Category: Law Enforcement

  • MIL-OSI Security: Raleigh Drug Trafficker Sentenced to Nine Years

    Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

    RALEIGH, N.C. – Enrico Ferrante Cotton, a 55-year-old resident of Raleigh, has been sentenced to nine years in prison for distribution of a quantity of fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine, and 40 grams or more of fentanyl.  Cotton pleaded guilty on March 26, 2025.

    According to court documents and other information presented in court, law enforcement received a tip from a confidential source in February 2024, indicating that Cotton was selling fentanyl and cocaine in the Raleigh area. On March 1, 2024, law enforcement conducted a controlled purchase of 32.82 grams of fentanyl from Cotton for $1,500. During this transaction, Cotton and the buyer discussed the sale of cocaine.

    In the following days, authorities learned that Cotton frequently visited a storage unit. On March 6, 2024, the K-9 unit detected substances at the storage unit, leading law enforcement to execute a search warrant. During this search, law enforcement located and seized heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, 4-anilino-N-phenethylpiperidine (ANPP), and various drug paraphernalia.

    On the same day, law enforcement conducted a follow-up search at Cotton’s residence, where they discovered 47.35 grams of fentanyl and ANPP hidden in the toilet. Additionally, they seized $9,231 in cash, four cellular phones, a loaded magazine, a money counter, and 55 rounds of ammunition from various locations within the house.

    Daniel P. Bubar, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, made the announcement after sentencing by United States District Judge Terrence W. Boyle.  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Raleigh Police Department investigated the case, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer C. Nucci prosecuted it.   

    Related court documents and information can be found on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina’s website or on PACER by searching for case number 5:24-CR-00328-BO.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Raleigh Drug Trafficker Sentenced to Nine Years

    Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

    RALEIGH, N.C. – Enrico Ferrante Cotton, a 55-year-old resident of Raleigh, has been sentenced to nine years in prison for distribution of a quantity of fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine, and 40 grams or more of fentanyl.  Cotton pleaded guilty on March 26, 2025.

    According to court documents and other information presented in court, law enforcement received a tip from a confidential source in February 2024, indicating that Cotton was selling fentanyl and cocaine in the Raleigh area. On March 1, 2024, law enforcement conducted a controlled purchase of 32.82 grams of fentanyl from Cotton for $1,500. During this transaction, Cotton and the buyer discussed the sale of cocaine.

    In the following days, authorities learned that Cotton frequently visited a storage unit. On March 6, 2024, the K-9 unit detected substances at the storage unit, leading law enforcement to execute a search warrant. During this search, law enforcement located and seized heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, 4-anilino-N-phenethylpiperidine (ANPP), and various drug paraphernalia.

    On the same day, law enforcement conducted a follow-up search at Cotton’s residence, where they discovered 47.35 grams of fentanyl and ANPP hidden in the toilet. Additionally, they seized $9,231 in cash, four cellular phones, a loaded magazine, a money counter, and 55 rounds of ammunition from various locations within the house.

    Daniel P. Bubar, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, made the announcement after sentencing by United States District Judge Terrence W. Boyle.  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Raleigh Police Department investigated the case, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer C. Nucci prosecuted it.   

    Related court documents and information can be found on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina’s website or on PACER by searching for case number 5:24-CR-00328-BO.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Two Louisville Men Sentenced for Distribution of Over 21,000 Fentanyl Pills and Firearm Offenses

    Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

    Louisville, KY – Two local men were sentenced last week for conspiracy to possess fentanyl with intent to distribute, possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.  

    U.S. Attorney Kyle G. Bumgarner of the Western District of Kentucky, Special Agent in Charge Jim Scott of the DEA Louisville Field Division, Special Agent in Charge John Nokes of the ATF Louisville Field Division, Chief Paul Humphrey of the Louisville Metro Police Department, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, Chief Barry Wilkerson of the St. Matthews Police Department, and Sheriff Joe Milam of the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office made the announcement.

    According to court documents, Jamie Shelby, Jr., 26, was sentenced to 15 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release, for conspiracy to possess fentanyl with intent to distribute, possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Kevon Smith, 25, was sentenced to 5 years and 10 months in prison, followed by 4 years of supervised release, for conspiracy to possess fentanyl with intent to distribute and possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute.

    Between April 12, 2024, and July 9, 2024, Shelby, Jr. and Smith conspired with each other to possess fentanyl with intent to distribute it and distributed fentanyl. The investigation involved four controlled purchases for a total of 4,200 fentanyl pills from Shelby, Jr. and Smith. During the execution of a search warrant at Shelby Jr.’s residence on July 12, 2024, over 17,000 fentanyl pills and four firearms were seized. The firearms seized included a Glock, Model 43X, 9-millimeter pistol; a Springfield, Model 911, .380 caliber pistol; a Glock, Model 22, .40 caliber pistol; and a Sig Sauer, Model P320, 9-millimeter pistol. The estimated street value of the over 21,000 fentanyl pills seized in the case is $106,000.

    Shelby, Jr. had been convicted of the following felony offenses.

    On September 26, 2019, in Harrison Superior Court, Harrison County, Indiana, Shelby, Jr. was convicted of the offense of conspiracy to commit robbery.

    On March 12, 2020, in Clark Circuit Court 3, Clark County, Indiana, Shelby, Jr. was convicted of the offense of domestic battery committed in the presence of a child less than sixteen years old.

    “These defendants earned every second of the sentences imposed for their callous disregard of the people of the Western District of Kentucky,” said U.S. Attorney Bumgarner. “The pattern of fentanyl pouring across the border and into our community must stop; with these sentences, two more distributors of illicit substances are off our streets.”

    “Counterfeit pharmaceuticals laced with deadly doses of fentanyl continue to devastate our communities. But thanks to the strong partnerships with our federal, state, and local partners, the dangerous criminals responsible for trafficking this poison for profit have been taken off our streets. The DEA remains committed to protecting lives and holding those who profit from this crisis accountable,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge Jim Scott.  

    There is no parole in the federal system.

    This case was investigated by the DEA, with assistance from the ATF Louisville Field Division, the Louisville Metro Police Department, the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, the St. Matthews Police Department, and the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Erwin Roberts prosecuted the case.

    This conviction is a part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).     

    ###
     

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Two Louisville Men Sentenced for Distribution of Over 21,000 Fentanyl Pills and Firearm Offenses

    Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

    Louisville, KY – Two local men were sentenced last week for conspiracy to possess fentanyl with intent to distribute, possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.  

    U.S. Attorney Kyle G. Bumgarner of the Western District of Kentucky, Special Agent in Charge Jim Scott of the DEA Louisville Field Division, Special Agent in Charge John Nokes of the ATF Louisville Field Division, Chief Paul Humphrey of the Louisville Metro Police Department, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, Chief Barry Wilkerson of the St. Matthews Police Department, and Sheriff Joe Milam of the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office made the announcement.

    According to court documents, Jamie Shelby, Jr., 26, was sentenced to 15 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release, for conspiracy to possess fentanyl with intent to distribute, possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Kevon Smith, 25, was sentenced to 5 years and 10 months in prison, followed by 4 years of supervised release, for conspiracy to possess fentanyl with intent to distribute and possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute.

    Between April 12, 2024, and July 9, 2024, Shelby, Jr. and Smith conspired with each other to possess fentanyl with intent to distribute it and distributed fentanyl. The investigation involved four controlled purchases for a total of 4,200 fentanyl pills from Shelby, Jr. and Smith. During the execution of a search warrant at Shelby Jr.’s residence on July 12, 2024, over 17,000 fentanyl pills and four firearms were seized. The firearms seized included a Glock, Model 43X, 9-millimeter pistol; a Springfield, Model 911, .380 caliber pistol; a Glock, Model 22, .40 caliber pistol; and a Sig Sauer, Model P320, 9-millimeter pistol. The estimated street value of the over 21,000 fentanyl pills seized in the case is $106,000.

    Shelby, Jr. had been convicted of the following felony offenses.

    On September 26, 2019, in Harrison Superior Court, Harrison County, Indiana, Shelby, Jr. was convicted of the offense of conspiracy to commit robbery.

    On March 12, 2020, in Clark Circuit Court 3, Clark County, Indiana, Shelby, Jr. was convicted of the offense of domestic battery committed in the presence of a child less than sixteen years old.

    “These defendants earned every second of the sentences imposed for their callous disregard of the people of the Western District of Kentucky,” said U.S. Attorney Bumgarner. “The pattern of fentanyl pouring across the border and into our community must stop; with these sentences, two more distributors of illicit substances are off our streets.”

    “Counterfeit pharmaceuticals laced with deadly doses of fentanyl continue to devastate our communities. But thanks to the strong partnerships with our federal, state, and local partners, the dangerous criminals responsible for trafficking this poison for profit have been taken off our streets. The DEA remains committed to protecting lives and holding those who profit from this crisis accountable,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge Jim Scott.  

    There is no parole in the federal system.

    This case was investigated by the DEA, with assistance from the ATF Louisville Field Division, the Louisville Metro Police Department, the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, the St. Matthews Police Department, and the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Erwin Roberts prosecuted the case.

    This conviction is a part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).     

    ###
     

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Provincial Traffic Safety Fund Delivers $1.54M in Grants to Saskatchewan Communities

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Released on July 14, 2025

    62 new projects will improve traffic and pedestrian safety 

    Flashing pedestrian crossing signs in Estevan, a crosswalk in Lampman and streetlights on the Red Earth Cree Nation are among the road safety enhancements that will be delivered using funding provided in the Provincial Traffic Safety Fund’s latest round of grants. 

    Sixty-two projects in 61 Saskatchewan communities will receive grants, totalling nearly $1.54 million. Grants in this round range from $853 to $100,000.  

    “The Government of Saskatchewan and SGI are committed to delivering safer roads for everyone in Saskatchewan,” Minister Responsible for SGI Jeremy Harrison said. “This $1.5 million in provincial grants will enable 61 municipalities and First Nations throughout our province to deliver enhancements to traffic safety in their communities.” 

    The full list of approved projects and grant amounts can be found on SGI’s website. 

    Provincial Traffic Safety Fund grants are awarded to communities twice a year, using proceeds from photo speed enforcement. A total of $14.55 million has been awarded to 918 projects in Saskatchewan since the program was established in 2019. 

    Eligible projects must focus on one or more of these traffic safety priorities: speeding, impaired driving, distracted driving, occupant protection, intersection safety, aggressive driving, vulnerable road users or medically-at-risk drivers. 

    Applications are reviewed by a committee made up of representatives from the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the Prince Albert Grand Council, the Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Highways and SGI. 

    Applications are now being accepted for the next round of funding. The deadline for applications is Sept. 30, 2025. For more information and for the full list of approved projects, visit SGI’s website: https://sgi.sk.ca/community-grants-programs.  

    -30-

    For more information, contact:

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Provincial Traffic Safety Fund Delivers $1.54M in Grants to Saskatchewan Communities

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Released on July 14, 2025

    62 new projects will improve traffic and pedestrian safety 

    Flashing pedestrian crossing signs in Estevan, a crosswalk in Lampman and streetlights on the Red Earth Cree Nation are among the road safety enhancements that will be delivered using funding provided in the Provincial Traffic Safety Fund’s latest round of grants. 

    Sixty-two projects in 61 Saskatchewan communities will receive grants, totalling nearly $1.54 million. Grants in this round range from $853 to $100,000.  

    “The Government of Saskatchewan and SGI are committed to delivering safer roads for everyone in Saskatchewan,” Minister Responsible for SGI Jeremy Harrison said. “This $1.5 million in provincial grants will enable 61 municipalities and First Nations throughout our province to deliver enhancements to traffic safety in their communities.” 

    The full list of approved projects and grant amounts can be found on SGI’s website. 

    Provincial Traffic Safety Fund grants are awarded to communities twice a year, using proceeds from photo speed enforcement. A total of $14.55 million has been awarded to 918 projects in Saskatchewan since the program was established in 2019. 

    Eligible projects must focus on one or more of these traffic safety priorities: speeding, impaired driving, distracted driving, occupant protection, intersection safety, aggressive driving, vulnerable road users or medically-at-risk drivers. 

    Applications are reviewed by a committee made up of representatives from the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the Prince Albert Grand Council, the Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Highways and SGI. 

    Applications are now being accepted for the next round of funding. The deadline for applications is Sept. 30, 2025. For more information and for the full list of approved projects, visit SGI’s website: https://sgi.sk.ca/community-grants-programs.  

    -30-

    For more information, contact:

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Philadelphia Resident Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for Leading Large-Scale Drug Trafficking Organization

    Source: US FBI

    JOHNSTOWN, Pa. – A resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was sentenced in federal court to 180 months in prison, to be followed by five years of supervised release, on his convictions of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, crack, fentanyl, and methamphetamine, Acting United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced today.

    United States District Judge Marilyn J. Horan imposed the sentence on Mikal Davis, 47.

    According to information presented to the Court, from in and around April 2019 to July 2021, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Davis conspired with others to distribute and possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of a mixture of heroin, five kilograms or more of a mixture of cocaine, 400 grams or more of a mixture of fentanyl, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, 500 grams or more of a mixture of methamphetamine, and 28 grams or more of crack. Davis, who led the drug trafficking organization’s activity in Philadelphia and Johnstown, was one of the targets of a federal wiretap and was intercepted obtaining quantities of the drugs that he distributed to others. Accompanied by distributors below him, Davis frequently traveled between Philadelphia and Johnstown with drug shipments which were then stored and processed at “stash houses” throughout the Western District of Pennsylvania for distribution. During a meeting with a drug source in California for a resupply, Davis arranged for the drug parcels to be mailed to Johnstown for distribution. In the Philadelphia area, Davis met with drug sources and purchased over 2,000 grams of heroin and fentanyl and over 5,000 grams of cocaine from a source in New Jersey.

    Assistant United States Attorney Maureen Sheehan-Balchon prosecuted this case on behalf of the government.

    Acting United States Attorney Rivetti commended the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Laurel Highlands Resident Agency and Homeland Security Investigations for the investigation that led to the successful prosecution of Davis. Additional agencies participating in this investigation included the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Internal Revenue Service–Criminal Investigation, United States Postal Inspection Service, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Pennsylvania State Police, Cambria County District Attorney’s Office, Indiana County District Attorney’s Office, Cambria County Sheriff’s Office, Cambria Township Police Department, Indiana Borough Police Department, Johnstown Police Department, Upper Yoder Township Police Department, Richland Police Department, Ferndale Police Department, and other local law enforcement agencies.

    This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Study: This summer, Russians are more likely to travel around the country by car with their families

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: Ministry of Economic Development (Russia) – Ministry of Economic Development (Russia) –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Two thirds (62%) of Russians plan to go on holiday this summer, half (49%) will go on holiday with their spouse, and another 40% will take their children with them.

    Most often, citizens plan tourist trips by car (38%), in second place among modes of transport is the train (29%), in third place is the plane (21%). The demand for various formats of recreation is growing: the most popular were trips along eco-trails (37%) and signature tours (33%). The main motive for summer travel is a reboot. These are the results of a study on the preferences of summer recreation of Russians, conducted by ANO “National Priorities” and the Ministry of Economic Development in June 2025.

    Family vacations are still at the top of our citizens’ preferences: 49% of respondents will vacation with their spouse, and another 40% will take their children with them. This format is most popular among respondents in two age groups: 35–44 years old (57%) and 45–54 years old (54%). Among the types of transport that people will travel by this summer, the most popular is the car: 38% of respondents choose it. 29% of respondents will travel to their vacation spots by train, and 21% by plane.

    “Studies of Russian tourists’ preferences regularly record the growth in popularity of car trips. We expect that this summer the share of car tourists will grow from 38% to 43% compared to last year. For this category, we have created more than 93 ready-made tourist routes together with the regions. Detailed information about them can be found on the National Tourism Portal “Puteshestvoem.rf”. We support the development of car routes, as well as their infrastructure, with measures that are in effect within the framework of the national project “Tourism and Hospitality”. In particular, this is a program for the creation of modular hotels, non-capital infrastructure facilities within the framework of a single subsidy. In these measures, projects related to the development of car tourism are highlighted as a priority. We are working separately with the Russian Ministry of Transport on repairing roads along routes, with the Ministry of Digital Development on developing communications on roads, and with the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Natural Resources on equipping tourist attractions with the necessary infrastructure,” notes Minister of Economic Development Maxim Reshetnikov.

    The main tourist motive this summer is a reboot: 58% of Russians go on vacation to clear their heads and relax. In second place is the search for new experiences (52%), in third place is the restoration and strengthening of health, as well as providing an interesting vacation for their children (29% each).

    48% of respondents plan to spend less than 50 thousand rubles on a summer vacation, 32% – from 50 to 100 thousand rubles. The majority of respondents planning a summer vacation this year are young people aged 18-24 (71%) and 25-34 (73%). Half of the respondents (52%) plan to vacation for one to two weeks, while younger people (18-34) are more likely than others to plan shorter trips.

    “The study shows that Russians have begun to split the classic two-week vacation more often. Modern tourists prefer to vacation several times in the summer, choosing short trips – the so-called weekend trips. This is confirmed by the statistics of the National Tourism Portal “Puteshestvoem.rf”: the corresponding section on it is one of the most popular along with car routes. Today, the portal offers more than 200 options for short trips to almost all regions of the country, and most of them will be of interest to families with children. Family vacations are an ongoing trend, and their popularity will only grow, which is reflected in the demand for a variety of formats. We also see a growing interest in event and cultural and educational tourism,” notes Sofia Malyavina, General Director of ANO “National Priorities”.

    Perhaps the most interesting and unexpected conclusion from the study is the diversity of popular recreation formats. Thus, the leaders are eco-trail travel and signature tours: they are chosen by 37% and 33% of respondents, respectively. These formats are most in demand among young people (25-34 years old). Also popular with this age group are retreats – a quiet holiday that involves removing yourself from society, various spiritual and health practices. Creative tourism is also gaining popularity – active recreation, where you can gain new knowledge and learn new skills: it was noted by 26% of respondents.

    This year, 17% of Russians will go to the Black Sea coast of Krasnodar Krai, 12% plan to vacation in Crimea or take short trips close to home. Almost half (46%) of respondents assess seaside vacations in Krasnodar Krai as safe, 38% of respondents are ready to consider trips to the Black Sea coast if prices drop.

    8% are planning to travel abroad, while 57% of respondents expressed a desire to visit other countries if restrictions are lifted.

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Bishnoi Gang: Joint Statement

    Source: Government of Canada regional news (2)

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ivey, Van Hollen, Klobuchar Lead Over 70 Members in Pressing Administration on Conflicting Orders Fueling Uncertainty Among Afghans Living in U.S.

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Glenn Ivey – Maryland (4th District)

    WASHINGTON – Congressman Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), .S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.),, and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) led 73 of their colleagues in pressing U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio for answers on the Trump Administration’s inconsistent policies regarding Afghanistan and the legal status of Afghan nationals living in the U.S. – many of whom played important roles in supporting American servicemembers during the war in Afghanistan over two decades. In the letter, the lawmakers point out that the justifications for the decisions to implement a large-scale travel ban, which applies to Afghanistan, and terminate Temporary Protected Status conflict with one another. The lawmakers ask Secretary Rubio how the State Department arrived at these determinations and whether it can guarantee that Afghans who may be forced to leave the U.S. will not face danger upon their return to their home country – should the termination of Afghanistan’s TPS designation be upheld. 

    The lawmakers’ concerns over the safety of Afghan nationals who may be forced to leave the U.S. stem from a recent State Department human rights report covering Afghanistan finding that the Taliban has increased restrictions on freedom of expression and significantly eroded women’s rights. Additionally, Afghanistan remains gripped by violence and instability; the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State (ISIS), continues to launch attacks against ethnic and religious minorities and against the Taliban, leading to innocent civilian casualties. If Afghan nationals are forced to return to Afghanistan, many risk being caught in the crossfire between the Taliban and ISKP, threatening their human rights and freedoms. These risks are on top of those already incurred by the men and women who have previously assisted the United States military and face retribution for their support to our armed forces. 

    “We write to you with deep concern over President Donald Trump’s recently announced so-called travel ban and its striking inconsistency with the Department of Homeland Security’s justification for termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan. We respectfully request that you provide detailed information regarding the State Department’s assessment of the conditions in Afghanistan to clarify the Trump Administration’s position,” the lawmakers began.

    They quoted the determination that Secretary Rubio made upon consultation over the decision to include Afghanistan in the Administration’s travel ban proclamation, writing, “Specifically, the proclamation bans most entry into the United States from Afghanistan, stating the following as justification: ‘The Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, controls Afghanistan. Afghanistan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.’

    “As you know, the U.S. visa vetting system is a multi-layered process involving extensive background checks, biometric data collection, interagency information sharing, and screening against a range of national security databases that works to keep residents of our country safe,” the lawmakers continued. “According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “[m]ore than 40 national security experts from across the political spectrum have unequivocally told courts that travelers to the U.S. should not be vetted on religious or national stereotypes, but rather on specific threat information.” Categorically banning foreign nationals from coming to the United States based on their country of origin is discriminatory and harmful to our nation’s international relations and security interests. 

    Highlighting the inconsistencies between the reasoning for including Afghanistan in the travel ban and ending the country’s TPS designation, they wrote, “This [travel ban] determination appears to be at odds with the Trump Administration’s stated position just weeks ago. May 12, 2025, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Kristi Noem announced that DHS was ending TPS for Afghanistan. The basis offered in the Federal Register notice for this decision was ‘notable improvements in the security and economic situation such that requiring the return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan does not pose a threat to their personal safety due to armed conflict or extraordinary and temporary conditions.’

    “As you are aware, many Afghan allies that received TPS stood shoulder to shoulder with American servicemembers for nearly two decades during the war in Afghanistan. Many fled to the United States out of fear of persecution by the Taliban or retaliation for such cooperation with the United States. It is unsafe for political targets of the Taliban to be forced to return against their will. TPS protections must be maintained for Afghan nationals in the United States,” they went on to write.

    They asked Secretary Rubio to address the following questions:

    1. Please provide detailed reports or information that the State Department is relying upon in advising the Department of Homeland Security and the White House as to the conditions in Afghanistan.
    2. How can you assure Afghan nationals fearing persecution in Afghanistan that the Taliban will not retaliate against them based upon their relationship with the United States?

    In addition to Congressman Ivey, Senator Van Hollen, and Senator Klobuchar, the letter was signed by Senators Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Representatives Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), André Carson (D-Ind.), Troy Carter (D-La.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas), Bill Foster (D-Ill.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.), Timothy Kennedy (D-N.Y.), Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.), Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Kim Schrier (D-Wash.), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.), Adam Smith (D-Calif.), Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), Marc Veasey (D-Texas), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.).

     

    The full text of the letter is available here and below.

    Dear Secretary Rubio:

    We write to you with deep concern over President Donald Trump’s recently announced so-called travel ban and its striking inconsistency with the Department of Homeland Security’s justification for termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan. We respectfully request that you provide detailed information regarding the State Department’s assessment of the conditions in Afghanistan to clarify the Trump Administration’s position. 

    On June 4, 2025, President Trump announced via a proclamation entitled “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats” that he was imposing travel restrictions for foreign nationals entering the United States. Among the countries included in this proclamation is Afghanistan. Specifically, the proclamation bans most entry into the United States from Afghanistan, stating the following as justification: 

    “The Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, controls Afghanistan. Afghanistan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.” 

    As you know, the U.S. visa vetting system is a multi-layered process involving extensive background checks, biometric data collection, interagency information sharing, and screening against a range of national security databases that works to keep residents of our country safe. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “[m]ore than 40 national security experts from across the political spectrum have unequivocally told courts that travelers to the U.S. should not be vetted on religious or national stereotypes, but rather on specific threat information.” Categorically banning foreign nationals from coming to the United States based on their country of origin is discriminatory and harmful to our nation’s international relations and security interests.

    The proclamation further states that you, as the Secretary of State, were directed to make this determination, in consultation with other members of the President’s Cabinet including the Secretary of Homeland Security. Per the proclamation, you ultimately determined that “a number of countries remain deficient with regards to screening and vetting,” including the country of Afghanistan. Placing a blanket ban on another country’s citizens is a severe action, and the title of the proclamation states that it is being done “to protect the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats.” This determination appears to be at odds with the Trump Administration’s stated position just weeks ago. On May 12, 2025, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Kristi Noem announced that DHS was ending TPS for Afghanistan. The basis offered in the Federal Register notice for this decision was “notable improvements in the security and economic situation such that requiring the return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan does not pose a threat to their personal safety due to armed conflict or extraordinary and temporary conditions.” Specifically, the notice points to:

    1. the totality of Taliban rule and lessening overt presence of ISIS-K and other various terrorist organizations;
    2. a decrease in large-scale violence and humanitarian need;
    3. a growing economy; and
    4. increased tourism, with tourists “sharing their experiences on social media, highlighting the peaceful countryside, welcoming locals, and the cultural heritage.”

    Further, Secretary Noem found that “permitting Afghan nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the United States.” The Federal Register notice cited consultation with your Department in making this determination.

    These seemingly incompatible recent decisions indicate a troubling lack of consistency in the Administration’s analysis of country conditions in Afghanistan. Either Afghanistan is safe for the return of Afghan refugees and nationals that fled following the return of the Taliban to power or it is not. 

    According to Human Rights Watch, in 2024, Taliban authorities intensified their crackdown on human rights, especially against women and girls, who are banned from attending secondary school or university and are unable to move freely. The Taliban also continues to detain and torture journalists, curtailing free speech and media. The 2023 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report covering Afghanistan found that women’s rights rapidly declined and restrictions on freedom of expression increased. The horrific human rights conditions in Afghanistan are unsafe for Afghan nationals to return to and returning would put their personal safety at immediate risk. Additionally, the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State (ISIS), continues to launch attacks against ethnic and religious minorities and against the Taliban, leading to innocent civilian casualties. If Afghan nationals are forced to return to Afghanistan, they will be caught in the crossfire between the Taliban and ISKP.  

    As you are aware, many Afghan allies that received TPS stood shoulder to shoulder with American servicemembers for nearly two decades during the war in Afghanistan. Many fled to the United States out of fear of persecution by the Taliban or retaliation for such cooperation with the United States. It is unsafe for political targets of the Taliban to be forced to return against their will. TPS protections must be maintained for Afghan nationals in the United States. 

    We would request that you immediately provide answers to the following questions:

    1. Please provide detailed reports or information that the State Department is relying upon in advising the Department of Homeland Security and the White House as to the conditions in Afghanistan.
    2. How can you assure Afghan nationals fearing persecution in Afghanistan that the Taliban will not retaliate against them based upon their relationship with the United States?

    Congress has a strong interest in understanding what information the Trump Administration is using to carry out its policies and how it is making national security decisions that impact all of our constituents. We look forward to receiving your response.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: The government has written off the debt on budget loans of 25 regions.

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: Government of the Russian Federation – Government of the Russian Federation –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    Document

    Order dated July 10, 2025 No. 1853-r

    A number of Russian regions have been given the opportunity to write off up to two-thirds of their budget loan debt in 2025, totaling 42.7 billion rubles. The order to this effect was signed by Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin.

    The debt will be written off for 25 regions. These are the Altai Republic, Buryatia, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Crimea, Mari El, North Ossetia, Tuva, Zabaikalsky, Perm and Khabarovsk Krais, Arkhangelsk, Bryansk, Kaluga, Kurgan, Novgorod, Omsk, Oryol, Pskov, Samara, Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk, Yaroslavl and the Jewish Autonomous Regions.

    The amount of the write-off will correspond to the amount of funds allocated by these regions for the implementation of measures in the sphere of housing and communal services, the resettlement of citizens from dilapidated housing, the renovation of public transport, the development of key settlements, the implementation of new investment projects, as well as for the recapitalization of industrial development funds, guarantee and microfinance organizations and support for companies that manage territories with preferential tax regimes.

    In addition, the debt of regions included in the Far Eastern Federal District and the Arctic zone will be written off in the amount of funds allocated for the implementation of activities within the framework of master plans of cities located in these territories, and for entities with low budgetary security – funds allocated for the implementation of national projects.

    Comment

    From Mikhail Mishustin’s opening remarks at the operational meeting with deputy prime ministers, July 14, 2025

    “The funds remaining in the region will help speed up the solution of important tasks for our citizens, which will have a positive impact on the dynamics of both the regional and federal economies and, of course, the social sphere,” Mikhail Mishustin noted, commenting on the decision taken at a meeting with deputy prime ministers on July 14.

    The rules for writing off regions’ debt on budget loans and the list of areas for spending the released funds were approved by the Government in February 2025. The President instructed the Government to develop them following his Address to the Federal Assembly in 2024, as well as following the meeting of the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects and the State Council commissions on socio-economic development areas.

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Curtis Island compliance

    Source: Tasmania Police

    Issued: 14 Jul 2025

    Open larger image

    The people constructed an illegal hut and used that as a base for other illegal activity.

    Targeted patrols conducted in the Curtis Island National Park in August 2024 led to the discovery of an illegal hut and evidence of significant illegal activity.

    Rangers from the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI) identified the people who built the hut in a remote area of the park.

    Regional Director Great Barrier Reef and Marine Parks Region Tina Alderson said it is illegal to build any structure in a protected area and rangers will have the hut removed.

    “Building an illegal structure in a protected area essentially excludes others from the area and causes damage to the environment. This hut was also used as a base for other illegal activities,” Ms Alderson said.

    “People who want to build a hut for their own personal use for activities such as fishing, hunting and vehicle-based activities can do so on private land but not in a national park.

    “Multiple fines and warnings have been issued for illegal activity within the protected areas of Curtis Island, and eighteen offenders have been identified.

    “QPWS is serious about compliance and anyone who builds an illegal structure in a protected area will be caught.

    “So far we have issued 22 penalty infringement notices totalling $7606, which includes two people receiving fines of more than $1000 each for their role in the offending.”

    The illegal activities include:

    • Illegal fires in a protected area putting rangers, neighbours and other park users at risk
    • Bringing domestic dogs into a protected area impacting the environment and native wildlife
    • Hunting, including the use of firearms and other weapons putting rangers, neighbours and other park users at risk.
    • Multiple driving offences including driving in restricted access areas, use of unregistered vehicles and traveling with unrestrained people.
    • Illegal clearing and harvest of trees to construct the hut.

    Anyone with information about illegal activities in Queensland’s protected areas is encouraged to call 1300 130 372. Information can be provided anonymously.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: 4 things every peace agreement needs – and how the DRC-Rwanda deal measures up

    Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Philipp Kastner, Senior Lecturer in International Law, The University of Western Australia

    The governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda concluded a peace treaty in June 2025, aimed at ending a decades-long war in eastern DRC. The United Nations welcomed the agreement as “a significant step towards de-escalation, peace and stability” in the region.

    I have analysed several different peace negotiations and agreements. It’s important to distinguish between what’s needed to get warring parties to the table, and what’s eventually agreed on. In this article, I examine whether the DRC-Rwanda deal has got the four essential components that usually signal that an agreement will hold.

    Two broad points about peace agreements, first – and one particular complication in the DRC-Rwanda case.

    Firstly, one agreement is rarely enough to resolve a complex conflict. Most deals are part of a series of agreements, sometimes between different actors. They often mention previously concluded ones, and will be referred to by subsequent ones.

    Secondly, peace is a process, and requires broad and sustained commitment. It is essential that other actors, like armed groups, are brought on board. Importantly, this also includes civil society actors. An agreement will be more legitimate and effective if different voices are heard during negotiations.

    One major complication in relation to the DRC-Rwanda deal is that the United States has been the prime broker. But rather than acting as a neutral mediator trying to bring about peace, Washington seems to be pursuing its own economic interests. This does not bode well.

    There is no simple recipe for a good peace agreement, but research shows that four elements are important: a serious commitment from the parties, precise wording, clear timelines and strong implementation provisions.

    What underpins a good agreement

    First, the parties need to be serious about the agreement and able to commit to its terms. It must not be used as a cover to buy time, re-arm or pursue fighting. Moreover, lasting peace cannot be made exclusively at the highest political level. Agreements that are the result of more inclusive processes, with input by and support from the communities concerned, have a higher success rate.

    Second, the agreement must address the issues it aims to resolve, and its provisions must be drafted carefully and unambiguously. When agreements are vague or silent on key aspects, they are often short-lived. Previous experiences can guide peace negotiators and mediators in the drafting process. Peace agreement databases established by the United Nations and academic institutions are a useful tool for this.

    Third, clear and realistic timelines are essential. These can concern the withdrawal of armed forces from specified territories, the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, and the establishment of mechanisms providing reparations or other forms of transitional justice.

    Fourth, an agreement should include provisions on its implementation. External support is usually helpful here. Third states or international organisations, liked the United Nations and the African Union, can be mandated to oversee this phase. They can also provide security guarantees or even deploy a peacekeeping operation. What is crucial is that these actors are committed to the process and don’t pursue their own interests.




    Read more:
    DRC and Rwanda sign a US-brokered peace deal: what are the chances of its success?


    To know what to realistically expect from a specific peace agreement, it’s important to understand that such agreements can take very different forms. These range from pre-negotiation arrangements and ceasefires to comprehensive peace accords and implementation agreements.

    A lasting resolution of the conflict should not be expected when only a few conflict parties have concluded a temporary ceasefire.

    The DRC-Rwanda agreement: an important step with lots of shortcomings

    It’s difficult to tell at this point how serious the DRC and Rwanda are about peace, and if their commitment will be enough.

    Their assertion that they will respect each other’s territory and refrain from acts of aggression is certainly important.

    But Rwanda has a history of direct military activities in the DRC since the 1990s. And the treaty only includes rather vague references to the “disengagement of forces/lifting of defensive measures by Rwanda”. It doesn’t specifically mention the withdrawal of the reportedly thousands of Rwandan troops deployed to eastern DRC.

    The Paul Kagame-led Rwandan government has also supported Tutsi-dominated armed groups in the DRC since the Rwandan genocide in 1994. The Mouvement du 23 Mars (M23) is the current primary military actor in eastern DRC. But the agreement between the governments of DRC and Rwanda didn’t include the M23 or other groups. The two governments only commit themselves to supporting the ongoing negotiations between the DRC and the M23 facilitated by Qatar.

    The agreement also foresees the “neutralisation” of another armed group, the Hutu-dominated Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Rwanda (FDLR). This group claims to protect Rwandan Hutu refugees in the DRC, but is considered “genocidal” by the Rwandan government. The group has reacted to this plan by calling for a political solution and a more inclusive peace process.

    What’s needed

    The DRC-Rwanda agreement includes provisions that are vital to the people most affected by the conflict, such as the return of the millions of people displaced because of the fighting in eastern DRC. But it does not address other key issues.

    For instance, aside from a general commitment to promote human rights and international humanitarian law, there is no reference to the widespread violations of human rights and war crimes reportedly committed by all sides. These include summary executions, and sexual and gender-based violence, including violence against children.

    Some form of justice and reconciliation mechanism to deal with such large-scale violence should be considered in this situation, as for instance in the fairly successful 2016 agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army (FARC). This could contribute to preventing further violations as it sends a clear signal that committing crimes will not be rewarded. It also helps the population heal and gives peace a better chance.

    There is no single model for this, and so-called transitional justice (defined as the “range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempts to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation”) remains highly controversial. For instance, insisting on war crimes trials can be seen as endangering a fragile peace process.

    But peace agreements across the world, from Libya to the Central African Republic, have over past decades moved away from blanket amnesties. They have increasingly included provisions to ensure accountability, especially for serious crimes. The DRC-Rwanda deal is silent on these questions.

    A twist in the tale

    The DRC-Rwanda deal is complicated by Washington’s role and pursuit of economic interests.

    The two states agreed to establish a joint oversight committee, with members of the African Union, Qatar and the United States. It foresees a “regional economic integration framework”, which has been criticised as opening the door for foreign influence in the DRC’s rich mineral resources. The country is the world’s largest producer of cobalt, for instance, which is essential for the renewable energy sector.

    Such a neocolonial “peace for exploitation bargain” does not send a positive signal. And it will probably not contribute to ending an armed conflict that has been fuelled by the exploitation of natural resources.

    Philipp Kastner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. 4 things every peace agreement needs – and how the DRC-Rwanda deal measures up – https://theconversation.com/4-things-every-peace-agreement-needs-and-how-the-drc-rwanda-deal-measures-up-260944

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI USA: OmegaPro founder, promoter charged for running global $650 million foreign exchange and crypto investment scam following ICE New York investigation

    Source: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

    NEW YORK — An investigation by ICE Homeland Security Investigations New York, alongside several partners, has resulted in an indictment charging two men for their alleged roles in operating and promoting OmegaPro, an international investment scheme that defrauded victim investors of over $650 million.

    According to court documents, Michael Shannon Sims, 48, of Georgia and Florida, was a founder, strategic consultant, and promoter of OmegaPro, and Juan Carlos Reynoso, 57, of New Jersey and Florida, led OmegaPro’s operations in Latin America and parts of the United States, including Puerto Rico.

    “This case highlights the critical role international partnerships play in dismantling transnational financial fraud schemes that exploit global markets and victimize unsuspecting investors,” said ICE HSI International Operations Assistant Director Ricardo Mayoral. “HSI remains committed to working with our partners worldwide to disrupt criminal networks that weaponize emerging technologies to conceal illicit profits and defraud the public.”

    Mayoral; Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney W. Stephen Muldrow for the District of Puerto Rico; Assistant Director Joe Perez of the FBI Criminal Investigative Division; and Chief Guy Ficco of the IRS Criminal Investigation announced the charges on July 8.

    HSI New York, the FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation are investigating the case, with assistance from HSI Bangkok; HSI Bogota; HSI Frankfurt; HSI Istanbul; HSI London; HSI Miami; HSI New Delhi; HSI The Hague; the FBI’s Virtual Asset Unit; the Office of the Attorney General of Colombia; and the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement, an alliance between the Australian Taxation Office, the Canada Revenue Agency, the Dutch Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Service, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs from the U.K., and IRS-CI.

    According to the investigation and as outlined in court documents:

    Sims and co-conspirators established OmegaPro in or about January 2019, and Reynoso joined a few months later, in or about April 2019. As alleged, the defendants and others operated and promoted OmegaPro as a multi-level marketing scheme for investors to purchase “investment packages,” which the defendants and others falsely promised would generate 300% returns over 16 months through foreign exchange trading by elite traders. Investors were instructed to purchase these investment packages using virtual currency.

    Sims allegedly misled victims by vouching for OmegaPro’s trading performance and the skills of the hired traders and by falsely advertising the safety of investment in OmegaPro. Reynoso allegedly falsely and misleadingly represented that OmegaPro was operating pursuant to a legitimate license and, at other times, that OmegaPro was not subject to any country’s legal rules. The indictment alleges that Sims and Reynoso, together with co-conspirators, hosted lavish OmegaPro promotional events and trainings all over the world including, for example, projecting the OmegaPro logo onto the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building, at an event in Dubai. The objective of these promotional events allegedly was to convince existing and prospective investors that OmegaPro was a legitimate enterprise that offered a path to wealth and a luxurious lifestyle.

    Further, Sims, Reynoso, and their co-conspirators used social media to display their expensive vacations and cars, as well as their designer clothes and watches. The indictment alleges that through the defendants’ and others’ misrepresentations, OmegaPro raised over $650 million in virtual currency from thousands of investors. After OmegaPro announced that it had suffered a network hack, Reynoso and others told victims in or about January 2023 that their investments were secure and that OmegaPro was transferring their investments to another platform called Broker Group. Despite these representations, victims were unable to withdraw money from either their OmegaPro accounts or their accounts at Broker Group, resulting in millions in victim losses.

    The more than $650 million in funds raised from victims allegedly was first sent to virtual currency wallet addresses controlled by OmegaPro executives and then allegedly transferred to OmegaPro insiders and high-ranking promoters to disperse the funds and obscure their origins. As alleged, Sims and Reynoso both profited millions from this scheme.

    “As alleged, the defendants preyed upon vulnerable individuals in the U.S. and abroad, defrauding them of over $650 million by making false promises of substantial returns and that their money was safe,” said Galeotti. “The Criminal Division is committed to prosecuting these bad actors and pursuing justice for their many victims. Thanks to the dedicated work of our multiagency and international law enforcement partners, we are leading efforts to combat these complex and insidious digital asset investor scams.”

    “As alleged in the indictment, the defendants operated a global fraud scheme through OmegaPro that deceived investors with false promises of extraordinary returns, only to misappropriate hundreds of millions of victim funds,” said Muldrow. “We remain committed to dismantling international financial schemes that target U.S. victims — including here in Puerto Rico — and to recovering illicit proceeds through criminal prosecution and asset forfeiture.”

    “The FBI will not stand by while the American public is defrauded,” said Perez. “Through coordination with our partners, these individuals will have to defend their actions in a court of law.”

    “This case exposes the ruthless reality of modern financial crime,” said Ficco. “OmegaPro promised financial freedom but delivered financial ruin — stealing over $650 million from everyday people and vanishing it into virtual currency. These weren’t just scams; they were precision-engineered betrayals. Our job is to stand up for those who’ve been exploited and continue our cross-agency collaboration until those responsible are brought to justice.”

    Both defendants are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. If convicted, Sims and Reynoso each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison on each count.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Twelfth Individual Charged in Alvarado Police Officer Shooting at Prairieland Detention Center

    Source: US FBI

    A twelfth individual has been charged for his role in the shooting of an Alvarado police officer at the Prairieland Detention Center, announced Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Nancy E. Larson.  

    According to a criminal complaint filed today, Benjamin Hanil Song, a former United States Marine Corps reservist, joined ten others in an organized attack against officers at the Prairieland Detention Center just after 10:30 p.m., Friday, July 4.

    The complaint alleges that group was dressed in black military style clothing.  The group began shooting fireworks towards the detention center.  Some then sprayed graffiti on vehicles and a guard structure in the parking lot at the facility.  Correctional officers called 911 to report suspicious activity.  An Alvarado police officer responded to the scene and, upon exiting his vehicle, the officer was shot in the neck by a defendant positioned in nearby woods. Another alleged assailant across the street fired 20 to 30 rounds at unarmed correctional officers who had stepped outside the facility.

    As alleged in the complaint, Song purchased four of the guns that were found in connection with the shooting.  Two AR-style rifles were found at the scene, which records show were purchased by Song.  One of the abandoned rifles at the scene had a binary trigger, used to “double” a regular rate of fire, allowing a shooter to fire more rapidly than a standard semiautomatic gun.  Police also recovered additional firearms in searches of residences and vehicles, including another AR-15 style rifle in the back of a van driven that night by Bradford Morris, who was charged in a separate complaint on Monday.  Song also purchased that rifle, according to court documents.  Joy Gibson—also charged in Monday’s complaint—had a pistol in her backpack when apprehended.  Records show that Song purchased this firearm in October 2024.

    Ten assailants charged in Monday’s complaint fled from the detention center but were apprehended by additional responding law enforcement officers.  Song, however, was not located by law enforcement officers that night.  As alleged, the location data associated with Song’s cellular telephone indicates that his phone was located within several hundred meters of the Prairieland Detention Center from late in the evening of July 4, 2025, until after dark on July 5, the day after the shooting.  Additionally, the complaint alleges that on July 6, a white Mercedes Benz registered to a relative of Song was found on the same block of Bradford Morris’s residence.  A DFW Airport camera captured an individual—believed to be Song—driving the Mercedes on May 23, 2025.

    Song has been charged by federal complaint with three counts of attempted murder of federal agents and three counts of discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence.  The ten others charged with these offenses in Monday’s complaint include Cameron Arnold, Savanna Batten, Nathan Baumann, Zachary Evetts, Joy Gibson, Bradford Morris, Maricela Rueda, Seth Sikes, Elizabeth Soto, and Ines Soto.  The FBI has deemed Song a wanted individual and advises that he should be considered armed and dangerous.  As described in the attached notice, the FBI is seeking the public’s assistance in Song’s apprehension.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Nancy E. Larson praised the tireless efforts of all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies involved in this case to date. “The swift response of nearly 70 law enforcement officers to the site of the shooting hemmed in several of the attackers,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nancy E. Larson. “The quick action and professionalism of our state and local law enforcement officers in the immediate aftermath of the shooting resulted in the prompt capture of ten of the assailants. Though Song escaped the scene by hiding overnight, he will be relentlessly pursued until he is in custody.”

    “Benjamin Hanil Song is wanted by the FBI for his connection to the violent assault that occurred at the Prairieland Detention Center. He is considered armed and dangerous, and we ask that the public contact law enforcement immediately if he is seen,” said FBI Dallas Special Agent in Charge R. Joseph Rothrock. “We are committed to apprehending Song and are offering a reward of up to $25,000 for information leading to his arrest and conviction.  If you have any information, please call 1-800-CALL-FBI or you can submit a digital tip to fbi.govprairieland.”

    A criminal complaint is merely an allegation of criminal conduct, not evidence.  Like all defendants, Song is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  If convicted, he faces a minimum penalty of ten years in federal prison and a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

    The investigation was conducted by the FBI—Dallas, Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Office (ICE ERO), ATF, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Alvarado Police Department, and the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office. Links are below to the FBI Wanted Notice for Song, and the Criminal Complaint filed.
     

    https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/additional/benjamin-hanil-song

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Arizona Man Sentenced to Prison for Traveling to Washington for Sex with Fictitious Minor

    Source: US FBI

    Communicated with undercover law enforcement officer; Phone contained evidence of illegal communication with other children

    Seattle – A 73-year-old Tucson, Arizona man was sentenced today in U.S. District Court in Seattle to four years in prison for travel with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Teal Luthy Miller. Steven J. Migdon, was arrested in August 2024 following an online investigation by Seattle Police and the FBI. In the investigation, the undercover agent posed as a 13-year-old boy. At the sentencing hearing U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead noted that Migdon lived a crime free life for 73 years, but added, “Today we are here to confront the ugliness of what you did over ten days. The images you had on your phone represented real children and real abuse. These are among the most serious crimes we see in federal court, the crimes that exploit children.”

    In July 2024, an undercover agent posted on a teen chatroom platform. Migdon replied to the 13-year-old persona and made the communication become more sexually explicit.  Migdon requested, but did not receive, sexually explicit images from the “teen.” Migdon sent pictures of his face and penis to the undercover agent.

    On August 5th Migdon flew from Tucson to Everett, Washington, believing he would meet the “teen” at an Everett hotel room. Instead Migdon was arrested. A search of his phone revealed that he had sent sexually explicit images to other children, and that he had images of child sexual abuse on his phone.

    In asking for a four-year sentence and ten years of supervised release to follow, Assistant United States Attorney Cecelia Gregson wrote to the court, “Despite age and experience, Migdon spent ten days communicating with a person he believed to be a 13-year-old boy. Worse, the content of his phone confirmed his chatting and travel conduct were not stand alone. Migdon had been sexually communicating with unidentified minors in the days leading up to his travel to Washington for sex with a fictitious child.”

    Migdon was ordered to pay $3,000 in restitution to a fund for the known victims in the child sex abuse images he possessed. Migdon is required to register as a sex offender and will be on ten years of supervised release following prison.

    The case was investigated by the FBI and the Seattle Police Department. The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Cecelia Gregson.

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Africa: 4 things every peace agreement needs – and how the DRC-Rwanda deal measures up

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Philipp Kastner, Senior Lecturer in International Law, The University of Western Australia

    The governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda concluded a peace treaty in June 2025, aimed at ending a decades-long war in eastern DRC. The United Nations welcomed the agreement as “a significant step towards de-escalation, peace and stability” in the region.

    I have analysed several different peace negotiations and agreements. It’s important to distinguish between what’s needed to get warring parties to the table, and what’s eventually agreed on. In this article, I examine whether the DRC-Rwanda deal has got the four essential components that usually signal that an agreement will hold.

    Two broad points about peace agreements, first – and one particular complication in the DRC-Rwanda case.

    Firstly, one agreement is rarely enough to resolve a complex conflict. Most deals are part of a series of agreements, sometimes between different actors. They often mention previously concluded ones, and will be referred to by subsequent ones.

    Secondly, peace is a process, and requires broad and sustained commitment. It is essential that other actors, like armed groups, are brought on board. Importantly, this also includes civil society actors. An agreement will be more legitimate and effective if different voices are heard during negotiations.

    One major complication in relation to the DRC-Rwanda deal is that the United States has been the prime broker. But rather than acting as a neutral mediator trying to bring about peace, Washington seems to be pursuing its own economic interests. This does not bode well.

    There is no simple recipe for a good peace agreement, but research shows that four elements are important: a serious commitment from the parties, precise wording, clear timelines and strong implementation provisions.

    What underpins a good agreement

    First, the parties need to be serious about the agreement and able to commit to its terms. It must not be used as a cover to buy time, re-arm or pursue fighting. Moreover, lasting peace cannot be made exclusively at the highest political level. Agreements that are the result of more inclusive processes, with input by and support from the communities concerned, have a higher success rate.

    Second, the agreement must address the issues it aims to resolve, and its provisions must be drafted carefully and unambiguously. When agreements are vague or silent on key aspects, they are often short-lived. Previous experiences can guide peace negotiators and mediators in the drafting process. Peace agreement databases established by the United Nations and academic institutions are a useful tool for this.

    Third, clear and realistic timelines are essential. These can concern the withdrawal of armed forces from specified territories, the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, and the establishment of mechanisms providing reparations or other forms of transitional justice.

    Fourth, an agreement should include provisions on its implementation. External support is usually helpful here. Third states or international organisations, liked the United Nations and the African Union, can be mandated to oversee this phase. They can also provide security guarantees or even deploy a peacekeeping operation. What is crucial is that these actors are committed to the process and don’t pursue their own interests.


    Read more: DRC and Rwanda sign a US-brokered peace deal: what are the chances of its success?


    To know what to realistically expect from a specific peace agreement, it’s important to understand that such agreements can take very different forms. These range from pre-negotiation arrangements and ceasefires to comprehensive peace accords and implementation agreements.

    A lasting resolution of the conflict should not be expected when only a few conflict parties have concluded a temporary ceasefire.

    The DRC-Rwanda agreement: an important step with lots of shortcomings

    It’s difficult to tell at this point how serious the DRC and Rwanda are about peace, and if their commitment will be enough.

    Their assertion that they will respect each other’s territory and refrain from acts of aggression is certainly important.

    But Rwanda has a history of direct military activities in the DRC since the 1990s. And the treaty only includes rather vague references to the “disengagement of forces/lifting of defensive measures by Rwanda”. It doesn’t specifically mention the withdrawal of the reportedly thousands of Rwandan troops deployed to eastern DRC.

    The Paul Kagame-led Rwandan government has also supported Tutsi-dominated armed groups in the DRC since the Rwandan genocide in 1994. The Mouvement du 23 Mars (M23) is the current primary military actor in eastern DRC. But the agreement between the governments of DRC and Rwanda didn’t include the M23 or other groups. The two governments only commit themselves to supporting the ongoing negotiations between the DRC and the M23 facilitated by Qatar.

    The agreement also foresees the “neutralisation” of another armed group, the Hutu-dominated Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Rwanda (FDLR). This group claims to protect Rwandan Hutu refugees in the DRC, but is considered “genocidal” by the Rwandan government. The group has reacted to this plan by calling for a political solution and a more inclusive peace process.

    What’s needed

    The DRC-Rwanda agreement includes provisions that are vital to the people most affected by the conflict, such as the return of the millions of people displaced because of the fighting in eastern DRC. But it does not address other key issues.

    For instance, aside from a general commitment to promote human rights and international humanitarian law, there is no reference to the widespread violations of human rights and war crimes reportedly committed by all sides. These include summary executions, and sexual and gender-based violence, including violence against children.

    Some form of justice and reconciliation mechanism to deal with such large-scale violence should be considered in this situation, as for instance in the fairly successful 2016 agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army (FARC). This could contribute to preventing further violations as it sends a clear signal that committing crimes will not be rewarded. It also helps the population heal and gives peace a better chance.

    There is no single model for this, and so-called transitional justice (defined as the “range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempts to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation”) remains highly controversial. For instance, insisting on war crimes trials can be seen as endangering a fragile peace process.

    But peace agreements across the world, from Libya to the Central African Republic, have over past decades moved away from blanket amnesties. They have increasingly included provisions to ensure accountability, especially for serious crimes. The DRC-Rwanda deal is silent on these questions.

    A twist in the tale

    The DRC-Rwanda deal is complicated by Washington’s role and pursuit of economic interests.

    The two states agreed to establish a joint oversight committee, with members of the African Union, Qatar and the United States. It foresees a “regional economic integration framework”, which has been criticised as opening the door for foreign influence in the DRC’s rich mineral resources. The country is the world’s largest producer of cobalt, for instance, which is essential for the renewable energy sector.

    Such a neocolonial “peace for exploitation bargain” does not send a positive signal. And it will probably not contribute to ending an armed conflict that has been fuelled by the exploitation of natural resources.

    – 4 things every peace agreement needs – and how the DRC-Rwanda deal measures up
    – https://theconversation.com/4-things-every-peace-agreement-needs-and-how-the-drc-rwanda-deal-measures-up-260944

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI USA: PRESS RELEASE: Rep. Barragán and Sen. Markey Introduce Resolution to Confront Rising Public Health Threats from Climate Change

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

    For Immediate Release

    July 12, 2025

    Contact: jin.choi@mail.house.gov

    Rep. Barragán and Sen. Markey Introduce Resolution to Confront Rising Public Health Threats from Climate Change

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — This week, Congresswoman Nanette Barragán (CA-44), a member of the Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health, and Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, introduced a resolution recognizing climate change as a growing threat to public health and calling for a coordinated federal strategy to protect communities from worsening climate-fueled harms. The resolution urges the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other federal agencies to lead a whole-of-government effort to protect public health and improve resiliency against climate-related threats throughout the health sector. Representatives Salud Carbajal (CA-24), Doris Matsui (CA-07), and Brad Schneider (IL-10) co-led the resolution in the House.

    The climate crisis is here. In 2024, the United States experienced 27 climate disasters that caused more than a billion dollars each in damage. Increasingly frequent and extreme events—like wildfires, floods, and heat waves—are driving spikes in illness, displacement, and death. More than 150 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air, and people with disabilities are 2 to 4 times more likely to die or be injured in climate-related disasters. Frontline workers in agriculture, construction, delivery, and manufacturing face growing health risks from extreme heat and poor air quality on the job. 

    “The climate crisis affects us all, but especially economically disadvantaged communities, communities of color, and other marginalized communities,” said Representative Barragán. “Now more than ever, we see families across the country facing significant health risks as a result of climate disasters such as extreme heat, excessive flooding, and unpredictable storms. Yet the Trump Administration has dangerously chosen to ignore the threat of climate change to our public health – firing staff and canceling programs that were focused on improving our resilience to harmful environmental exposures, such as the HHS Office of Climate Change and Health Equity. That is why I am proud to lead this bicameral resolution with Senator Markey and Representatives Carbajal, Matsui, and Schneider to acknowledge the federal government’s responsibility to mitigate the impacts of climate change and protect the health and well-being of all Americans.”

    “With deadly extreme weather disasters, devastating heat waves, and pollution that triggers asthma and other health crises all on the rise, climate change is a full-blown public health emergency—and we need to treat it that way,” said Senator Markey. “This resolution calls on our government to protect the people most at risk from climate-related threats—those on the frontlines of the climate crisis, including Black and Indigenous communities, low-income families, and workers, especially those in construction, delivery, manufacturing, and warehouses. While Republicans pass bills that kick people off their health care, we are fighting for a resilient health system that helps everyone survive a warming and increasingly chaotic world.”

    “It doesn’t matter if you live in a red or blue state, every American will be affected by climate change,” said Congressman Salud Carbajal. “We’re calling on the Administration to reinstate the OCCHE because it’s essential to protecting the health and well-being of every community in this country.”

    “Over the past six months, President Trump and Congressional Republicans have launched a full-scale attack on the environment and public health,” said Congresswoman Matsui. “By blatantly disregarding climate change, they are driving us towards a dangerous future. Climate change is already harming human health nationwide, driving up heat-related deaths, increasing vector-borne illnesses, and disrupting medical care. This resolution demands urgent action to address the health impacts from climate change to prevent countless deaths across the country.”

    “Climate change threatens every corner of our nation and must be mitigated through swift, coordinated action by our government,” said Congressman Schneider. “The Office of Climate Change and Health Equity is a critical asset in understanding the dire health implications of climate change and mobilizing strategies that ensure no community is left behind. The decision by the Trump Administration to place all OCCHE staff on leave poses a real threat to American lives and wellbeing. I’m proud to join my colleague Rep. Barragan in urging the Trump Administration to reinstate of the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity (OCCHE) and its Office of Environmental Justice.”

    Specifically, the resolution:

    • Demands the release of funding appropriated by Congress that would help to address climate-related health threats that has been held up by Federal agencies;
    • Details the public health dimensions of the climate crisis, including increased risks of respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, mental health stressors, pregnancy complications, infectious disease outbreaks, and disaster-related displacement;
    • Highlights the disproportionate health burdens on children, people with disabilities, low-income households, communities of color, Tribal nations, and workers in high-risk occupations;
    • Calls on the Department of Health and Human Services to lead cross-agency coordination to strengthen health system climate resilience, support frontline providers, close gaps in climate-health data, and help the health sector lower its own environmental impact;
    • Affirms the importance of engaging environmental justice and community-based organizations in local climate-health preparedness and response efforts;
    • Urges the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to adopt a national worker heat protection standard; and,
    • Calls for annual public reporting on federal climate-health resilience investments and progress.

    The resolution is cosponsored by Senators Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Representatives Hank Johnson (GA-04), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-00), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Melanie Stansbury (NM-01), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), and Ritchie Torres (NY-15). 

    The resolution is endorsed by Health Care Without Harm, Center for American Progress, Climate Justice Alliance, International Transformational Resilience Coalition, Climate and Community Institute, Earthjustice Action, Public Citizen, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, Center for Oil and Gas Organizing, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the American College of Physicians.

    “Health Care Without Harm applauds Senator Markey for introducing this important resolution and is pleased to endorse it,” said Jenny Keroack, Director of Program Strategy & Management in the U.S. Climate Program. “Climate change is causing more severe and frequent storms, wildfires, and extreme heat events, creating safety and public health crises across our country. Our government must have a science-based, coordinated approach to prepare for and respond to these growing threats, and the Department of Health and Human Services has an indispensable role to play as the guardian of our nation’s health and well-being. Vital programs have been attacked, including a grant program that assists families with energy costs so they can afford to cool and heat their homes, funding that helps hospitals stay open and operational when the grid goes down, and research on how best to protect farmworkers from increasing heat waves. Such programs and the expert civil servants who help protect our communities from environmental health threats like climate change must be immediately reinstated and supported. Now is not the time to retreat.”

    “With climate change and extreme weather events driving illness, injury, and death across the United States, the Department of Health and Human Services must harness its resources, leverage its authorities, and coordinate its expertise and action to prepare for and respond to the health and financial impact,” said Jill Rosenthal, Director of Public Health at the Center for American Progress.

    “This resolution is crucial because climate change isn’t just an environmental problem; it’s a public health crisis hurting families right now,” said KD Chavez, Executive Director of the Climate Justice Alliance. “Low-income communities bear the brunt – suffering more asthma attacks, heatstroke, and toxic exposure. But these communities also have the answers! They’ve developed practical, replicable solutions. We need bold action: stronger environmental safeguards, smart investments in resilient infrastructure, and policies that prioritize everyone’s health and safety, no matter where they live. Let’s protect our families and build a healthier future for all.”

    “The International Transformational Resilience Coalition (ITRC) strongly endorses this resolution,” said ITRC Founder and Coordinator Bob Doppelt. “We do so because the climate crisis is a public health crisis that requires significant leadership, support, and investments by the federal government to prevent and heal the accelerating climate-generated mental health, psychosocial, and physical health issues experienced by newborns, young children, adolescents, working age, and older adults nationwide.”

    “Our hospitals and clinics are already seeing the devastating health effects of climate change every day – from children struggling to breathe polluted air to seniors collapsing in extreme heat,” said Ranjani Prabhakar, Legislative Director of Healthy Communities, Earthjustice Action. “Over 200 medical journals have called climate change the greatest threat to human health this century, and Senator Markey’s resolution affirms this data by putting health at the center of environmental solutions. Recognizing this crisis for the public health emergency that it is, is essential to protect our families and communities.”

    “As the planet enters a period of increasing climate chaos, our collective response will either deepen disparities or address the drivers of climate breakdown and health inequity together,” said Batul Hassan, Labor Director at the Climate and Community Institute. “This resolution from Senator Markey establishes the urgent need for coordinated action across health and public health systems to ensure all people and generations to come can thrive in a warming world.”

    The full text of the legislation can be found here.

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: PRESS RELEASE: Rep. Barragán Thanks Governor Newsom and State Legislators for Protecting Access to Medi-Cal and In-Home Care in Final 2025-26 State Budget Signed into Law

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    July 13, 2025

    Contact: Jin Choi, jin.choi@mail.house.gov

    Rep. Barragán Thanks Governor Newsom and State Legislators for Protecting Access to Medi-Cal and In-Home Care in Final 2025-26 State Budget Signed into Law

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Late June, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the 2025-26 state budget into law and delivered on protecting access to Medi-Cal and in-home care. In early June, Congresswoman Nanette Barragán (CA-44) led 16 members of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation in a letter urging Governor Gavin Newsom and State Legislators to reject reinstating the $2000 Medi-Cal asset limit and to reject capping overtime hours for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) providers.

    Governor Newsom’s original May Budget Revision proposed cutting access to state and federally funded Medi-Cal and Medi-Cal’s IHSS program by proposing to reinstate a low $2000 Medi-Cal asset limit for seniors and adults with disabilities. It had also proposed a cap on overtime and travel hours for IHSS providers, who provide in-home care to seniors and people with disabilities as an alternative to out-of-home care.

    The final budget, negotiated by the Governor and State Legislature, reinstates a much higher Medi-Cal asset limit of $130,000 for individuals, rather than the Governor’s original proposal of $2,000 – it also did not include the proposal to cap overtime hours for IHSS providers.

    Congresswoman Barragán issued the following statement following the Governor’s signing the budget into law:

    “The proposals in the Governor’s May Revision included potentially devastating cuts to Medi-Cal and in-home care that would have threatened the health and financial stability of seniors, children, adults with disabilities, and home care workers throughout California. I appreciate that the Governor and the State Legislature took meaningful steps to protect access to Medi-Cal and in-home care in the final negotiated budget that was signed into law. I look forward to continuing to work together with the State to protect our essential in-home care workers and ensure Californians can access the affordable, quality health care they need.”

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Motorcyclist dies following single vehicle crash in Hobart

    Source: New South Wales Community and Justice

    Motorcyclist dies following single vehicle crash in Hobart

    Tuesday, 15 July 2025 – 12:25 am.

    Sadly, a motorcyclist has died following a single vehicle crash in Hobart’s northern suburbs.

    Police and emergency services were called to the MyState Bank Arena carpark near the Brooker Highway about 9pm last night following a report of a serious crash.

    The motorcyclist was taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital in a critical condition but sadly died a short time later.

    Forensics and Crash investigators attended the scene, and police are preparing a report for the Coroner.

    Anyone with information should contact Police on 131444.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Dan Goldman Introduces Bill to Close Loopholes Allowing Pre-Trial Defendants to Access Firearms

    Source: US Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10)

    Delays in Background Check Reporting Mean Those on Pre-Trial Release Are Oftentimes Still Able to Buy Firearms Despite Court Prohibition

     

    Patchwork State Background Check Laws Create Dangerous Loopholes for Gun Purchases 

    Read the Bill Here 

    Washington, DC – Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10) today introduced the ‘Preventing Pretrial Gun Purchases Act,’ a bill that would close a critical loophole in the federal background check system and prevent individuals on pretrial release who are deemed a public safety risk from obtaining firearms. Senator Cory Booker (NJ-D) has introduced a companion bill in the Senate. 

    “Improving our background check system and closing loopholes that allow potentially dangerous individuals to access firearms is a commonsense step we can take to address America’s tragic gun violence crisis,” Congressman Dan Goldman said. “I am proud to be jointly re-introducing the Preventing Pretrial Gun Purchases Act in the House, which will close a dangerous loophole in our background check system by flagging individuals on pretrial release who are legally barred from purchasing firearms as a condition of their release. Congress must stop twiddling our thumbs and start taking decisive steps to close these deadly loopholes and prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands.” 

     

    Senator Cory Booker said, “We must close the existing loopholes in the background check system, especially when individuals who are known risks to public safety are still able to buy a firearm,” said Senator Booker. “This legislation will ensure that individuals subject to a pretrial release court order cannot walk into a gun store and buy one. We must act to close the dangerous gaps in our background check system so we can save lives and keep our communities safe.” 

    Current federal law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct a background check of a firearm buyer using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to ensure that the buyer is not legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Unfortunately, differences between various state and federal background check processes have exposed numerous vulnerabilities in this system. One vulnerability is that jurisdictions are unable to effectively and accurately report the pretrial status of individuals who, as a condition of their pretrial release, are prohibited by a court from purchasing or possessing a firearm.  

    The Preventing Pretrial Gun Purchases Act would: 

    • Amend federal law to prevent firearm sales to any person subject to a pretrial releasecourt order that prohibits the person from purchasing to possessing a firearm before trial.  

    • Prohibit any person from providing firearms to individuals in this category. 

    • Provide $25 million in funding to aid states in paying for timely and accurate reporting of pretrial orders involving firearms restrictions to NICS 

    The Preventing Pretrial Gun Purchases Act has been endorsed by Brady: United Against Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, and GIFFORDS. 

    Congressman Dan Goldman remains committed to protecting families and communities by ensuring firearms do not end up in the hands of those who pose a threat to public safety. He is currently the Vice-Chair of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. 

    In January of 2024, the Congressman also cosponsored the ‘Bolstering Security Against Ghost Guns Act’ to strengthen the United States Department of Homeland Security’s response to the growing threat of untraceable firearms, which can be bought online without a background check. 

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Warning issued over rogue traders tarmac scam 14 July 2025 A warning has been put out to businesses and consumers regarding a tarmac scam by rogue traders

    Source: Aisle of Wight

    The Isle of Wight Council, Trading Standards Service and Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary are warning Island consumers and businesses of rogue traders cold calling claiming to be working with the Council/Island Roads and having a surplus of tarmac that they need to use up, which is not the case. Reports have been received from the Newport and Cowes areas.

    These rogue traders often call on vulnerable and elderly residents, but we are warning businesses to be vigilant as well due to some work being carried out at business premises. Commonly, cold callers are unqualified conmen who charge extortionate amounts of money for little or no work done at all along with the prices being very misleading and demanding immediate payment.

    Trading Standards is warning residents to be aware that these businesses are operating on the Island, and to be extremely careful before even discussing any work that the trader may suggest requires doing.

    Trading Standards & Community Safety Manager, James Potter said: “Island residents should always be very wary of rogue traders who will cold call, as in our experience they are often unqualified conmen who will overcharge for unnecessary repairs/services which will be of poor quality.

    “Legislation protecting consumers requires cold callers to give consumers a ‘Cancellation Notice’ giving them 14 days to cancel the contract made for over £42.”

    “Failure to issue a cancellation notice in the correct manner is a criminal offence.”  

    These conmen offer services including gardening work, house maintenance, driveways, jet washing roofs, to name a few. Never engage with cold callers, and if you require work doing to your home always try to obtain at least two written quotes. Trading Standards run a trader approval scheme where local traders are vetted for compliance with consumer legislation.

    For further information on our Scheme, please contact 823000 or look at our website (www.iwight.com/tas). Please be vigilant if you have elderly or vulnerable neighbours and report your concerns to the Police or the Trading Standards Service. We are committed, with the support of the Police, to protect Island residents and will take enforcement action, including prosecution, against rogue traders.

    Michelle Love, Service Director for Highways and Community Protection said: “Island Roads does not ‘doorstep sell’.”

    “Any materials used on the Island’s roads is carefully accounted for and used solely across the scope of our work.”

    “If you are in any doubt about the legitimacy of anyone claiming to work for or with us, please contact our call centre immediately on 822440 or, alternatively, contact Trading Standards on 823371.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Security: Couple found guilty of killing their newborn baby following Met investigation

    Source: United Kingdom London Metropolitan Police

    A couple who were arrested following a police search across the UK have been found guilty of killing their newborn baby.

    Mark Gordon, 51 (08.06.74) and Constance Marten, 38 (16.05.87), both of no fixed address, lived outside in a tent in freezing conditions with their baby Victoria.

    The court heard they went on the run with Victoria to evade the authorities after their previous four children were taken into care.

    After a 53-day search, they were arrested in Brighton on 27 February 2023 and officers later found the body of their child in a shopping bag at an allotment where they had been living.

    Today, Monday, 14 July following a trial at the Old Bailey, they were found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.

    Detective Chief Inspector Joanna Yorke, who led the homicide investigation into Victoria’s death, said: “The selfish actions of Mark Gordon and Constance Marten resulted in the death of an innocent newborn baby who would have recently had her second birthday and should have had the rest of her life ahead of her.

    “This was an incredibly challenging investigation for the hundreds of officers across the UK who were involved in the search. Our main focus throughout the search was finding Victoria alive and we were devastated by the outcome.

    “We know today’s verdict won’t bring Victoria back, but I am pleased our investigation has resulted in the couple who caused her death finally being brought to justice.”

    Investigation launched

    Concerns were first raised on 5 January 2023 when the couple’s car broke down and caught fire on the M61 in Greater Manchester. Firefighters found the pair had abandoned their car and left the motorway before help had arrived.

    The car was full of items, including nappies and clothing. A placenta was also found and there was concern that whoever had been in the car had recently given birth and could be in need of urgent medical care.

    Officers were called and a missing person’s investigation was launched. Marten’s passport was found in the wreckage of the fire.

    Through speaking to witnesses and viewing CCTV it later became clear that the couple had travelled to Bolton and then to Liverpool that evening.

    Moving across the country

    From Liverpool the couple paid a taxi driver £350 to take them 270 miles away to Harwich in Essex.

    The reason for them choosing this location is unclear, however it is thought they may have been trying to leave the country by boat.

    They arrived in the town in the early hours of 6 January 2023 and checked into a hotel. Marten gave staff a fake surname and CCTV showed she had a baby underneath her coat.

    Concerned about the welfare of the couple and their newborn child, officers shared a public appeal for information.

    This was being widely reported in the media and on 7 January 2023 they were stopped by a member of the public who asked if they were the people who were on the news.

    Avoiding authorities

    From Harwich the couple took a taxi to Colchester and then on to east London. They arrived in East Ham at around midday on the same day and went to buy a buggy from a branch of Argos.

    The buggy they bought was too big for a newborn baby. They dumped it in an alleyway and transferred their child into a supermarket bag for life.

    CCTV also showed them sitting in a restaurant in Whitechapel. This footage was the first time baby Victoria had been seen alive on camera since her birth.

    The couple’s erratic and unpredictable movements across the country made it difficult for officers to trace them.

    Travelling to Newhaven

    Shortly after midnight on 8 January 2023 they couple paid £475 for a taxi to Newhaven in East Sussex.

    Soon after arriving in the town they were seen on CCTV entering the South Downs Way.

    This is a huge area of open land in the south of England. Officers carried out searches, but could not locate the pair.

    On 16 January 2023 a member of the public spotted them in a tent at the Stanmer Park Nature Reserve near Brighton. It was winter and temperatures regularly dropped below freezing.

    There were further sightings over the following weeks. These were not reported to police at the time.

    Arrests

    After more than a month living in a tent, the couple visited a shop in Hollingbury Place in Brighton on 27 February 2023.

    A member of the public, who recognised them from the media appeals, called police and officers from Sussex Police responded quickly.

    They were arrested nearby in Golf Drive, however there was no sign of baby Victoria.

    Officers carried out emergency interviews and asked them both where their child was. Both refused to share any information and Gordon instead continually asked for food.

    Finding baby Victoria

    Over the following days, hundreds of officers from the Met travelled to Sussex to search the area near to where the couple were arrested.

    On 1 March 2023, following an extensive search, officers found the body of a baby inside a carrier bag at a shed on an allotment where they had been staying.

    Pathologists were unable to confirm how Victoria had died. Marten told officers she had died while the couple was sleeping but did not share any further information.

    Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford, who led the search for the couple, said:
    “Victoria’s death was completely avoidable. The couple had plenty of opportunities to do the right thing and come forward to ask for help. They knew that officers were looking for them.

    “We have waited more than two years to secure justice for baby Victoria and I am pleased we have now been able to get that for her – despite her parents trying to disrupt and derail not one, but two trials.

    “I would like to thank the media for the support they showed throughout the search, as well as the many members of the public who reported sightings. I’d also like to thank the jury for their patience and resilience in having to sit through a long trial where they had to listen to Marten and Gordon’s horrific actions.

    “This information was incredibly important, and officers travelled across the country to track down CCTV and speak to witnesses.

    “Speaking personally as a father, I find it hard to comprehend how, instead of providing the warmth and care their child needed, Mark Gordon and Constance Marten chose to live outside during freezing conditions to avoid the authorities.”

    Chief Superintendent James Collis, from Sussex Police, said:
    “The search for Constance Marten and Mark Gordon ended in the most tragic circumstances and had a profound effect on the local community in Sussex.

    “Our thoughts remain with baby Victoria and extend to her wider family after what must have been an extremely difficult time.

    “I hope the conclusion of these criminal proceedings will everyone the space to begin to come to terms with the traumatic events of the last 28 months.

    “I would once again like to thank the public for their compassion and support throughout this process, and of course the police officers, staff and volunteers who took part in the extremely challenging search as well as those who have supported the investigation.”

    The pair will be sentenced at the Old Bailey on a date to be set.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Couple found guilty of killing their newborn baby following Met investigation

    Source: United Kingdom London Metropolitan Police

    A couple who were arrested following a police search across the UK have been found guilty of killing their newborn baby.

    Mark Gordon, 51 (08.06.74) and Constance Marten, 38 (16.05.87), both of no fixed address, lived outside in a tent in freezing conditions with their baby Victoria.

    The court heard they went on the run with Victoria to evade the authorities after their previous four children were taken into care.

    After a 53-day search, they were arrested in Brighton on 27 February 2023 and officers later found the body of their child in a shopping bag at an allotment where they had been living.

    Today, Monday, 14 July following a trial at the Old Bailey, they were found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.

    Detective Chief Inspector Joanna Yorke, who led the homicide investigation into Victoria’s death, said: “The selfish actions of Mark Gordon and Constance Marten resulted in the death of an innocent newborn baby who would have recently had her second birthday and should have had the rest of her life ahead of her.

    “This was an incredibly challenging investigation for the hundreds of officers across the UK who were involved in the search. Our main focus throughout the search was finding Victoria alive and we were devastated by the outcome.

    “We know today’s verdict won’t bring Victoria back, but I am pleased our investigation has resulted in the couple who caused her death finally being brought to justice.”

    Investigation launched

    Concerns were first raised on 5 January 2023 when the couple’s car broke down and caught fire on the M61 in Greater Manchester. Firefighters found the pair had abandoned their car and left the motorway before help had arrived.

    The car was full of items, including nappies and clothing. A placenta was also found and there was concern that whoever had been in the car had recently given birth and could be in need of urgent medical care.

    Officers were called and a missing person’s investigation was launched. Marten’s passport was found in the wreckage of the fire.

    Through speaking to witnesses and viewing CCTV it later became clear that the couple had travelled to Bolton and then to Liverpool that evening.

    Moving across the country

    From Liverpool the couple paid a taxi driver £350 to take them 270 miles away to Harwich in Essex.

    The reason for them choosing this location is unclear, however it is thought they may have been trying to leave the country by boat.

    They arrived in the town in the early hours of 6 January 2023 and checked into a hotel. Marten gave staff a fake surname and CCTV showed she had a baby underneath her coat.

    Concerned about the welfare of the couple and their newborn child, officers shared a public appeal for information.

    This was being widely reported in the media and on 7 January 2023 they were stopped by a member of the public who asked if they were the people who were on the news.

    Avoiding authorities

    From Harwich the couple took a taxi to Colchester and then on to east London. They arrived in East Ham at around midday on the same day and went to buy a buggy from a branch of Argos.

    The buggy they bought was too big for a newborn baby. They dumped it in an alleyway and transferred their child into a supermarket bag for life.

    CCTV also showed them sitting in a restaurant in Whitechapel. This footage was the first time baby Victoria had been seen alive on camera since her birth.

    The couple’s erratic and unpredictable movements across the country made it difficult for officers to trace them.

    Travelling to Newhaven

    Shortly after midnight on 8 January 2023 they couple paid £475 for a taxi to Newhaven in East Sussex.

    Soon after arriving in the town they were seen on CCTV entering the South Downs Way.

    This is a huge area of open land in the south of England. Officers carried out searches, but could not locate the pair.

    On 16 January 2023 a member of the public spotted them in a tent at the Stanmer Park Nature Reserve near Brighton. It was winter and temperatures regularly dropped below freezing.

    There were further sightings over the following weeks. These were not reported to police at the time.

    Arrests

    After more than a month living in a tent, the couple visited a shop in Hollingbury Place in Brighton on 27 February 2023.

    A member of the public, who recognised them from the media appeals, called police and officers from Sussex Police responded quickly.

    They were arrested nearby in Golf Drive, however there was no sign of baby Victoria.

    Officers carried out emergency interviews and asked them both where their child was. Both refused to share any information and Gordon instead continually asked for food.

    Finding baby Victoria

    Over the following days, hundreds of officers from the Met travelled to Sussex to search the area near to where the couple were arrested.

    On 1 March 2023, following an extensive search, officers found the body of a baby inside a carrier bag at a shed on an allotment where they had been staying.

    Pathologists were unable to confirm how Victoria had died. Marten told officers she had died while the couple was sleeping but did not share any further information.

    Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford, who led the search for the couple, said:
    “Victoria’s death was completely avoidable. The couple had plenty of opportunities to do the right thing and come forward to ask for help. They knew that officers were looking for them.

    “We have waited more than two years to secure justice for baby Victoria and I am pleased we have now been able to get that for her – despite her parents trying to disrupt and derail not one, but two trials.

    “I would like to thank the media for the support they showed throughout the search, as well as the many members of the public who reported sightings. I’d also like to thank the jury for their patience and resilience in having to sit through a long trial where they had to listen to Marten and Gordon’s horrific actions.

    “This information was incredibly important, and officers travelled across the country to track down CCTV and speak to witnesses.

    “Speaking personally as a father, I find it hard to comprehend how, instead of providing the warmth and care their child needed, Mark Gordon and Constance Marten chose to live outside during freezing conditions to avoid the authorities.”

    Chief Superintendent James Collis, from Sussex Police, said:
    “The search for Constance Marten and Mark Gordon ended in the most tragic circumstances and had a profound effect on the local community in Sussex.

    “Our thoughts remain with baby Victoria and extend to her wider family after what must have been an extremely difficult time.

    “I hope the conclusion of these criminal proceedings will everyone the space to begin to come to terms with the traumatic events of the last 28 months.

    “I would once again like to thank the public for their compassion and support throughout this process, and of course the police officers, staff and volunteers who took part in the extremely challenging search as well as those who have supported the investigation.”

    The pair will be sentenced at the Old Bailey on a date to be set.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Antisocial tenant evicted as part of tackling County Lines

    Source: City of York

    Following a ruling by a District Judge, a council tenant was evicted yesterday (Thursday 10 July 2025), after criminal activities and anti-social behaviour caused misery for their neighbours.

    This follows reports from local residents to the Council and North Yorkshire Police about substance misuse and dealing, and anti-social behaviour at a home in the west of the city.

    The anti-social behaviour in the home and local area included loud noise and arguments at the house, which disrupted and worried local people about its impact on their families.

    Following ongoing work with residents and North Yorkshire Police, City of York Council served the tenant a number of legal warnings of eviction. The tenant then unsuccessfully appealed against the warnings and also breached them.

    The Council then applied to York County Court for an eviction warrant. After considering the evidence, the District Judge granted it and evicted the tenant on Thursday 10 July.

    Councillor Michael Pavlovic, Executive Member for Housing and Safer Communities at City of York Council, said:

    Working with the police and neighbours, as this case shows, we take action against tenancy breaches to stop anti-social behaviour. We also fully support work to tackle illegal activity such as County Lines and the misery it heaps on communities.

    “This home will now be prepared to be sensitively re-let to another tenant as quickly as possible.”

    Sergeant Charlotte Gregory, from the York Community Safety Hub, said:

    Alongside City of York Council, we have worked tirelessly to robustly address the deeply concerning behaviour of the tenant, resulting in the County Court granting full possession of the property back to the Council.

    “This positive outcome, which falls under Operation Titan, North Yorkshire Police’s dedicated effort to combat County Lines drug dealing, shows we will use all available powers to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. The multi-agency approach involves more than criminal convictions, as this successful eviction clearly demonstrates.

    “The detrimental impact this behaviour has on residents, and the community as a whole, will not be tolerated.

    “We encourage residents to keep feeding information to the Council, to the police, or anonymously to Crimestoppers.

    “You can be assured that we will use it effectively against those suspected of being involved in drug dealing and related anti-social behaviour in our area.”

    The tenant was advised where they could get information about their options for new accommodation.

    To report anti-social behaviour:

    To report drug-related crime:

    • Anyone with any information about suspected drug-related crime are urged to make a report via the North Yorkshire Police website or by calling 101 and speaking to the Force Control Room.
    • Always dial 999 if an emergency response is required.
    • If you would prefer to remain anonymous, please call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111 or make a report online.

    The signs of drug-dealing can include:

    • Increased callers at a home at all times of the day or night
    • Increase in cars pulling up for short periods of time
    • Different accents at a home
    • Anti-social behaviour at a home
    • Not seeing the resident for long periods of time
    • Drug-related waste such as small plastic bags and syringes
    • Windows covered or curtains closed for long periods.

    For professional support for substance-related issues, visit:

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How Eurostack could offer Canada a route to digital independence from the United States

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ted Palys, Professor of Criminology, Associate Member of Dept. of Indigenous Studies, Simon Fraser University

    The contemporary internet has been with us since roughly 1995. Its current underlying economic model — surveillance capitalism — began in the early 2000s, when Google and then Facebook realized how much our personal information and online behaviour revealed about us and claimed it for themselves to sell to advertisers.

    Perhaps because of Canada’s proximity to the United States, coupled with its positive shared history with the U.S. and their highly integrated economies, Canada went along for that consumerist ride.

    The experience was different on the other side of the Atlantic. The Stasi in the former East Germany and the KGB under Josef Stalin maintained files on hundreds of thousands of citizens to identify and prosecute dissidents.

    Having witnessed this invasion of privacy and its weaponization first-hand, Europe has been far ahead of North America in developing protections. These include the General Data Protection Regulation and the Law Enforcement Directive, with protection of personal data also listed in the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

    Canada clearly took too much for granted in its relationship with the U.S. Suddenly, Canada is being threatened with tariffs and President Donald Trump’s expressed desire to make Canada the 51st American state.

    This has fuelled the motivation of Canada both internally and in co-operation with western European governments to seek greater independence in trade and military preparedness by diversifying its relationships.

    Prime Minister Mark Carney has begun promoting “nation-building projects,” but little attention has been paid to Canada’s digital infrastructure.




    Read more:
    How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so


    Three areas of concern

    Three recent developments suggest Canada would be well-advised to start paying close attention:

    1. The current U.S. administration has raised concerns about its reliability as a partner and friend to Canada. Most of the concerns raised in Canada have been economic. However, Curtis McCord, a former national security and technology researcher for the Canadian government, has said the current situation has created vulnerabilities for national security as well:

    “With Washington becoming an increasingly unreliable ally, Mr. Carney is right to look for ways to diversify away from the U.S. But if Canada wants to maintain its sovereignty and be responsible for its national security, this desire to diversify must extend to the U.S. domination of Canada’s digital infrastructure.”

    2. Silicon Valley is exhibiting a newfound loyalty to Trump. The photo of the “broligarchy” at Trump’s inauguration spoke volumes, as their apparent eagerness to appease the president brings the data gathered by the internet’s surveillance-based economy under state control.

    3. Trump’s recent executive order entitled “Stopping waste, fraud and abuse by eliminating information silos” is alarming. The order became operational when the Trump administration contracted with Palantir, a company known for its surveillance software and data analytics in military contexts. Its job? To combine databases from both the state and federal levels into one massive database that includes every American citizen, and potentially any user of the internet.

    Combining multiple government databases is concerning. Combining them with all the personal data harvested by Silicon Valley and providing them to a government showing all the hallmarks of an authoritarian regime sounds like Big Brother has arrived.

    Civil liberties groups such as the Electronic Freedom Foundation, academics and even former Palantir employees have raised alarms about the possibilities for abuse, including the launch of all the vendettas Trump and his supporters have pledged to undertake.

    The appeal of Eurostack

    European governments have attempted to rein in Silicon Valley’s excesses for years. Trump’s re-election and his moves toward potentially weaponizing internet data have further boosted Europe’s resolve to move away from the U.S.-led internet.

    One newer effort is Eurostack. A joint initiative involving academics, policymakers, companies and governments, it envisions an independent digital ecosystem that better reflects European values — democratic, sovereign, inclusive, transparent, respectful of personal privacy and innovation-driven.

    Spokesperson Francesca Bria explains the “stack” arises from the idea that a digitally sovereign internet needs to have European control from the ground up.

    Bria discusses Eurostack in May 2025. (re:publica)

    That includes the acquisition of raw materials and manufacture and operation of the physical components that comprise computers and servers; the cloud infrastructure that has the processing power and storage to be operational at scale; the operating systems and applications that comprise the user interface; the AI models and algorithms that drive services and its policy and governance framework.

    Prospective gains to Europe are considerable. They include greater cybersecurity, promoting innovation, keeping high-end creative jobs in Europe, promoting collaboration on equitable terms and creating high-skilled employment opportunities.

    Canada receives no mention in the Eurostack proposal to date, but the project is still very much in the developmental phase. Investment so far is in the tens of millions instead of the billions it will require.

    Canada has a lot to offer and to gain from being part of the Eurostack initiative. With the project still taking shape, now is the perfect time to get on board.

    Ted Palys does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. How Eurostack could offer Canada a route to digital independence from the United States – https://theconversation.com/how-eurostack-could-offer-canada-a-route-to-digital-independence-from-the-united-states-260663

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel J. Mallinson, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Penn State

    Three of the seven judges on PA’s state supreme court are up for retention votes in November 2025. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    This November, there will be no candidate for president, governor, senator or even representative on the Pennsylvania ballot.

    Pennsylvanians will vote, however, on three members of their seven-member state Supreme Court.

    These are retention elections, which means that voters will decide whether to keep the current members of the court or remove them.

    The three seats up for grabs are three of the five Democrats that hold the majority on the court. They are Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht.

    While the typical voter may not think much about judicial elections, political operatives and political scientists, like me, know they have consequences.

    I think it’s important that voters understand what a retention election is and why state judicial elections are growing in political importance in the U.S.

    Retention elections

    Federal judges are appointed by the U.S. president, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and can serve for the rest of their lives. State judges, however, are put in place in a variety of ways.

    The most powerful state courts are the so-called “courts of last resort.” These are essentially the supreme courts of each state. The method for selecting judges in these courts has varied over time and across the states. Currently, states use either gubernatorial appointment, legislative appointment, partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or a merit process for selecting the judges of their highest courts.

    Pennsylvania has partisan elections, meaning judges run for office attached to political parties, just like a candidate would run for governor or president. However, it is only in their first race for office that a judge runs in a competitive partisan election. After they assume the bench, they participate in retention elections every 10 years. These retention elections are considered nonpartisan, since party labels do not appear on the ballot.

    Essentially, a retention election is an up or down vote. If more than 50% of voters cast a vote in opposition to a sitting judge, that judge will be out of the office at the end of their term. The governor, who is currently Democrat Josh Shapiro, then makes a temporary appointment to fill the seat with a special election held in the next odd year – in this case, 2027. But any appointments would need to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate, which may not confirm his picks.

    Politicization of the state courts

    Judges win retention elections over 90% of the time. So why should people bother to cast their vote?

    Courts, including state courts, have become highly politicized over the past several decades. A marked increase in politicization occurred for the U.S. Supreme Court after the failed nomination of Robert Bork in the 1980s.

    This politicization has since trickled down to lower federal courts and the states.

    State supreme courts have always made big decisions, but the nationalization of American politics – where national partisan politics drive voter behavior in local elections – has elevated the controversy over state supreme court decisions on issues such as reproductive rights, trans rights, COVID-19 restrictions, environmental protection and more.

    This issue became more acute when courts in battleground states were thrust to the center of adjudicating false claims of election fraud during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. And judges have faced increasing threats, particularly when opposing actions of the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump is prone to calling out specific judges in decisions that he does not like.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has received additional attention, in part due to the outsized role it has played in recent redistricting. In 2018, the court threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly in 2011 and invited a new plan from the governor and General Assembly. The two came to a political loggerhead, so the Supreme Court ended up using its own map as a replacement.

    In 2022, the state Supreme Court once again took control of redistricting after Pennyslvania’s then-Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the congressional district map approved by the General Assembly.

    Given the importance of state supreme courts, particularly in federal elections cases in battleground states like Pennsylvania, it is little wonder why their elections are gaining attention.

    The April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race was the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, with $100 million in spending, including significant contributions from billionaires Elon Musk and George Soros.

    Former prosecutor Susan Crawford won the highly politicized race for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in 2025. It was the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history.
    Scott Olson via Getty Images

    That was one seat.

    Pennsylvania has three up for grabs in November 2025, with the potential to swing the current Democratic majority.

    And retention elections are politically simple for opponents. As one Republican political consultant told investigative news outlet Spotlight PA: “This is a political consultant’s dream, because your message is just one thing, and that’s ‘No.’”

    This can give some advantage to Republicans in a state that Trump won in 2024 and in a low-turnout election. The question will be whether there is more energy motivating opponents to turn out against the Democratic majority or supporters seeking to maintain the status quo.

    The 2025 retention elections could change the balance of power in the court.
    AP Photo/Aimee Dilger

    The stakes for Pennsylvania in 2025

    Much is at stake for Pennsylvanians in the fall. Republicans see this as their best opportunity to break the firm 5-2 Democratic majority on the court. This would pave the way for very different judicial decisions. Many of the court’s recent election-related rulings were made on narrow 4-3 votes that could swing differently if the composition of the court changes.

    Republicans have had their power in Harrisburg diminished with Shapiro in the governor’s mansion and a one-seat Democratic majority in the state House of Representatives over the past two terms.

    A Republican majority on the court would significantly change the balance of power in Harrisburg.

    But it is important to focus not only on the top court. The state’s two appellate-level courts – one step below the state Supreme Court – also have two important races and two retention votes in November that will decide the judiciary’s relationship with the governor and General Assembly.

    Daniel J. Mallinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state – https://theconversation.com/most-pennsylvania-voters-ignore-judicial-elections-a-political-scientist-explains-why-they-matter-especially-in-a-battleground-state-259775

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel J. Mallinson, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Penn State

    Three of the seven judges on PA’s state supreme court are up for retention votes in November 2025. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    This November, there will be no candidate for president, governor, senator or even representative on the Pennsylvania ballot.

    Pennsylvanians will vote, however, on three members of their seven-member state Supreme Court.

    These are retention elections, which means that voters will decide whether to keep the current members of the court or remove them.

    The three seats up for grabs are three of the five Democrats that hold the majority on the court. They are Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht.

    While the typical voter may not think much about judicial elections, political operatives and political scientists, like me, know they have consequences.

    I think it’s important that voters understand what a retention election is and why state judicial elections are growing in political importance in the U.S.

    Retention elections

    Federal judges are appointed by the U.S. president, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and can serve for the rest of their lives. State judges, however, are put in place in a variety of ways.

    The most powerful state courts are the so-called “courts of last resort.” These are essentially the supreme courts of each state. The method for selecting judges in these courts has varied over time and across the states. Currently, states use either gubernatorial appointment, legislative appointment, partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or a merit process for selecting the judges of their highest courts.

    Pennsylvania has partisan elections, meaning judges run for office attached to political parties, just like a candidate would run for governor or president. However, it is only in their first race for office that a judge runs in a competitive partisan election. After they assume the bench, they participate in retention elections every 10 years. These retention elections are considered nonpartisan, since party labels do not appear on the ballot.

    Essentially, a retention election is an up or down vote. If more than 50% of voters cast a vote in opposition to a sitting judge, that judge will be out of the office at the end of their term. The governor, who is currently Democrat Josh Shapiro, then makes a temporary appointment to fill the seat with a special election held in the next odd year – in this case, 2027. But any appointments would need to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate, which may not confirm his picks.

    Politicization of the state courts

    Judges win retention elections over 90% of the time. So why should people bother to cast their vote?

    Courts, including state courts, have become highly politicized over the past several decades. A marked increase in politicization occurred for the U.S. Supreme Court after the failed nomination of Robert Bork in the 1980s.

    This politicization has since trickled down to lower federal courts and the states.

    State supreme courts have always made big decisions, but the nationalization of American politics – where national partisan politics drive voter behavior in local elections – has elevated the controversy over state supreme court decisions on issues such as reproductive rights, trans rights, COVID-19 restrictions, environmental protection and more.

    This issue became more acute when courts in battleground states were thrust to the center of adjudicating false claims of election fraud during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. And judges have faced increasing threats, particularly when opposing actions of the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump is prone to calling out specific judges in decisions that he does not like.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has received additional attention, in part due to the outsized role it has played in recent redistricting. In 2018, the court threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly in 2011 and invited a new plan from the governor and General Assembly. The two came to a political loggerhead, so the Supreme Court ended up using its own map as a replacement.

    In 2022, the state Supreme Court once again took control of redistricting after Pennyslvania’s then-Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the congressional district map approved by the General Assembly.

    Given the importance of state supreme courts, particularly in federal elections cases in battleground states like Pennsylvania, it is little wonder why their elections are gaining attention.

    The April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race was the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, with $100 million in spending, including significant contributions from billionaires Elon Musk and George Soros.

    Former prosecutor Susan Crawford won the highly politicized race for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in 2025. It was the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history.
    Scott Olson via Getty Images

    That was one seat.

    Pennsylvania has three up for grabs in November 2025, with the potential to swing the current Democratic majority.

    And retention elections are politically simple for opponents. As one Republican political consultant told investigative news outlet Spotlight PA: “This is a political consultant’s dream, because your message is just one thing, and that’s ‘No.’”

    This can give some advantage to Republicans in a state that Trump won in 2024 and in a low-turnout election. The question will be whether there is more energy motivating opponents to turn out against the Democratic majority or supporters seeking to maintain the status quo.

    The 2025 retention elections could change the balance of power in the court.
    AP Photo/Aimee Dilger

    The stakes for Pennsylvania in 2025

    Much is at stake for Pennsylvanians in the fall. Republicans see this as their best opportunity to break the firm 5-2 Democratic majority on the court. This would pave the way for very different judicial decisions. Many of the court’s recent election-related rulings were made on narrow 4-3 votes that could swing differently if the composition of the court changes.

    Republicans have had their power in Harrisburg diminished with Shapiro in the governor’s mansion and a one-seat Democratic majority in the state House of Representatives over the past two terms.

    A Republican majority on the court would significantly change the balance of power in Harrisburg.

    But it is important to focus not only on the top court. The state’s two appellate-level courts – one step below the state Supreme Court – also have two important races and two retention votes in November that will decide the judiciary’s relationship with the governor and General Assembly.

    Daniel J. Mallinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state – https://theconversation.com/most-pennsylvania-voters-ignore-judicial-elections-a-political-scientist-explains-why-they-matter-especially-in-a-battleground-state-259775

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel J. Mallinson, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Penn State

    Three of the seven judges on PA’s state supreme court are up for retention votes in November 2025. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    This November, there will be no candidate for president, governor, senator or even representative on the Pennsylvania ballot.

    Pennsylvanians will vote, however, on three members of their seven-member state Supreme Court.

    These are retention elections, which means that voters will decide whether to keep the current members of the court or remove them.

    The three seats up for grabs are three of the five Democrats that hold the majority on the court. They are Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht.

    While the typical voter may not think much about judicial elections, political operatives and political scientists, like me, know they have consequences.

    I think it’s important that voters understand what a retention election is and why state judicial elections are growing in political importance in the U.S.

    Retention elections

    Federal judges are appointed by the U.S. president, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and can serve for the rest of their lives. State judges, however, are put in place in a variety of ways.

    The most powerful state courts are the so-called “courts of last resort.” These are essentially the supreme courts of each state. The method for selecting judges in these courts has varied over time and across the states. Currently, states use either gubernatorial appointment, legislative appointment, partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or a merit process for selecting the judges of their highest courts.

    Pennsylvania has partisan elections, meaning judges run for office attached to political parties, just like a candidate would run for governor or president. However, it is only in their first race for office that a judge runs in a competitive partisan election. After they assume the bench, they participate in retention elections every 10 years. These retention elections are considered nonpartisan, since party labels do not appear on the ballot.

    Essentially, a retention election is an up or down vote. If more than 50% of voters cast a vote in opposition to a sitting judge, that judge will be out of the office at the end of their term. The governor, who is currently Democrat Josh Shapiro, then makes a temporary appointment to fill the seat with a special election held in the next odd year – in this case, 2027. But any appointments would need to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate, which may not confirm his picks.

    Politicization of the state courts

    Judges win retention elections over 90% of the time. So why should people bother to cast their vote?

    Courts, including state courts, have become highly politicized over the past several decades. A marked increase in politicization occurred for the U.S. Supreme Court after the failed nomination of Robert Bork in the 1980s.

    This politicization has since trickled down to lower federal courts and the states.

    State supreme courts have always made big decisions, but the nationalization of American politics – where national partisan politics drive voter behavior in local elections – has elevated the controversy over state supreme court decisions on issues such as reproductive rights, trans rights, COVID-19 restrictions, environmental protection and more.

    This issue became more acute when courts in battleground states were thrust to the center of adjudicating false claims of election fraud during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. And judges have faced increasing threats, particularly when opposing actions of the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump is prone to calling out specific judges in decisions that he does not like.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has received additional attention, in part due to the outsized role it has played in recent redistricting. In 2018, the court threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly in 2011 and invited a new plan from the governor and General Assembly. The two came to a political loggerhead, so the Supreme Court ended up using its own map as a replacement.

    In 2022, the state Supreme Court once again took control of redistricting after Pennyslvania’s then-Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the congressional district map approved by the General Assembly.

    Given the importance of state supreme courts, particularly in federal elections cases in battleground states like Pennsylvania, it is little wonder why their elections are gaining attention.

    The April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race was the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, with $100 million in spending, including significant contributions from billionaires Elon Musk and George Soros.

    Former prosecutor Susan Crawford won the highly politicized race for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in 2025. It was the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history.
    Scott Olson via Getty Images

    That was one seat.

    Pennsylvania has three up for grabs in November 2025, with the potential to swing the current Democratic majority.

    And retention elections are politically simple for opponents. As one Republican political consultant told investigative news outlet Spotlight PA: “This is a political consultant’s dream, because your message is just one thing, and that’s ‘No.’”

    This can give some advantage to Republicans in a state that Trump won in 2024 and in a low-turnout election. The question will be whether there is more energy motivating opponents to turn out against the Democratic majority or supporters seeking to maintain the status quo.

    The 2025 retention elections could change the balance of power in the court.
    AP Photo/Aimee Dilger

    The stakes for Pennsylvania in 2025

    Much is at stake for Pennsylvanians in the fall. Republicans see this as their best opportunity to break the firm 5-2 Democratic majority on the court. This would pave the way for very different judicial decisions. Many of the court’s recent election-related rulings were made on narrow 4-3 votes that could swing differently if the composition of the court changes.

    Republicans have had their power in Harrisburg diminished with Shapiro in the governor’s mansion and a one-seat Democratic majority in the state House of Representatives over the past two terms.

    A Republican majority on the court would significantly change the balance of power in Harrisburg.

    But it is important to focus not only on the top court. The state’s two appellate-level courts – one step below the state Supreme Court – also have two important races and two retention votes in November that will decide the judiciary’s relationship with the governor and General Assembly.

    Daniel J. Mallinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state – https://theconversation.com/most-pennsylvania-voters-ignore-judicial-elections-a-political-scientist-explains-why-they-matter-especially-in-a-battleground-state-259775

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel J. Mallinson, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Penn State

    Three of the seven judges on PA’s state supreme court are up for retention votes in November 2025. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    This November, there will be no candidate for president, governor, senator or even representative on the Pennsylvania ballot.

    Pennsylvanians will vote, however, on three members of their seven-member state Supreme Court.

    These are retention elections, which means that voters will decide whether to keep the current members of the court or remove them.

    The three seats up for grabs are three of the five Democrats that hold the majority on the court. They are Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht.

    While the typical voter may not think much about judicial elections, political operatives and political scientists, like me, know they have consequences.

    I think it’s important that voters understand what a retention election is and why state judicial elections are growing in political importance in the U.S.

    Retention elections

    Federal judges are appointed by the U.S. president, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and can serve for the rest of their lives. State judges, however, are put in place in a variety of ways.

    The most powerful state courts are the so-called “courts of last resort.” These are essentially the supreme courts of each state. The method for selecting judges in these courts has varied over time and across the states. Currently, states use either gubernatorial appointment, legislative appointment, partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or a merit process for selecting the judges of their highest courts.

    Pennsylvania has partisan elections, meaning judges run for office attached to political parties, just like a candidate would run for governor or president. However, it is only in their first race for office that a judge runs in a competitive partisan election. After they assume the bench, they participate in retention elections every 10 years. These retention elections are considered nonpartisan, since party labels do not appear on the ballot.

    Essentially, a retention election is an up or down vote. If more than 50% of voters cast a vote in opposition to a sitting judge, that judge will be out of the office at the end of their term. The governor, who is currently Democrat Josh Shapiro, then makes a temporary appointment to fill the seat with a special election held in the next odd year – in this case, 2027. But any appointments would need to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate, which may not confirm his picks.

    Politicization of the state courts

    Judges win retention elections over 90% of the time. So why should people bother to cast their vote?

    Courts, including state courts, have become highly politicized over the past several decades. A marked increase in politicization occurred for the U.S. Supreme Court after the failed nomination of Robert Bork in the 1980s.

    This politicization has since trickled down to lower federal courts and the states.

    State supreme courts have always made big decisions, but the nationalization of American politics – where national partisan politics drive voter behavior in local elections – has elevated the controversy over state supreme court decisions on issues such as reproductive rights, trans rights, COVID-19 restrictions, environmental protection and more.

    This issue became more acute when courts in battleground states were thrust to the center of adjudicating false claims of election fraud during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. And judges have faced increasing threats, particularly when opposing actions of the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump is prone to calling out specific judges in decisions that he does not like.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has received additional attention, in part due to the outsized role it has played in recent redistricting. In 2018, the court threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly in 2011 and invited a new plan from the governor and General Assembly. The two came to a political loggerhead, so the Supreme Court ended up using its own map as a replacement.

    In 2022, the state Supreme Court once again took control of redistricting after Pennyslvania’s then-Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the congressional district map approved by the General Assembly.

    Given the importance of state supreme courts, particularly in federal elections cases in battleground states like Pennsylvania, it is little wonder why their elections are gaining attention.

    The April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race was the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, with $100 million in spending, including significant contributions from billionaires Elon Musk and George Soros.

    Former prosecutor Susan Crawford won the highly politicized race for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in 2025. It was the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history.
    Scott Olson via Getty Images

    That was one seat.

    Pennsylvania has three up for grabs in November 2025, with the potential to swing the current Democratic majority.

    And retention elections are politically simple for opponents. As one Republican political consultant told investigative news outlet Spotlight PA: “This is a political consultant’s dream, because your message is just one thing, and that’s ‘No.’”

    This can give some advantage to Republicans in a state that Trump won in 2024 and in a low-turnout election. The question will be whether there is more energy motivating opponents to turn out against the Democratic majority or supporters seeking to maintain the status quo.

    The 2025 retention elections could change the balance of power in the court.
    AP Photo/Aimee Dilger

    The stakes for Pennsylvania in 2025

    Much is at stake for Pennsylvanians in the fall. Republicans see this as their best opportunity to break the firm 5-2 Democratic majority on the court. This would pave the way for very different judicial decisions. Many of the court’s recent election-related rulings were made on narrow 4-3 votes that could swing differently if the composition of the court changes.

    Republicans have had their power in Harrisburg diminished with Shapiro in the governor’s mansion and a one-seat Democratic majority in the state House of Representatives over the past two terms.

    A Republican majority on the court would significantly change the balance of power in Harrisburg.

    But it is important to focus not only on the top court. The state’s two appellate-level courts – one step below the state Supreme Court – also have two important races and two retention votes in November that will decide the judiciary’s relationship with the governor and General Assembly.

    Daniel J. Mallinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state – https://theconversation.com/most-pennsylvania-voters-ignore-judicial-elections-a-political-scientist-explains-why-they-matter-especially-in-a-battleground-state-259775

    MIL OSI Analysis