (PSAP) Voyager, has already delivered large swaths of oceanographic and passive acoustic data primed for NPS student research since it was deployed for the first time off the coast of Kona, Hawaii, in early November of 2024

    Naval forces have an inherent operational reason to be quiet and stealthy at sea. Retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. John Joseph, a researcher in the NPS Department of Oceanography and principal investigator on the project, said the effort has been funded by the school’s Consortium for Unmanned Systems Education and Research (CRUSER), which is sponsored by the Office of Naval Research.

    “PSAP started as a CRUSER project a few years ago when Yi Chao, Seatrec CEO and a well-known oceanographer, gave a talk at NPS about their energy-harvesting system,” said Joseph, who recognized an opportunity to combine the school’s expertise in undersea acoustics and research instrumentation with Seatrec’s innovative energy harvesting technology.

    NPS excels at conducting applied research in the operating environment. For the first time, PSAP offers an ability to collect and send oceanographic and passive acoustic monitoring data in near real-time for an unlimited period, thanks to the profiler’s ability to harvest energy from the temperature differences in the ocean, enough to fully power the instrumentation indefinitely.

    “Theoretically, PSAP can be deployed once, communicate its acoustic information to remote operators in near real time for limitless periods without requiring retrieval to offload data, refreshment – such as swapping batteries or data storage, or replacement,” explained Joseph. “These characteristics greatly reduce lifecycle costs of a continuous acoustic monitoring effort.”

    Empowering student research and discovery is central to the institution’s efforts with industry partners, and the PSAP Voyager’s ongoing operational test – which can be monitored via the Seatrec website – has provided a trove of data for potential research.

    “Now that we have a sizable amount of oceanographic and acoustic data collected by PSAP, we plan to have students in the undersea warfare and meteorology and oceanography curricula to use these data for thesis research,” said Joseph.

    The role of acoustic sensing in Naval operations is far-reaching and fundamental to U.S. Navy and Marine Corps operations at sea, including undersea sensing and detection.

    “Passive acoustic listening has many operational and research applications in the Navy, and our students at NPS conduct applied research to meet naval-unique needs for at-sea operations that require measurements of ambient noise, understanding the composition of soundscapes and monitoring of marine mammals,” said Joseph. The autonomy and endurance of the PSAP Voyager “provides an unprecedented opportunity to collect acoustic data in real-time for very long periods in remote areas without the expense and logistical tail of ship support.”

    “Sound is used to ‘see’ underwater and is vital to understanding the ocean and monitoring the movement of natural and man-made objects,” added Yi Chao, Ph.D., Seatrec’s CEO and Founder in a recent news release. “Previously, hydrophones required power from expensive underwater cables from shore or ships but our PSAP Voyager untethers hydrophones and provides nearly unlimited persistent monitoring of the ocean in an extremely economical way.”

    While the technology promises to be useful for improving maritime domain awareness, it will also enhance U.S. naval oceanographic models for operational planning used to improve own-force sonar system performance.

    (This news story does not constitute an endorsement of Seatrec or its products and services by the Naval Postgraduate School, the Department of the Navy, or the Department of Defense.)

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Defense News: NAS Pensacola Participates in Annual Force Protection Exercise

    Source: United States Navy

    The exercise was part of Citadel Shield-Solid Curtain 2025 (CS-SC25), an annual, two-part force protection Commander, Naval Installations Command (CNIC) and U.S. Fleet Forces Command (USFFC)-led exercise that is taking place Feb. 3 through 14 at all continental U.S. Navy installations.

    CS-SC25 is designed to enhance the training and readiness of Navy security personnel and better prepare Department of the Navy (DoN) personnel for potential force protection situations.

    “Our security personnel operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,” said NAS Pensacola Installation Training Officer Erich Brinkmeir. “Although this exercise is not held in response to any specific threat, it’s important that we train for a variety of realistic threats to enhance our personnel and force-wide readiness.”

    Brinkmeir said that the exercise stress-tests NAS Pensacola’s ability to disseminate information and put into action individual response plans and security force responses while testing their ability to coordinate with local emergency responders and the community.

    “We’re committed to safeguarding life, equipment and facilities, and training like this helps us do that,” he said.

    Brinkmeier said scenarios during Citadel Shield – the first week of the exercise, led by CNIC – included the active shooter drill and hostage scenario, which members of the NAS Pensacola Anti-Terrorism Training Team (ATTT) used to gauge readiness from responding NAS Pensacola Naval Security Forces personnel.

    “Making sure that all of the different entities on base are aligned can help our Naval Security Forces personnel more effectively do their job,” he said. “Communication during any event is critical in ensuring the safety of our most valuable assets – the men and women here – which is crucial to our ongoing mission of supporting the commands which train the best aviators, aircrewman, aviation maintenance personnel and cyber warfare specialists in the world.”

    The second week of the annual Navy-wide exercise – Solid Curtain, led by USFFC – is centered around NAS Pensacola’s capability of exercising Navy Command and Control (C2) capabilities and evaluating the readiness and effectiveness of fleet and installation force protection programs.

    The two-part approach is designed to enhance the readiness of U.S. Navy security forces and ensure seamless interoperability among the commands, other services and agency partners in order to protect life, equipment and facilities.

    NAS Pensacola, referred to as the “Cradle of Naval Aviation,” is designed to support operational and training missions of tenant commands, including Naval Air Technical Training Center (NATTC), Naval Aviation Schools Command (NASC), the Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training (CNATT), Marine Aviation Training Support Groups (MATSG) 21 and 23 and is the headquarters for Naval Education and Training Command (NETC).

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Fast-track devolution approved for the city and wider region

    Source: City of Portsmouth

    Portsmouth City Council has welcomed the Government’s decision to fast-track establishing a new Strategic Authority for Portsmouth, Southampton Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight.

    The confirmation today that the area will be included in the Government’s Devolution Priority Programme is a major step towards establishing the new Strategic Authority for the region with elections for a new Mayor now likely to be held in May 2026.

    A new Strategic Authority would bring significant additional funding and powers devolved from government departments to the region, with a focus on driving economic growth, investment in infrastructure and strategic transport and planning. The elected Mayor will have responsibility for these new powers, all other council services, such as parks, libraries and waste collection, would continue to be delivered by existing councils.

    Last year the four upper tier authorities across Hampshire & the Solent (Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council, Hampshire County Council and Isle of Wight Council) submitted a joint expression of interest to Government signalling their support for establishing a regional ‘strategic’ authority in order to access the additional funding and powers it could bring. This was followed in January by a request to be included in the Government’s Devolution Priority Programme (DPP), a fast-track programme designed to deliver new Strategic Authorities across England.

    Government have signalled they will launch a public consultation on proposals for Strategic Authorities to seek local residents’ views. Government has been clear this is to gather feedback but is not a referendum on the proposals.

    Cllr Steve Pitt, Leader of Portsmouth City Council, said:

    “I am pleased Hampshire and The Solent has been selected as part of the Devolution Priority Programme and will ensure our area can benefit sooner from additional powers and investment for jobs and skills, housing and transport at a sub-regional level.

    “I have always said I favoured a deal for just the Solent area without an elected Mayor, but government ruled this out as an option so we now focus on what we can do to make a positive impact for our area, and one benefit a Mayor would bring is a seat for our region at the Government’s new Council of Nations and Regions.

    “We’re expecting government will fund the necessary changes without any impact on local taxpayers and once it has set out the next steps we’ll work with our partners to move things forward and get the best possible deal for our residents.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Update on fire at Barrow Centre, Mount Edgcumbe

    Source: City of Plymouth

    Mount Edgcumbe House and Country Park has been closed to all visitors today (Wednesday) following a fire at the Barrow Centre yesterday evening.

    Two flats and two holiday lets at the Centre have been seriously damaged by the fire, which was put out by crews from Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service assisted by Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, who are still on site this morning.

    The Barrow Centre was evacuated as soon as the fire was discovered and fortunately no one was injured.

    Other sections of the Barrow Centre housing businesses and flats are now being assessed. Mount Edgcumbe House itself has not been impacted.

    Sadly, those living in the damaged flats have lost their personal belongings. They were provided with temporary accommodation elsewhere in the park last night.

    The cause of the fire is being investigated.

    The buildings will now be assessed by structural engineers and the area around the Barrow Centre made safe and cordoned off.

    The park is expected to reopen tomorrow and an update on when businesses in the Barrow Centre can re-open will be provided once all the assessments have been completed.

    The Mount Edgcumbe House and Country Park team is contacting anyone who have any upcoming events or bookings that may be affected by the fire.

    Mount Edgcumbe House and Country Park is jointly owned and managed by Plymouth City Council and Cornwall Council.

    Plymouth councillor Tom Briars-Delve, Joint chair of the Mount Edgcumbe Joint Committee, said: “Everyone here is obviously devastated by the damage caused to the properties on the estate and our sympathies are with the families who have lost their possessions and the affected business owners. We will be supporting those families and the affected businesses however we can.

    “We are very thankful no one was injured by the fire and will leave it to the fire service to investigate its cause and how it spread. We are grateful for the efforts of the fire crews throughout the night.

    “Our priority is to support the families affected and to make the area safe so we can reopen the park and help the businesses resume their operations as soon as possible.”

    Cornwall councillor Kate Ewert, Joint chair of the Mount Edgcumbe Joint Committee, said: “The fire is devastating for everyone involved and I know there is a sense of shock amongst those who live and work here but we can be thankful that no one has been hurt. The fire service did an incredible job in getting to the site quickly and protecting the remainder of the property.

    “Our thoughts are with those who have lost all their possessions and I know the community is keen to pull together and provide support in whatever way it can. We will all be working together to help those impacted by this to get the Barrow Centre back up and running as soon possible.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Register now to avoid missing out on this year’s Sperrins and Killeter Walking Festival

    Source: Northern Ireland – City of Derry

    Register now to avoid missing out on this year’s Sperrins and Killeter Walking Festival

    5 February 2025

    Demand for the annual Sperrins and Killeter Walking Festival is extremely high this year, with one day of the event already sold out.

    This year’s festival will take place on Saturday, 1st and Sunday 2nd March. Part of the Sperrins Walking Programme this event provides a unique chance to discover the breath-taking landscapes of the Sperrins and Killeter, all while supporting physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing. Led by the outdoor experts at Far and Wild in collaboration with Derry City and Strabane District Council, it is a must-attend for every avid walker!

    Due to high demand, the Saturday, 1st March 8km walk, ‘The Moat at the Heart of Glenelly,’ is now sold out. But don’t miss your chance to join the stunning Killeter walk on Sunday, 2nd March ‘Myths & Stories from the Edge of Time’. This moderate 8km walk will take you from Lettercran in Co Donegal to Killeter village in Co Tyrone via the scenic Carrickaholten Forest. This fascinating walk traces the footsteps of emigrants, market-goers, smugglers, and travellers who have crossed the border area throughout history. Along the way, participants will learn stories at key landmarks and hear about the region’s rich cultural heritage.  Registration will begin at 10am at the Killeter Heritage Centre but remember to pre-book your place at www.farandwild.org. The cost is £10.

    A highlight of both days is the incredible community spirit and hospitality shown to all walkers. Whether at registration at Watt’s Bar in Plumbridge on Saturday, 1st March or at the Killeter Heritage Centre on Sunday, 2nd March, and after the walks, participants will experience the warm local welcome the Sperrins and Killeter are famous for. Enjoy refreshments, home-baked scones and bread, and the cosy comfort of open fires to dry off those soggy socks and rest tired feet. It’s the perfect opportunity to relax, swap stories, and enjoy some good craic with fellow walkers.

    Encouraging people to come out and take part in the Killeter walk, the Mayor of Derry City and Strabane District Council, Cllr Lilian Seenoi Barr said: “It’s brilliant to see so many people have already registered for the Glenelly walk, and I’m sure the Killeter walk will sell-out soon. So please make sure and register to take part in the walk today.

    “These walks will take you through the spectacular scenery that is the Sperrins, and it’s right on our doorsteps. We have no excuses, get out and enjoy all that this beautiful area has to offer. As well as experiencing the benefits of a day in the outdoors, you’ll also learn some fascinating facts about the history of the area and meet lots of new people. And when the hard miles are over, you can relax and enjoy a cuppa and a chat among friends.”

    Both walks are part of the Sperrins Walking Programme, offering an excellent chance to discover the area’s scenic beauty and historical depth. While Saturday’s walk is fully booked, don’t miss out on the remaining spaces for Sunday’s event.

    For further information and to book your place visit: www.farandwild.org

    For more information about the whole Sperrins Walking Programme visit: https://sperrinspartnershipproject.com/sperrins-walking/

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: INEOS cuts brutal blow for community

    Source: Scottish Greens

    05 Feb 2025 Economy Energy

    Local Green MSP reacts to brutal INEOS cuts at Grangemouth

    More in Economy

    INEOS has announced redundancies of over 400 staff members at their Grangemouth refinery in central Scotland.

    Gillian Mackay, the Scottish Greens MSP for Central Scotland, grew up just 200 yards from the refinery.

    Ms Mackay said:

    “This is a brutal blow for Scotland, but particularly for the community I grew up in and the workers who I know well. I know how hurt the community feels at this time; my thoughts are with everyone.

    “All of us in the town know somebody who is employed directly or indirectly by the refinery. They’re the ones now suffering. Many people will be extremely worried and possibly angry about what will happen next. I am too, I feel the same.

    “This is the opposite of the just transition that is needed for the site and for Grangemouth. We have known for a long time that change is needed. The workers at Grangemouth are some of the most talented and skilled anywhere in Scotland, they must be at the heart of shaping Scotland’s green industrial future. Scotland deserves better; what is happening in Grangemouth is a warning sign for the lack of government support for the just transition in Scotland.

    “Our community has yet again been let down by both governments. Politicians of all parties need to step up and work with trade unions and the community to do everything they can to support local people.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: New Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan Presents Credentials

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    (Based on Information Provided by the Protocol and Liaison Service)

    The new Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations, Tofig Musayev, presented his credentials to UN Secretary-General António Guterres today.

    Between 2019 and his most recent appointment, Mr. Musayev served as his country’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, and from 2016 to 2019, as the Permanent Mission’s Counsellor.  He led the Regional Security Department in his country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 2014 to 2016.

    His diplomatic career includes serving as Counsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations from 2008 to 2014, including during his country’s membership in the Security Council.  In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he further served as Deputy Director and Director of the Foreign Policy Planning and Strategic Studies Department from 2004 to 2008, and Deputy Director of the International Law and Treaties Department and Head of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Division from 2001 to 2004.

    He also held various positions in the Permanent Mission of Azerbaijan to the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva from 1997 to 2001, and in the Treaties and Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1993 to 1997.

    Mr. Musayev holds a bachelor’s degree in law from the Baku State University, and a master’s degree (LLM) in international human rights law from the University of Essex.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: New Permanent Representative of Austria Presents Credentials

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    (Based on information provided by the Protocol and Liaison Service)

    The new Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations, Gregor W. Koessler, presented his credentials to UN Secretary-General António Guterres today.

    Between 2020 and his most recent appointment, Mr. Koessler served as Director-General for Bilateral Affairs and European Union Common Foreign Policy in his country’s Ministry of European and International Affairs. He was the Director of the Austrian Foreign Minister’s Cabinet from 2019 to 2020.

    Prior to that, he was his country’s Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Non-resident Ambassador to the Sultanate of Oman and the Republic of Yemen from 2012 to 2019.  From 2009 to 2012, he was Head of the Directorate for Property Management in his country’s Ministry of European and Foreign Affairs, and from 2007 to 2008, he was Head of Cabinet for the State Secretary in that Ministry.

    His other roles included Head of Cabinet for the Special Coordinator of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe from 2002 to 2007 and Director of Cabinet for the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1999 to 2002.

    Mr. Koessler holds master’s degrees in contemporary history and philosophy from the Leopold Franzens University of Innsbruck, Austria, and in international economics and conflict management from the Johns Hopkins University, United States.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: New Permanent Observer for International Committee of Red Cross Presents Letter of Appointment

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    (Based on information provided by the Protocol and Liaison Service) 

    The new Permanent Observer for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Elyse Mosquini, presented her letter of appointment to UN Secretary-General António Guterres today.

    Prior to her appointment, Ms. Mosquini served at the organization in various roles including as Secretary-General to the Assembly, ad interim, between April and December 2024, and Chief of Staff to the Office of the President from March 2019 to March 2024.  She was Deputy Head of Resource Mobilization from June 2018 to March 2019 and Deputy Regional Director for Movement Affairs for the Near and Middle East between November 2016 and June 2018. 

    Prior to her career with ICRC, Ms. Mosquini worked as coordinator at the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent between June 2014 and November 2016.  She also worked in multiple positions for the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), including as Senior Disaster Law Officer, Legal Counsel, Senior Humanitarian Affairs Adviser, Senior Legal Office and Legal Delegate — all spanning between July 2005 and June 2014. 

    Ms. Mosquini has a graduate law degree from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and a bachelor’s degree in economics, political science and international relations from the University of Wisconsin, United States.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: AFSCME’s Saunders: Federal funding for transportation should not be used as a cudgel against communities

    Source: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union

    WASHINGTON – AFSCME President Lee Saunders released the following statement in response to the USDOT memo re-directing federal funds away from communities:

    “Investing in our nation’s transportation is essential for maintaining strong communities and a vibrant economy. It is absurd to re-direct taxpayer dollars away from our communities because of arbitrary standards such as marriage and birth rates; or to use federal funding policies as a cudgel to push states and localities to fall in line on the president’s policies. Clearly, this isn’t about public safety or transportation. It’s about dividing Americans while those in power work to enrich billionaires and hope that we don’t notice.

    “Meanwhile, the workers who have dedicated their careers to maintaining our transportation infrastructure are being attacked. Our economy and working families will pay the price if this continues.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at the Investiture of United States Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery.

    Thank you, Chief Judge Smith. Greetings to the distinguished judges and court personnel, United States Attorney’s Office employees, family and friends of the Eastern District of Virginia’s new U.S. Attorney.

    It is a great privilege to join so many distinguished guests to celebrate Zach Terwilliger, and to honor the Office of the United States Attorney and the judicial system in which it serves.

    After the Constitution was ratified in 1789, one of the first Congressional actions was to adopt the Judiciary Act, establishing federal district courts and United States Attorneys, including one for what was then the District of Virginia.

    When President George Washington selected the first United States Attorneys, he sent each one a handwritten letter. Some of the recipients had applied for the job, but to others, the appointment came as a surprise, and as a burden that was not always welcome.

    It was a part-time job. There were no Assistant U.S. Attorneys or support staff. And it did not pay very well.

    So, Washington appealed to the patriotism of his inaugural class of U.S. Attorneys. He wrote: “The high importance of the Judicial System in our national Government, made it an indispensable duty to select … characters to fill the … offices … [who] would discharge their respective trusts with honor to themselves and advantage to their Country.”

    Virginia lawyer John Marshall, the future Chief Justice of the United States, was a recipient of that letter.

    The internet web site for the Eastern District of Virginia proudly states, and I quote, “John Marshall … was appointed by President Washington to serve as the first United States Attorney for the District of Virginia.”

    Virginia’s claim to Chief Justice Marshall as the first U.S. Attorney is quite a distinction. But it is not entirely accurate. Now, it is literally true that John Marshall was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Washington. But he never actually served as U.S. Attorney.

    In fact, Marshall responded to the President with a letter of his own. Marshall wrote, “[T]hank you … very sincerely for the honor … [but] I beg leave to declare that … with real regret[,] I decline ….”

    Washington replied with yet another letter. He wrote, “As some other person must be appointed to fill the Office of Attorney for the district of Virginia, it is proper your Commission should be returned to me.” He wanted the document back!

    Perhaps that explains why, when the case of Marbury versus Madison came along in 1803, Chief Justice Marshall focused so intently on the importance of the signed commission.

    Zachary Terwilliger did not share John Marshall’s reluctance to serve as U.S. Attorney. On the contrary, Zach was so eager that he did not even wait for a Presidential nomination, let alone a senate confirmation or a signed commission. Fortunately, it is well-established that the Attorney General, as a principal officer, possesses the authority to appoint federal prosecutors.

    But the decision to select Zach was not made lightly, by either Attorney General Jeff Sessions or President Donald Trump. It was made with the support of two distinguished Senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, and with the gratitude of many members of the bench and bar.

    And it was well deserved.

    I was fortunate to work closely with Zach for more than a year. He helped me through my confirmation process. At the end of my Senate confirmation hearing, Zach told me that I probably would not need to return to Capitol Hill anytime soon. He said that the Deputy Attorney General rarely testifies before the Congress. That was the only bad advice he gave me.

    Zach went on to serve as my Chief of Staff. That is one of the most challenging jobs in the Department of Justice. It requires legal skills. It requires political skills. It requires organizational skills. It requires tact. It requires endurance. And Zach performed it with distinction.

    I want to offer three points of advice for success as United States Attorney, principles that Zachary Terwilliger exemplifies.

    Point one: Know what you stand for.

    A few months ago, on Law Day, President Trump explained that “we govern ourselves in accordance with the rule of law rather than according to the whims of an elite few or the dictates of collective will.  Through law, we have ensured liberty.  We should not … take that success for granted.”

    Consistent with the President’s words, we do not take success for granted. We know that the rule of law depends on the character and conduct of the people who enforce the law.

    I encourage you to pay attention to the final clause of the oath that Zach swears today. It includes a promise to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.”

    Not every government job carries the same duties. In order to fulfill your oath, you must understand the unique responsibilities of your office. You need to know what you stand for.

    In a 1940 speech, Attorney General Robert Jackson spoke eloquently about what prosecutors stand for. He said that “the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches [the] task with humility.”

    Another Attorney General, Edward Levi, once observed that “it is by watching [law enforcement] that many of our citizens learn what kind of country this is…. People must believe, if not in the wisdom of a particular law, at least in the fairness and honesty of the enforcement process… Nothing can more weaken the quality of life … than … failure to make clear by words and deeds that our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose.”

    More recently, Judge Richard Posner described our job this way: “The Department of Justice wields enormous power over people’s lives, much of it beyond judicial or political review. With power comes responsibility, moral if not legal, for its prudent and restrained exercise; and responsibility implies knowledge, experience and sound judgment, not just good faith.”

    Zach understands that good faith is necessary to do the job well, but it is not sufficient. Wisdom and experience are required, and Zach brings those attributes to the task.

    Point two: Maintain a sense of perspective.

    I was a young prosecutor in the Department of Justice when Zach’s father, George Terwilliger, served as Deputy Attorney General, and Zach was a young boy running down the Main Justice hallways. Bill Barr was the Attorney General. There were many other superb officials in Main Justice, and in the 93 U.S. Attorney’s Offices, including Jeff Sessions in Southern Alabama.

    Each of those great leaders faced unique challenges. You never know what crises may hit on your watch, but you can be sure that things will not always go as planned. Always keep in mind that we are just temporary stewards of these jobs.

    The adjective “executive” in the Executive Branch refers to the obligation to get things done. You are required to make controversial decisions, often in exigent circumstances and with imperfect information. Then everybody else gets unlimited time to reflect on how they might have done things differently. If you worry too much about the criticism, you will never get anything done.

    So after you identify priority goals, make sure you stay focused on achieving the priority goals. There is a sign in our office that reads, “Don’t tell me what I want to hear, just tell me what I need to know.” Zach always respected the importance of avoiding distractions and remaining focused on the things that really matter. As we say at Main Justice, keep moving forward.

    Point three: Earn the love and support of family and friends.

    There are times when these jobs require you to miss important events in the lives of your loved ones, both large and small.  Zach worked many nights and weekends, but he never lost track of what he was missing. He always spoke about his family and tried to make up for lost time.

    Zach, you learned those priorities from your parents, and you and Anne will pass them on to Charlotte and George. You had a life before this job. You will have a life after this job. Stay close to the people you want as part of that life.

    Let me conclude with one final thought. Robert Jackson ended his 1940 speech to U.S. Attorneys with these words: “A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches [the] task with humility.”

    If you follow that advice, you will remain faithful to our mission.

    Zach, for the past two years I have observed your sense of fair play, your kindness, your commitment to the truth and the rule of law, and your humility.

    John Marshall declined to take up George Washington’s charge to serve as U.S. Attorney. Thank you for proudly accepting the commission. You will serve with honor to yourself and advantage to your country.

    It is an honor to work with you in the pursuit of justice.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford Delivers Remarks at the College of Europe’s Global Competition Law Centre

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Designing a System to Secure the Fair Administration of Competition Laws

    I am delighted to be with you today to discuss how competition authorities can promote fundamental due process in competition investigation and enforcement.  Ten years ago this topic would not have been high on the agenda for competition enforcers.  Today, in a globalized economy with over 130 competition enforcers, almost everyone agrees that convergence on due process is an important aspect of competition enforcement.  So the question is not whether we should promote due process, but how best to do so.  While guidelines, recommendations, and best practices are useful and important, the international competition community is ready to do more.  We should actively promote effective compliance to fundamental due process through a multilateral framework on procedures through which parties commit to basic fundamental norms, and that framework should be open for signature by all competition authorities.

    To ensure due process for all, it is essential to have a system in place to promote compliance.  Former Irish Foreign Minister Seán MacBride, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and a founder of the European Convention on Human Rights, noted that guarantees such as the “right to the fair administration of justice” will “never be adequately or efficiently protected without a system of machinery to enforce their application, a system of implementation for the rights declared.”  Today, I would like to discuss recent international efforts to design a system to secure the administration of competition laws according to due process principles.      

    For years, many jurisdictions, including the United States, have promoted due process in competition investigations and enforcement at home and abroad.  Former Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer emphasized that “in a global economy, competition and consumers are best served where corporations and individuals have confidence that they will be treated fairly wherever they do business.”  Adherence to due process principles helps agencies reach the right decision and improves the quality of antitrust enforcement overall.  Due process also enhances the reputation of competition authorities. 

    Many competition authorities around the world have joined in this effort to promote due process, including initiatives to promote due process at the ICN and OECD, leading to the current proposal, the Multilateral Framework on Procedures.

    As many of you know, in early June 2018, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim discussed publicly our months-long cooperation with leading antitrust agencies on an initiative to craft the Multilateral Framework on Procedures in Competition Law Investigation and Enforcement (“MFP”).  The MFP’s goal is to promote global due process in antitrust enforcement and thereby further improve cooperation among antitrust agencies around the world.  The United States and our partners around the world agree that basic minimal due process protections are of fundamental importance in antitrust enforcement.

    The goal of the MFP is to establish minimal procedural norms that are truly universal.  The MFP is animated by fundamental norms, which are accepted widely across the globe and that most competition agencies already recognize.  The MFP will combine this set of universal procedural norms with an adherence and review mechanism, under which the participants commit to these norms and agree to cooperate with each other regarding their compliance.

    The fundamental principles set forth in the MFP were derived from the texts of competition chapters in several existing bilateral and regional agreements, as well as from the work related to due process conducted by international organizations such as the OECD and the ICN, in conjunction with an examination of procedures and practices of competition authorities around the world.

    The draft text captures universal principles, using language that is versatile enough to cover both common as well as civil law jurisdictions, administrative as well as prosecutorial systems, and older as well as younger competition agencies.

    The core principles identified in the MFP include basic commitments regarding non-discrimination, transparency, meaningful engagement, timely resolution, confidentiality protections, avoidance of conflicts of interest, proper notice, opportunity to defend, access to counsel, and independent judicial review of enforcement decisions.

    The adherence and review mechanism under the MFP includes bilateral discussions and consultations between participating agencies, reporting by participants on the working of the MFP principles, as well as a proposed mechanism to review periodically any changes as may be needed.  The adherence and review mechanisms under the MFP are an important step forward towards a mutual commitment amongst agency partners.  The MFP also represents a substantial positive effort towards global respect for competition enforcement and the overall culture of competition we collectively have sought to promote. 

    The MFP is not a binding agreement in the international sense, but adhering to the framework is important, because breaches of a promise can have reputational consequences.  As Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim said in June, “The rich network of relationships ensures that reputation matters, and that the promise to abide by an obligation becomes a potent means of enhancing compliance.”

    Dozens of competition agencies from around the world have been spending countless hours and many months working on the MFP.  The initial discussions culminated in the “Paris Draft” of the MFP, a remarkable document that reflects the current practices of many leading competition authorities around the world.

    Over the summer, further discussions ensued among all interested antitrust agencies worldwide, including discussions with agencies on the sidelines of the Fordham Conference in New York in early September.  A revised draft of the MFP was circulated recently, reflecting suggestions made at New York and since.  We look forward to meeting with those interested in joining the MFP on the margins of the OECD in late November.

    There has been widespread support for the MFP from numerous agencies around the world.  We are delighted that so many countries are committed to the MFP and recognize its value, and will continue efforts to further improve it and move toward its enactment.

    To date, the vast majority of agencies have expressed strong support for the MFP.  A few agencies, however, have expressed some concerns with respect to the MFP structure and review mechanism.  Let me address the more salient concerns. 

    First, a few agencies had raised questions about the need for mandatory review mechanisms.  In general, a review mechanism is a key component of any agreement such as the MFP.  The goal of the MFP is to strike a constructive path, promoting incremental progress through an acceptable implementation mechanism.

    In light of these concerns, the review mechanisms in the MFP have been calibrated so that they are meaningful, but not burdensome.  For example, unlike certain treaties, there are no mechanisms for binding dispute settlement, third-party mediation, independent expert reports, or private complaint procedures.  Instead, there are modest proposals that include mechanisms for dialogue, agency self-reporting on adherence, and periodic assessments of the functioning of the framework, only as needed.  This will allow for advancing the shared goals towards due process norms.

    It is important to note that although meaningful review mechanisms of agreements relating to due process may appear novel in the antitrust context, they are routine in other contexts.  For example, meaningful review of a country’s compliance with fundamental due process norms is common in the context of investment protections, human rights, anti-corruption, trade, tax, and development assistance.  

    In fact, even in the antitrust context, review mechanisms are not new.  For example, in free trade agreements there are consultation provisions in various competition chapters.  Likewise, in 2006 the European Competition Network (ECN) adopted the ECN Model Leniency Programme to “harmonise the key elements of leniency policies within the ECN.”  In 2009, the ECN published an assessment report to “provide an overview of the status of convergence of the applicable provisions contained in the ECN leniency programmes.”  If a network of regional competition authorities can agree to periodically assess the state of procedural convergence of their leniency programs, it seems only reasonable to have competition authorities periodically assess the state of procedural convergence on fundamental due process.     

    A second issue presented related to the possibility that the MFP can be confused to create a new international organization.  The language has been modified to make it clear that the MFP does not create a new international organization.  Instead, the MFP is a new multilateral arrangement for adherence to fundamental due process norms by the signatory agencies.

    A third issue was whether certain competition agencies have the capacity to sign at the agency level.  This was a fair concern, and we are pleased to have revised the draft to make clear that agencies can either sign or join the MFP by sending a letter through ICN providing notice of adherence.  This is a common practice that has been employed previously in many contexts, including in the antitrust context.  This change should allow any competition agency interested in joining the MFP to do so.

    I should also note that although all of the interested agencies working on the MFP hope that every agency adheres to these principles, that the MFP is voluntary.  Only agencies that want to join will be subject to the norms.  Also, the MFP allows an agency to take a reservation if their law allows them to comply with almost everything but prevents compliance with a specific provision. 

    The international community can and should seek to promote convergence on core principles, while respecting diversity on the margins.  That is what the MFP does.

    Finally, let me address the issue that Commissioner Margrethe Vestager raised in her remarks at the Georgetown University conference regarding the relationship between the MFP and international organizations such as OECD and ICN.  The Antitrust Division fully supports initiatives by OECD, ICN and other international organizations to promote due process.  Indeed, the substantive principles set forth in the MFP are fully in line with – and, in fact, complement – these initiatives. 

    The ICN already recognizes regional competition networks like the ECN, bilateral and trilateral dialogues like those held by the North American partners last week in Mexico, competition chapters in free trade agreements such as KORUS and USMCA, and hundreds of cooperation agreements between competition authorities.  Despite these developments, the ICN is as strong as ever, and the MFP will further complement its success.  Indeed, the ICN expressly anticipates initiatives such as the MFP. The ICN Framework provides that “where the ICN reaches consensus on recommendations … it is left to its members to decide whether and how to implement the recommendations, for example, through unilateral, bilateral or multilateral arrangements.” 

    From the start, the MFP has been designed to go beyond mere guidance on procedural fairness.  The MFP will reflect the commitment of its participants to uphold fundamental due process norms.

    There are various other reasons why we believe the MFP is needed and does not duplicate the OECD or ICN.  For example, the OECD has only 36 members, and its recommendations apply to countries rather than to competition agencies, where we would like to focus our efforts.  And while around 140 agencies are members of the ICN, not all agencies are ICN members, though we encourage all to join.

    Further, as currently structured the ICN is not set up for accountability and review of its recommendations.  It has never had that role and it could dramatically change the culture of the ICN if it were to take on such a role, although at a later time the ICN may choose to change its culture.  That time is not now, however, as we don’t want to risk the consensus-based good work the ICN does.

    Let me close with an historical analogy.  In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, which included the fundamental due process commitment that “everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations….”  Yet at the very moment the U.S. delegate Eleanor Roosevelt was celebrating that victory, she said she still was not satisfied.  Why?  Because the declaration had no means for implementation.  She said that while the adoption of this declaration was a monumental achievement, we should “now move on with new courage and inspiration to the completion” of a multilateral agreement with “measures for … implementation.”  We all recognize that the time is ripe for us to join in moving forward with inspiration to implementation of a multilateral framework on fundamental due process. 

    We look forward to further discussions on the MFP in Paris in a few weeks.  A significant number of competition authorities have recognized the benefits of the MFP and we look forward to being a partner in working together to bring it to fruition. 

    Thank you.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Delivers Remarks to the Department of Justice Rural and Tribal Elder Justice Summit

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Thank you, Marc for that kind introduction and thank you for your leadership as United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa.  I think you’ll agree with me that it’s one of the best jobs in the world.

    This is a distinguished crowd.  Thank you to:

    • Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
    • Six U.S. Attorneys: Bryan Schroder, Trent Shores, Ron Parsons, Andrew Murray, Pete Deegan, and Marc Krickbaum
    • the head of our Office of Justice Programs and former U.S. Attorney for Northern Iowa, Matt Dummermuth,
    • Katie Sullivan, the head of our Office on Violence Against Women,
    • Darlene Hutchinson, the Director of our Office for Victims of Crime,
    • Assistant Agriculture Secretary Anne Hazlett,
    • Assistant Secretary Lance Robertson of HHS,
    • SEC Regional Director Joel Levin,
    • Postal Inspector Guy Cottrell,
    • Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Nancy Berryhill,
    • Director Deborah Cox Roush of Senior Corps, and
    • A special thanks to all those who made this event possible, especially Toni Bacon, Andy Mao, Kate Peterson, and their teams at the Elder Justice Initiative and the Office for Victims of Crime.

    Thank you all for being here for this summit.  I think this turnout shows how important these issues are to the Department of Justice and to the Trump administration.

    It’s good to be home.  Des Moines is my home.  This is where I played football, where I practiced law, where I prosecuted criminals as a United States Attorney, and it’s where I’m raising my family.

    Iowa shaped my values.

    One of those Iowa values is that we respect our elders.  We recognize the debt that we owe to our parents and grandparents.

    Many seniors in Iowa and across America spent their whole lives working, saving, and sacrificing so that they could enjoy a secure and peaceful retirement.  And under President Trump their 401(k)s are looking good.

    But criminals can try to take it all away with one phone call, one letter, or even one email.

    Each year, an estimated $3 billion are stolen or defrauded from millions of American seniors.  Through so-called grandparent scams, fake prizes or even outright extortion, criminals target our seniors to rob them of their hard-earned savings and their peace of mind.

    And it appears as though this threat is only growing.  The Senate Aging Committee’s Fraud Hotline received twice as many reports in 2016 as it received in 2015.

    These fraud schemes can happen to anyone. And so I hope that no one will feel ashamed to come forward and report if they’ve been a victim.  Some of my family members here in Iowa have received these phone calls.  Some of you have, too.

    At the Department of Justice, we acknowledge that rural areas are especially vulnerable to these crimes.

    In tightly knit communities like the one I grew up in, people are generous and they develop a sense of trust with one another.

    Criminals look at that and they see dollar signs.

    Oftentimes local law enforcement in rural communities have to cover large areas of land with only a small number of officers.  They don’t have the time or the resources to investigate fraud schemes that are often national or even international in scope.

    Fortunately, the Department of Justice has their backs.  As President Donald Trump has said, this administration supports state and local law enforcement 100 percent.

    In this administration, we are well aware that 85 percent of law enforcement officers in this country serve at the state and local levels.  We know that we can’t achieve our goals without them.

    Over the past year we have taken historic new action to support our state and local partners and to keep our seniors safe.

    This year our U.S. Attorneys’ offices have each designated an elder justice coordinator to help prevent crime by educating seniors about scams and other threats.  Over just nine months, our elder justice coordinators participated in nearly 200 training, outreach, and coordination meetings attended by approximately 7,000 people.

    Our elder justice coordinators are also customizing our strategy to protect seniors in their district and coordinating our prosecutions with state and local partners.  That will help us complete more cases and secure more convictions.

    In February, the Department conducted the largest elder fraud enforcement action in American history.  We charged more than 200 defendants with fraud against elderly Americans and we brought civil actions against dozens more. The defendants in these cases allegedly stole from more than one million American seniors of more than half a billion dollars.

    Just a few weeks ago, the Department extended a deferred prosecution agreement with a financial services company in Dallas.  This company allegedly knew about criminals using their services for money laundering, but didn’t do anything about it.  Some of their employees even took part in the schemes—including grandparent scams and fake prize scams targeting the elderly.  In exchange for avoiding prosecution, the company is forfeiting $125 million which the Department will provide to the victims.  The company has also agreed to implement anti-money laundering protections to prevent these crimes from ever happening again.

    There are a lot of other cases that we could talk about—but I’ll just mention two right here in Iowa.

    This year, a total of 33 defendants in Dubuque—11 at the federal level and 22 at the local level—have been convicted for a grandparent scam against a total of 285 American seniors.  The defendants defrauding more than $750,000 and then wiring it to their co-conspirators in the Dominican Republic.  Now they’ve been held accountable.

    At the federal level, these cases were prosecuted by AUSA Tony Morfitt of our Elder Justice Task Force—Tony, great job.

    In August, a jury convicted a man from outside of Des Moines for convincing elderly Iowans to sell off their investments and buy insurance from him.  Instead of buying the insurance as promised, the defendant used most of the funds for personal expenses like remodeling his house and buying two new Harley Davidsons.  I’m pleased to report that that house and those motorcycles have now been forfeited. 

    This case was investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by Adam Kerndt and Mikaela Shotwell.  Great work.

    These are important accomplishments.  We have increased the resources dedicated to these cases and we have increased our effectiveness in prosecuting them.

    But there is more to do.  And so today I am announcing our next steps.

    First of all, we are improving training for our U.S. Attorneys’ offices. 

    Earlier this year the Department’s Elder Justice Initiative published its Elder Abuse Guide for Law Enforcement or EAGLE.  EAGLE contains helpful information for prosecutors, including overviews of state and local law as well as best practices for evidence collection, interviewing older adults, and for documenting elder abuse.  EAGLE is free and available right now to every law enforcement officer in the country.

    Today I am announcing that the next edition of our Journal of Justice Policy and the Law—formerly known as the USA Bulletin—will focus on Elder Justice.  It will also be the longest bulletin we’ve ever published since we started it back in 1953.  These bulletins are public, and so they can be used by state and local prosecutors as well as our U.S. Attorneys’ offices.  That will provide the knowledge and insights of some of the top experts on elder justice to the prosecutors who are on the front lines.

    Second, we are investing in services for seniors who have been victimized by criminals.

    I am announcing today that over the next 11 months, our Office for Victims of Crime will provide nearly $18 million to help seniors who are victims of crime.  These funds can be used for priorities like legal services, telephone hotlines, and housing for seniors who have lost their homes—which is something that happens all too often.  We are using these OVC funds for a wider variety of services for seniors than ever before.

    And finally, we are continuing to enforce the law aggressively and forcefully.

    On October 1st, the Department began our Money Mule Initiative, which is a coordinated effort against the transnational criminal organizations who are defrauding our seniors.

    We are hitting the fraudsters where it hurts—in the wallet.

    Our prosecutors have found that fraudsters avoid using banks to launder the money they take from their victims. Instead, they launder it through so-called money mules—Americans who collect the money and then send it overseas.

    Oftentimes these are co-conspirators—as in the Dubuque case that I mentioned a moment ago.  But sometimes they are simply good people who have been tricked into thinking that they are doing charity work or working for a legitimate business. 

    Working with our Postal Inspectors, FBI agents, and other law enforcement partners, we have identified a number of these money mules across America.  We have even been able to determine which ones have been tricked into this work and which ones are knowing and willful conspirators.

    In the first case, we knock on their door and we explain to them what’s really going on.  We ask them to sign a letter acknowledging that it’s wrong and promising to stop.  That in itself is shutting off large quantities of money for the fraudsters.

    And in the second case—when we determine that they are part of a conspiracy—we are filing civil actions and taking them to court.

    Since October 1, we’ve taken action to stop 400 money mules across 65 districts.  These involve everything from grandparent scams to romance scams, fake lotteries, IRS imposters, and fake tech support schemes.

    The FBI and our Postal Inspectors have interviewed 300 money mules and sent 300 warning letters.  We’ve charged 10 defendants and filed 25 civil actions.  We’ve executed search warrants across America, including here in the Southern District of Iowa.

    These are impressive numbers. 

    Our goal is to reduce crime and protect America’s seniors.  And we have good reasons to believe that our work with our law enforcement partners is reducing crime and having a real impact on the seniors of this country.

    The Postal Inspection Service has estimated that payments by mass mail fraud victims to foreign post office boxes has dropped by 94 percent since 2016—from 150,000 per month to approximately 10,000 per month now.

    There are many causes for that, but that is a remarkable achievement—and I want to thank everyone who has played a role in our efforts.

    We are going to keep up this pace. 

    We are going to continue to provide our prosecutors and our state and local partners with the resources that they need.  And we’re going to keep putting fraudsters in jail.

    I want to thank each of you again for your contribution to this effort.  Each of us has a role to play—and certainly not just those of us in government.  All of us can be on the lookout for fraud schemes and report suspected criminal activity.

    If we do that—and if we remain vigilant—then we can ensure that every senior has the safety and peace of mind that they deserve.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Delivers Remarks to State and Local Law Enforcement on Efforts to Combat Violent Crime and the Opioid Crisis

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Thank you, Marc for that kind introduction and thank you for your leadership as United States Attorney.  You are carrying the torch on a lot of the work that we did back when I was U.S. Attorney for this district.

    Thank you also to:

    • Commissioner Roxann Ryan and Director of Investigative Operations Kevin Winker of the Iowa Department of Public Safety,
    • Acting Director Joyce Flinn of the Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management,
    • Marshall County Sheriff Steve Hoffman,
    • Marion County Sheriff Jason Sandholdt,
    • Chief Dana Wingert and Major Stephen Waymire of the Des Moines Police Department,
    • Chief Chad McCluskey of Windsor Heights,
    • Chief Al Pizzano of Pleasant Hill,
    • Chief John Quinn of Waukee,
    • Chief Greg Stallman of Altoona,
    • Chief Michael Tupper of Marshalltown,
    • Polk County Attorney John Sarcone,
    • David Lorenzen, Motor Vehicle Enforcement Chief with the Iowa Department of Transportation, and
    • Polk County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Gregory Schmunk.

    Thank you all for being here.

    It is good to be back. 

    This is the office where I served for nearly five and a half years.  It was the honor of a lifetime, and it was an experience that only deepened my appreciation for law enforcement.

    I worked every day with officers from the federal, state, and local levels—including people in this room—to find evidence of crime and to keep the people of Iowa safe.

    I am proud of what we accomplished together.

    I am especially proud because I have seen the results firsthand.  This is the community where I grew up, where I played football, where I went to law school and business school, where I ran a small business, and where I’m still raising my family.  I know that Iowans are safer because of what we achieved.

    Some of you may have heard that there have been some changes at the Department in recent weeks.  One thing that hasn’t changed is our unwavering support for state and local law enforcement.

    The Trump administration will always be a law-and-order administration.  We recognize that public safety is government’s first and most important task—and we honor the role that law enforcement officers play in protecting our society.

    Our federal officers are known all over the world for their professionalism and their competence.

    But we are well aware that about 85 percent of the law enforcement officers in this country serve at the state and local levels.  It is simple arithmetic that we cannot succeed without you.

    That is why this Department of Justice under President Donald Trump has given you more resources and more tools to help you succeed.

    One of President Trump’s very first Executive Orders to Attorney General Sessions was to “back the blue” and enhance the safety of law enforcement officers in this country.

    We have embraced that goal and we’ve been faithful to it every day.

    Over these last two years we have helped hire hundreds of police officers across America, including 10 here in Iowa.

    We have reinvigorated the Project Safe Neighborhoods program, which directs our U.S. Attorneys to work with you to develop a customized crime reduction plan—and to target the most violent criminals in the most violent areas.

    I ran this program as United States Attorney and I know that it works.  We are more successful at the federal level when we listen to our partners at the state and local levels.

    Our strong law enforcement partnerships are paying off.

    In fiscal year 2017, the Department of Justice prosecuted more violent criminals than in any year on record to that point.

    And then, in fiscal year 2018—we broke that record by a margin of 15 percent.

    In fiscal year 2018, we charged the highest number of federal firearm defendants in Department history.  We broke that record by a margin of 17 percent.  We charged nearly 20 percent more firearm defendants than we did in 2017 and 30 percent more than we charged in 2016.

    Over the past fiscal year we also broke records for fentanyl prosecutions and for illegal entry by illegal aliens.

    At the same time, we increased the number of white collar defendants and the number of drug defendants overall.  And we increased the number of deported illegal aliens prosecuted for re-entering our country by 38 percent.

    These are remarkable achievements.  There can be no doubt that they have had an impact on this nation.  And we’ve achieved them together with you, our partners.

    The evidence is already coming in that we’ve reduced violent crime and drug overdose deaths.

    The FBI’s violent crime numbers for 2017 show that violent crime and murder both went down in 2017 after increasing for two years in a row.  And for 2018, one estimate projects that the murder rate in our 29 biggest cities will decline by 7.6 percent.

    The DEA’s National Prescription Audit shows that in the first eight months of 2018, opioid prescriptions went down by nearly 12 percent—and last year they went down by seven percent.

    While 2017 saw more overdose deaths than 2016, overdose deaths declined by two percent from September 2017 to March 2018, the most recent month for which we have data.

    This is what we can achieve when we work together.

    Our work is not finished.  We are going to continue to support our state and local partners—and I believe that our partnerships are going to continue to deliver results.

    I want to conclude with something a mentor of mine used to say every time he spoke to law enforcement, and I believe it too: we have your back, and you have our thanks.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio Delivers Remarks to the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law Fall Forum

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Good morning.  Thank you, Jim, for that kind introduction, and special thanks to you and your co-chair of this Fall Forum, Debbie Feinstein, for inviting me.  It is an honor to join the distinguished attorneys in attendance here.

    As you just heard, the Office of the Associate Attorney General works closely with the Antitrust Division, and I’d like to begin by saying just a few words about the men and women who work there.  The Division is led by a superlative team.  Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim is an expert in the field and a tireless advocate for the American consumer.  Andrew Finch, his principal deputy, draws on his broad private-sector antitrust experience to supervise all aspects of the Division’s civil and criminal matters.  Barry Nigro, another deputy, is a walking encyclopedia of merger law and practice.  And the many other front office appointees bring to the Division an incredible breadth and depth of knowledge and determination.  Behind them, of course, stand the career lawyers, economists, and staff of the Antitrust Division who, as many of you know firsthand, are smart, resourceful, and tenacious in upholding the law and protecting competition for the benefit of the American economy.  We appreciate their public service and hard work, and we are so fortunate that they have chosen to lend their expertise and talent to our shared mission at the Department of Justice.

    Speaking of which, it is worth reciting the DOJ mission statement for those of you who have never heard it.  It reads as follows: “To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”  Much of this mission statement is outward facing—we are the cops and we go after the robbers.  But the first and last clauses of the mission statement require something more: we must “enforce the law” and “ensure fair and impartial administration of justice.”  And if we are truly to “enforce the law” and fairly administer justice, we cannot be focused solely on how legal commands apply to those outside the Department.  We must also focus on how the law constrains and cabins the Department—and the federal government as a whole.

    This is a theme, and a tension, as old as our government itself.  James Madison, famously lamenting in Federalist 51 that men are not angels and thus need a government, explained: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”  Our government is adept at creating rules to control the governed, but it sometimes fails to control itself.  Over the last two years, some of our priorities at the Department have been aimed at this latter virtue—at controlling ourselves.

    I would like to discuss one of those priorities today—namely, regulatory reform, which is an imperative need for an administrative state that has grown mightily over the last seventy-five years and in ways that Madison and his compatriots could have never imagined when they created the checks and balances they thought would oblige the government to control itself.

    Early in 2017, the President issued several executive orders on regulatory reform.  For example, Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new one and to impose zero net regulatory costs.  Executive Order 13777 directs agency heads to appoint Regulatory Reform Officers and Task Forces to implement regulatory reform initiatives and identify burdensome regulations for repeal, replacement, or modification.  These are important measures.  As Neomi Rao, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), recently explained in a Washington Post editorial, lifting unduly burdensome regulations promotes economic growth and “the spirit of liberty that animates our productive and innovative society.”

    Accordingly, at the Department of Justice, we take this regulatory reform mandate very seriously.  While the Department does not generate the same volume of regulations as, say, the Environmental Protection Agency, we do have components that issue regulations, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency, which regulates doctors, pharmacies, and hospitals under the Controlled Substances Act; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which regulates the firearms and explosives industries; and the Civil Rights Division, which regulates state and local governments, public accommodations, and commercial facilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Each of these components is working to ensure that their regulatory agendas comply with the executive orders. 

    But, in my view, the Department’s most critical contribution to regulatory reform has not come by way of any particular substantive regulatory change, but rather through our focus on improving the regulatory process by promoting transparency, accountability, and public participation.  Such procedural reforms can often outlive more newsworthy substantive changes to individual rules, and they can lead to better and less burdensome substantive decisionmaking.

    One of the first areas of procedural reform we focused upon is reigning in the use of guidance documents.  To understand why this is so important, let me first set the stage by returning to Federalist 51.  There, Madison wrote that “[i]n republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”  Accordingly, as Madison explained in Federalist 48, “it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.”  Acting on this belief, the Founders wrote a Constitution in which the first article (establishing Congress) is much more finely wrought than, and is more than double the length of, the second article (establishing the executive).  The Founders viewed the legislative branch—with the power to make policy and thus restrict liberty—as the foremost danger among equals, and thus much more carefully cabined that branch through structural protections (or “precautions” as Madison called them in both Federalist 48 and 51).

    But we twenty-first century Americans, for better or worse, live in the age of the administrative state, where most substantive rules that are binding on the People are created by Executive Branch agencies exercising rulemaking powers delegated by Congress.  That means that the threat from the “enterprising ambition” that Madison feared now comes more often from the administrators than from the legislators.  Accordingly, we also need procedural protections—“precautions,” as Madison called them—to cabin those ambitions. 

    We have some such protections in the form of the Administrative Procedure Act.  When Congress delegates to an executive agency the authority to regulate—that is, to create binding rights and obligations for the public—the APA normally requires that such authority be exercised through notice-and-comment rulemaking.  These rulemaking processes require a lot of input and serious deliberation; there are many steps, and they sometimes proceed slowly or not at all.  They are designed this way, just like the Constitution is designed to require many steps for the enactment of statutes.  Process protects liberty. 

    But regulators like to regulate, and everyone likes a shortcut.  So it has come to pass that, with increasing frequency, administrative agencies, including the Department of Justice, issue so-called guidance documents that effectively bind the public.  The guidance documents do not go through the notice-and-comment process required by the APA; indeed, they do not go through any transparent or regularized process at all.  They just spring forth fully formed, and the public is expected to comply.  Some commentators have begun to call such guidance, perhaps fairly, “regulatory dark matter.”  The threat such a regime poses to our constitutional structure, and the liberty it protects, is manifest.

    Accordingly, with this in mind, in November 2017, Attorney General Sessions signed a memorandum prohibiting the Department of Justice from issuing guidance documents that “impose new requirements on entities outside the Executive Branch.”  The memorandum lays out five principles that must govern any future guidance, including that the document should disclaim any force or effect of law and “should not be used for the purpose of coercing persons or entities” to take or refrain from taking any actions beyond what is already required under the law.

    A few months later, in January 2018, we took the next step to reign in inappropriate use of subregulatory guidance.  The Associate Attorney General issued a new policy that prohibits the use of agency guidance documents in affirmative civil litigation in a manner that would convert such guidance into binding rules of conduct.  This ensures that DOJ will not do with another agency’s guidance what it cannot do with its own under the Sessions Memo.  As the memorandum explains: “That a party fails to comply with agency guidance expanding upon statutory or regulatory requirements does not mean that the party violated those underlying legal requirements; agency guidance documents cannot create any additional legal obligations.”

    Now, I realize that I am at an antitrust, and not an administrative law, conference.  So what does all of this mean for the Antitrust Division?  Well, the Division, often in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission, has issued numerous guidance documents, including, for example, intellectual property guidelines and, of course, the horizontal merger guidelines.  Under our view, none of these guidelines create binding rights or rules that have the force of law.  The guidelines can be useful in ensuring transparency by explaining how the Antitrust Division uses its prosecutorial discretion.  But the Antitrust Division will not treat a violation of the guidelines as presumptively or conclusively establishing a violation of the underlying legal requirements.  The Division must bring cases in court if it seeks to assert that a violation of the law has occurred, and it must prove such a violation by reference to statutory law and judicial precedent.

    With that, let me turn from the dark matter of guidance documents to another particle in the regulatory cosmos, but one that is even less visible: the consent decree.

    A consent decree is a binding court judgment, and it can serve an important function in a range of cases and enforcement areas.  But some consent decree are voluminous in their requirements and have virtually perpetual life.  They are, in effect, a set of regulations for a single party, overseen by the Department of Justice, a federal judge, and, quite often, a private-party monitor appointed by the court.  In practice, consent decrees can result in one or all of these entities directing the day-to-day operations of a business or local government agency for years on end.  As should be obvious from the description, such a regime can be as intrusive as—if not more intrusive than—a regulation.

    Thirty years ago, Assistant Attorney General Rick Rule, whom many of you know, gave a speech about telecommunications policy to the Brookings Institution.  He noted that the Reagan Administration’s best known accomplishment in antitrust law was the breakup of AT&T.   The ongoing monitoring required under the AT&T consent decree, however, created, in his words, a “mixed legacy” because of the institutional harms flowing from requiring the Antitrust Division and a federal court to be, in effect, telecommunications regulators.  Federal courts and the Antitrust Division, Rule said, “inherently lack many of the resources crucial to successful regulation.”  He explained that effective regulation requires technical expertise, regulatory experience, and administrative processes that federal courts and federal prosecutors simply lack.

    That is one problem, but it is not the only problem.  Some consent decrees stray not only beyond the practical resources and expertise of the enforcers, but also beyond the legal authority of what the government could do by other means.  Imposing conditions that could not be obtained through litigation to judgment is similar to creating regulations beyond the bounds of law.  And just because a court imposes such a decree does not make it appropriate or wise.  Courts, like executive branch agencies, can exceed their powers and distort constitutional norms.  As with our commitment to abstaining from regulation through guidance, the Department of Justice must take care to avoid going beyond our lawful authority through the entry of consent decrees.

    Accordingly, while consent decrees can be necessary and appropriate in certain circumstances, we are requiring Department litigators in all components to proceed with due caution and care before entering into new cosent decrees.  Effective consent decree management is a key part of our regulatory reform and good government efforts. 

    And, as with our other efforts, the Antitrust Division has been doing its part.  For example, last year, at this every forum, Assistant Attorney General Delrahim gave a speech on antitrust and deregulation.  He made the case that a behavioral consent decree substitutes regulation for competition.  He also announced that the Antitrust Division would disfavor behavioral consent decrees, calling them “the wolf of regulation dressed in . . . sheep’s clothing.”   Indeed.  The notion that the Department of Justice can fine-tune the operations of large businesses, for years on end, to prevent competitive harm is simply untenable from a first principles standpoint and unwarranted from a pro-competitive and pro-liberty standpoint. 

    Avoiding behavioral consent decrees is not the only step that the Antitrust Division is taking in this area.  Earlier this year, the Division launched its Judgment Termination Initiative, through which the Division is identifying and terminating legacy consent decrees that no longer protect competition.  To understand why this is important, it is helpful to turn again to something Administrator Rao explained earlier this year.  She described the problem of “cumulative regulations.”   When the government is always adding regulations but never repealing old ones, regulatory accretion occurs—the regulatory text expands and expands, with some regulations serving no purpose and others affirmatively harming economic growth and American competitiveness.

    Consent decrees can suffer from the same infirmity.  Indeed, from the first cases brought under the Sherman Act until 1979, antitrust consent decrees were perpetual.  In that year, the Division changed its policy such that future settlements would have “sunset” provisions that would automatically terminate a decree on a date certain, usually after ten years.  But while the Division recognized forty years ago that perpetual decrees were not in the public interest, there has been no effort to address the perpetual decrees that were entered prior to that date. 

    Until now.  Assistant Attorney General Delrahim and his team deserve great credit for tackling this issue.  And there is a lot of work to do.  There are nearly 1,300 legacy judgments still on the books, including some decrees that are more than one hundred years old.  There is, for example, a decree from 1914 concerning rubber hoof pads for horseshoes.  Another one from 1921 relates to music rolls for player pianos.  And yet another, my personal favorite, controls the market for horse-buggy whips.  This state of affairs, my friends, is not good government.  This is not prudent and careful regulatory action.  This is ancient, cosmic junk unnecessarily floating around the regulatory atmosphere.

    These outdated decrees pose a particular problem given the common-law nature of the antitrust laws, the construction of which evolve through judicial decisionmaking closely informed by economic analysis.  Under the Sherman Act, only unreasonable—which is to say anticompetitive—restraints of trade are condemned.  Courts look to economic analysis to understand what is unreasonable.  And as economic analysis has matured and been refined over decades, courts have recognized that certain practices, once condemned, are not only not harmful to competition, but can even be procompetitive.

    The Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in the Leegin case provides one example of such a change.   In that case, the Court overturned a nearly century-old per se prohibition on resale price maintenance.   It recognized that resale price maintenance can help stimulate interbrand competition.  The antitrust laws are designed to protect just such competition because it is output enhancing.  By contrast, intrabrand competition, such as when independent retailers engage in a price war to undersell a product from the same manufacturer, is not output enhancing.

    Yet a perpetual consent decree related to resale price maintenance entered any year between 1911 and 1979 would have frozen the old prohibition in place.  Such an ongoing, indefinite prohibition against lawful behavior does not serve to protect competition or to advance the rule of law.  Indeed, it affirmatively undermines both.

    Perpetual consent decrees rarely continue to protect competition, and those that are more than ten years old should be terminated absent compelling circumstances.  To expedite the termination of outdated consent decrees, the Antitrust Division has engaged in a comprehensive effort to review all of its legacy judgments.  Each judgment was assigned to a Division attorney, who examined court papers, internal case files, and publicly available information to determine whether the judgment continued to serve competition.  Judgments for which termination is recommended are then posted, by judicial district, to the Division’s website for a thirty-day public comment period.

    The judgments in sixty of seventy-nine judicial districts have been posted to the Division’s website for public comment.  Once the thirty-day public comment period closes for a particular judicial district, the Division will review any comments received and, if appropriate, prepare a motion to terminate the judgments.

    Already, in July, the Division moved to terminate nineteen legacy judgments in the District Court here in the District of Columbia.  And the court granted that motion on August 15.  The Division is actively working to prepare other motions in other districts.

    The Division will move to terminate such decrees where the essential terms of the judgment have been satisfied, where most defendants no longer exist, where the judgment largely prohibits that which the antitrust laws already prohibit, or where market conditions likely have changed.  Of course, as with the Leegin example, the Division will also seek to terminate decrees for which the relevant antitrust jurisprudence has changed and the conduct prohibited might actually be procompetitive.

    I know that the Judgment Termination Initiative is a top priority for AAG Delrahim and the Division.  I applaud the hard work that has gone into this effort already and the commitment of the Division to see it through.

    With that, let me close by saying thank you, again, for the opportunity to be here.  We are hard at work at the Department of Justice, including at the Antitrust Division, in our efforts to enforce the law and fairly administer justice.  As I have stated, that includes applying the limits of the law to ourselves, or, as Madison put it, to controlling ourselves.  We will continue to advance this cause, and we hope it makes a difference in helping the American people and economy flourish.  Thank you very much.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Delivers Remarks at the Department of Justice’s Veterans Appreciation Day Ceremony

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Thank you, Lee for that kind introduction and thank you for your 36 years of service to the Department of Justice and your 12 years of stewardship of the Department’s finances.

    I also want to thank the Joint Armed Forces Color Guard for the Presentation of the Colors and Girale Wilson-Takahashi from our COPS office for that beautiful rendition of the National Anthem.

    Thank you all for being here for the Department’s eighth Veterans’ Appreciation Day.

    Above all, thank you to the 150 veterans who have joined us today.

    Thank you for your service in our Armed Forces—and thank you for your service in this Department.

    At this Department of Justice, we recognize that public safety is government’s first and most important priority.

    The men and women of our Armed Forces—Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard—risk their lives for that mission every day, and each of us owes them a debt of gratitude.

    This Department also works for public safety by enforcing our laws—but we know that our work depends upon the bravery and sacrifice of our troops.

    We are proud of each one of the 27,000 veterans who serve in this Department.

    Your skills, your patriotism, and above all your selfless character make you the kind of employees that any employer would want.  But you’ve chosen to continue to serve your country—you’ve chosen to work in the Department of Justice.  I commend you for that.

    We are well aware that heroes walk these hallways.

    Outside of my office is a memorial with the names of colleagues who during World War II made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our grateful country.

    I also know firsthand of the heroes we have in department, because I am now literally surrounded by them each and every day.  Most of the FBI agents in my security detail are veterans.

    That includes Special Agent Damon Flores, who is a former Navy rescue swimmer in the Mediterranean and in the Persian Gulf.  After his service in the Navy, he went to college on the GI Bill and got an accounting and finance degree.  He quickly realized that accounting was not as exciting as being a rescue swimmer.  He wanted a little more adventure, and so he signed up with the FBI.  He marked his 14th anniversary with the Bureau just yesterday.  Damon, congratulations.

    We’re also proud to be the home of Maura Quinn of DEA.

    Maura graduated from the Naval Academy, and then in flight school she chose to fly helicopters so she could pilot a combat aircraft.  After graduation she deployed twice—first with a carrier battle group to the Indian Ocean and then in support of Operation Desert Shield. 

    She served as an instructor pilot for two years and went to law school at night.  As if she weren’t busy enough, she gave birth to two children before graduation.

    After law school, she joined the United States Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of California and then the FBI’s Office of General Counsel.  She then served for eight years in the Chief Counsel’s office at DEA.  Over that time she became an expert in technology law—and today she serves as DEA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator for Information Systems.  Maura, thank you for your service.

    I could go on and on.  There are roughly 26,998 more examples that I could talk about.

    But this is the caliber of people that we are so grateful to have in this Department.

    Through our Veterans Employment Office in the Justice Management Division, we have made hiring veterans a priority and helped them make the transition into careers with the Department.

    We want more exemplary employees like Damon Flores and Maura Quinn.

    We will continue to invest in our heroes—because you’re a good investment.  You are, in the words of General John Kelly, “the very best this country produces.”

    Now I have the honor of introducing someone who knows that as well as anyone.

    Our keynote speaker is the Director of Military Force Management Policy for the Air Force, Major General Robert LaBrutta.  You might think of him as the Air Force’s head of human resources.

    Major General LaBrutta has served in the Air Force for the last 37 years.

    Today he is responsible for setting force management policy that affects more than half a million Air Force personnel—issues like assignments, evaluation, readiness, and transitioning back to civilian life.

    Before this assignment he served as Commander of the Second Air Force at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi.

    He has earned a number of distinguished awards including the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal, the Air Force Achievement Medal, and many others.

    Please join me in welcoming Major General Robert LaBrutta.

    MIL Security OSI –