A federal judge this week convicted a former Fairmount Heights, Maryland, police officer on one count of obstructing justice by writing a false police report.
U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Boardman for the District of Maryland found Martique Vanderpool guilty following a 3-day bench trial that ended on Oct. 24. The judge found that former officer Vanderpool falsified a police report with intent to impede an investigation into an incident on Sept. 6-7, 2019, during which he and another officer arrested a 19-year-old woman and took her in handcuffs to the locked and otherwise-empty Fairmount Heights police station, where the officers uncuffed her and Vanderpool told her to “make this right” before having sex with her while she was in custody.
“Martique Vanderpool obstructed justice to cover up his own serious police misconduct,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This former officer’s conduct is a betrayal both of the young woman who was in his care and of the entire law enforcement profession. With this verdict comes accountability for his crime.”
“When those sworn to uphold the law choose instead to violate it, it undermines the very foundation of our society,” said Assistant Director Chad Yarbrough of the FBI Criminal Investigative Division. “Martique Vanderpool abused his power and violated his oath as a police officer. He betrayed the community that put their trust in him and will now face the consequences of his actions.”
According to evidence at trial and findings of fact made by the judge, Vanderpool and his partner, former Officer Phillip Dupree arrested the young woman for speeding and learned that she was rushing to get to her young son, who had been injured in an accident. Upon learning that the young woman had only a learner’s permit, Dupree asked her to get out of the car, at which point the young woman had a panic attack and Dupree took her to the ground and handcuffed her. In “an apparent state of mental distress,” the handcuffed young woman ran into the street and then banged her head on the side of the car she had been driving.
The officers had the car towed from the scene and transported the young woman to the Fairmount Heights police station, even though the station had no holding cell or booking facilities and officers were not supposed to take prisoners there. The officers took the young woman inside, in handcuffs, and then removed the cuffs. Vanderpool told her “We gotta make this right,” and then had sex with her on a couch in the main room of the station. Afterward, the officers drove the young woman to a tow lot where the car, which was registered to someone else, was returned to her.
According to the judge’s findings, Vanderpool then falsified an incident report to create a misleading impression that the officers and the young woman never left the scene of the traffic stop and that the car was returned to the registered owner. The report purposely omitted that the officers took the young woman from the scene to the police station; that Vanderpool had sex with her; and that the officers caused the car to be towed and later coordinated the release of the car to her. The report also purposely misstated that the car was returned to the registered owner.
The judge, in finding that the false report was intended to interfere with an investigation that was within the jurisdiction of the FBI, noted that the young woman was a teenager, was slight of build, was in a state of panic, was forced to the ground by an officer, had her car towed, said that she needed to get to her son, was taken in handcuffs to the police station and was told to “make this right.”
A sentencing hearing is scheduled for Feb. 20, 2025. Vanderpool faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Vanderpool’s partner, Phillip Dupree, was recently convicted in an unrelated case of committing a federal criminal civil rights violation by using unreasonable force during an unrelated arrest.
The FBI Baltimore Field Office investigated the case.
Deputy Chief Bobbi Bernstein and Trial Attorney Tara Allison of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division prosecuted the case, with assistance from Trial Attorney Betsy Hutson of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
The Justice Department announced today that Medisca Inc. (Medisca), has agreed to pay $21.75 million to resolve allegations concerning the establishment of false and inflated Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) for two ingredients used in compound prescriptions. Medisca’s pricing scheme allegedly caused pharmacies that purchased those ingredients to submit false prescription claims to the Defense Health Agency, which administers the TRICARE Program for the Department of Defense and the Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (federal health care programs).
“We will not tolerate fraudulent pricing schemes targeting health care programs that support veterans and other federal beneficiaries,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “As today’s settlement demonstrates, we will hold accountable not just those who submit false claims, but all who participate in schemes designed to defraud the American taxpayers.”
Compounding pharmacies purchase ingredients or chemicals from ingredient suppliers, such as Medisca, to prepare and fill compound prescriptions for patients who require a specially made prescription that is not generally available in the marketplace. Medisca knew that compound prescription reimbursement under federal health care programs was based in part on the AWPs it reported to various price listing agencies. The United States alleged that Medisca knowingly inflated the AWPs for resveratrol (NDC No. 38779-2863) and mometasone furoate (NDC No. 38779-2413) in order to increase the reimbursement that its pharmacy customers received from the federal healthcare programs for using those Medisca ingredients.
Medisca acquired resveratrol from manufacturers for approximately $0.37 per gram. It repackaged and sold resveratrol for under $2 per gram. Medisca reported an AWP for resveratrol at $777 per gram, creating a spread of over $775 for each gram of resveratrol used by a pharmacy customer in a compound prescription reimbursed by the federal healthcare programs. Medisca acquired mometasone furoate from manufacturers for under $8 per gram. It repackaged and sold that ingredient to compound pharmacies for over $1,000 per gram. Medisca reported an AWP for mometasone furoate at over $7,300 per gram, thereby creating a spread of approximately $6,300 for each gram of the ingredient used by a pharmacy customer in a compound prescription reimbursed by the federal healthcare programs.
Medisca allegedly used the high AWPs it reported and the resulting profit potential it created for its customers as an inducement to its compound pharmacy customers to purchase those ingredients. Medisca’s alleged fraudulent pricing scheme enabled its pharmacy customers to bill federal healthcare programs inflated amounts – often thousands of dollars per prescription – for compound formulations containing those ingredients.
“The systems establishing federal reimbursements for compounded pharmaceuticals should not be viewed by companies as an opportunity to artificially inflate reimbursements from federal payors such as TRICARE,” said U.S. Attorney Damien M. Diggs for the Eastern District of Texas. “When companies seek to manipulate the system for their own gain, the Eastern District of Texas will hold them accountable.”
“When federal healthcare programs are defrauded it hurts all Americans,” said U.S. Attorney Jaime Esparza for the Western District of Texas. “My office is committed to using the False Claims Act (FCA) to hold individuals and companies accountable for the impact their actions have on our critical programs. Taxpayers deserve honest pricing and assurances that the government is never overcharged.”
“This settlement sends a clear message about the unwavering commitment of the Defense Criminal Investigation Service (DCIS) to protect the integrity of TRICARE, the Department of Defense’s health care benefit program which serves our U.S. military, their family members, and military retirees,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Ryan Settle of the Department of Defense – Office of Inspector General, DCIS Southwest Field Office. “Health care providers who use fraudulent means to seek financial gain at the expense of TRICARE and the taxpayer will be diligently investigated and held accountable.”
The settlement resolves claims brought under the whistleblower or qui tam provisions of the FCA by Doug McMakin against Medisca. Mr. McMakin is a pharmacist who owned and operated a compounding pharmacy that dispensed compounded prescriptions. Under the FCA, private parties may sue on behalf of the government for false claims for government funds and receive a share of any recovery. Mr. McMakin will receive $3,425,625 from the proceeds of the settlement. The lawsuit is captioned United States ex rel. McMakin v. Medisca Inc. (EDTX).
The resolution of these matters was the result of a coordinated effort between the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section, and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Eastern District of Texas and the Western District of Texas, with investigative support from the DCIS, U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (USPS OIG) and the Department of Labor.
The investigation and resolution of these matters illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the FCA. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement can be reported to the Department of Health and Human Services at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).
Senior Trial Counsel Sanjay Bhambhani and Trial Attorney John Deck of the Civil Division, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Kruger for the Western District of Texas and Assistant U.S. Attorney James Gillingham for the Eastern District of Texas handled the matter, with investigative assistance from Special Agents Nicholas Koechig of DCIS and Timothy Jones of USPS OIG.
The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only. There has been no determination of liability.
The Justice Department announced today that it secured a settlement agreement to resolve its lawsuit alleging that Colorado violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. by unnecessarily segregating adults with physical disabilities, including older adults, in nursing facilities.
The ADA and the Olmstead decision require state and local governments to administer their services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Today’s agreement gives thousands of Coloradans with physical disabilities the opportunity to move out of nursing facilities into the community — or avoid unnecessary nursing facility admission altogether — and receive the services they need at home. Community-based services that can help people live at home include assistance with bathing, dressing, managing medications and preparing meals.
“People with disabilities should not have to give up their lives in the community and be isolated in nursing facilities to get the services they need,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This settlement agreement sends the message that people with disabilities deserve the same kinds of lives as others, and makes clear that our family members, friends, and neighbors with disabilities add value to our lives and strengthen our communities when they can receive the services they need right inside their own home.”
“Today’s resolution will give thousands of Coloradans with physical disabilities the information, resources, and opportunity to live in communities rather than being needlessly isolated. The agreement will also save taxpayer money by reducing state-funded institutionalization,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Matt Kirsch for the District of Colorado. “We commend our Civil Rights Division colleagues for their dedication and focus on this important issue, and we acknowledge the commitments made by the State of Colorado in this agreement.”
The department sued Colorado in September 2023, following a multi-year investigation. The lawsuit alleged that the state failed to provide adults with physical disabilities with the services they need to live at home or avoid moving into a nursing facility. In Colorado, most nursing facility residents and their families are unaware that they can receive services like nursing, personal care and housing assistance in the community. As a result, many move into, or remain in, nursing facilities even though they would prefer to live at home.
To increase community integration for adults with physical disabilities, the state has made significant commitments in this agreement to:
Help thousands of nursing facility residents move back to the community;
Identify people at risk of unnecessary nursing facility admission to help them stay in their homes with the services they need;
Provide people with the information they need to make an informed choice about whether to live in a nursing facility or receive the services they need at home;
Connect people more quickly to Medicaid long-term care services in the community;
Increase opportunities for people with disabilities to hire and supervise their own caregivers;
Support family caregivers;
Facilitate prompt transitions to the community for interested nursing facility residents, by reducing administrative bottlenecks and problem-solving common transition barriers; and
Expand and improve services that help people find and keep affordable, accessible housing in the community.
The parties have agreed that the federal district court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement and that an independent monitor will evaluate the state’s compliance.
Additional information about the Civil Rights Division is available at www.justice.gov/crt.
Defendant Helped Clients File Tax Returns Claiming $14M in False Deductions, Causing Nearly $5M in Loss to the IRS
A Georgia accountant was sentenced today to 28 months in prison for his role in the promotion and sale of abusive syndicated conservation easement tax shelters.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Herbert Lewis was a CPA and return preparer at an Atlanta-based accounting firm. Beginning at least in 2014 and through at least 2019, Lewis promoted and sold tax deductions to his wealthy clients in the form of units in illegal syndicated conservation easement tax shelters organized and created by co-defendants Jack Fisher, James Sinnott and others.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Lewis also knew that, contrary to law, the transactions related to these illegal tax shelters lacked economic substance, that his wealthy clients participated only to obtain a tax deduction and that his clients received only a tax benefit for their participation in the shelters. For example, the scheme entailed the creation of partnerships that would purchase land and land-owning companies and then donate conservation easements over that land or the land itself. A client who purchased units in one of these partnerships had a “vote” ostensibly on what to do with the land the partnership owned. However, Lewis knew that the vote held by the partnership each year was just for optics and that the land invariably would be donated largely as a conservation easement.
In some cases, in order to make it appear that his clients had joined the partnerships before the date of the conservation easement donation, which was necessary to claim the tax benefits, Lewis also instructed and caused his clients to falsely backdate documents — such as subscription agreements and checks — related to the partnerships. In 2019 alone, Lewis assisted 15 clients with claiming false deductions on their 2018 returns.
In total, Lewis assisted in the preparation of tax returns that claimed nearly $14 million in false deductions based on backdated documents, causing a tax loss to the IRS of nearly $5 million.
Lewis earned over $1 million in commissions for his role in promoting and selling the illegal tax shelters to clients. Lewis also concealed the amount of commissions he had earned from selling units in these shelters by not fully reporting the commissions on his personal returns and instead fraudulently reporting commission income he had earned as income on the tax returns of nominee entities in his children’s names.
In addition to his prison sentence, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. for the Northern District of Georgia ordered Lewis to serve three years of supervised release and to pay $4,878,990.90 in restitution.
Nine additional defendants have previously pleaded guilty to criminal conduct related to the syndicated conservation easement tax shelter scheme. These other defendants include appraiser Walter Douglas “Terry” Roberts, accountant Stein Agee, CPA Corey Agee, CPA Ralph Anderson, CPA James Benkoil, CPA Victor Smith, CPA William Tomasello, CPA and attorney Randall Lenz and attorney Vi Bui.
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan for the Northern District of Georgia and IRS Criminal Investigation Chief Guy Ficco made the announcement. They also thanked U.S. Attorney Dena J. King for the Western District of North Carolina for her office’s assistance.
IRS Criminal Investigation and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service investigated the case.
Trial Attorneys Richard M. Rolwing, Parker Tobin, Jessica Kraft and Nicholas J. Schilling Jr. of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Huber, Deputy Chief of the Complex Frauds Section of the Northern District of Georgia, are prosecuting the case.
The Justice Department, together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), today announced that Lyft Inc. (Lyft) has agreed to resolve allegations that it made false and misleading statements about how much Lyft drivers would earn. The settlement includes an agreement to pay $2.1 million in civil penalties and a permanent injunction prohibiting such false and misleading earnings claims.
Lyft operates a mobile app ride-hailing platform that connects consumers seeking rides with those who provide rides with their own personal vehicles. Through marketing campaigns and advertisements, Lyft recruits drivers. After a driver is hired, Lyft sets the rates the driver charges and collects a portion of the fare for each ride. In a civil complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the government alleges that, as early as 2021, Lyft made false and misleading claims in its advertising and marketing regarding potential earnings and incentives to be earned by drivers who signed up to drive for Lyft. Lyft allegedly continued these practices even after it received a Notice of Penalty Offenses in October 2021 that placed the company on notice that false and misleading earnings claims were unlawful.
The complaint alleges that Lyft disseminated advertisements promoting specific hourly amounts that drivers throughout the United States could earn. The company, however, did not disclose that the potential hourly amounts were based on the earnings of the top 20% of its drivers. The complaint also further alleges that Lyft also tried to induce drivers to offer more rides by promoting “earnings guarantees,” which guaranteed that drivers would be paid a set amount if they completed a specific number of rides in a certain time. These guarantees allegedly did not clearly disclose that drivers were paid only the difference between what they otherwise earned for the rides and Lyft’s advertised guaranteed amount, rather than receiving the full guaranteed amount in addition to their regular earnings for the rides.
In the stipulated order entered today by the federal district court, Lyft is required to pay a $2,100,000 civil penalty. The order also enjoins Lyft from making any misrepresentations regarding driver earnings and includes other monitoring and reporting provisions aimed at promoting Lyft’s compliance with the order.
“The Justice Department will vigorously enforce the law to stop companies from misleading Americans about their potential earnings in the gig economy,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We will continue to work with the FTC to stop unfair and deceptive marketing practices.”
“Lyft drivers deserve accurate information about how much they will be paid for the work they do,” said Director Samuel Levine of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Our settlement with Lyft bans exaggerated earnings claims and underscores the FTC’s commitment to ensuring gig workers are treated fairly.”
Trial Attorney Paulina Stamatelos and Assistant Director Zachary Dietert of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ekta Dharia for the Northern District of California and Abdiel Lewis and Evan Rose of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection handled the matter.
MADISON, WIS. – Timothy M. O’Shea, United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, announced that Shawn Hignite, Sr., 50, Weston, Wisconsin, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge William M. Conley to 3 years in federal prison for possessing a firearm as a felon. The prison term will be followed by 3 years of supervised release. Hignite pleaded guilty to this charge on August 1, 2024.
On January 30, 2024, police responded to a domestic incident involving a gunshot. When they arrived, police made contact with Hignite, who initially denied there was a gunshot. Police later obtained a search warrant and located a loaded handgun inside the house and a spent shell casing in the backyard. Hignite later admitted that the gun belonged to him and that he fired it that night. Hignite is legally prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition due to prior felony convictions.
At sentencing, Judge Conley acknowledged the dismal history of Hignite consuming alcohol and committing crimes. He noted that Hignite’s last 30 years have been plagued by poor decision making with either a fascination or compulsion with possessing firearms. Judge Conley expressed disappointment with the pattern of firearms being present in each of Hignite’s prior offenses. He also expressed hope that the sentence would deter Hignite from committing offenses in the future.
The charge against Hignite was the result of an investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Everest Metro Police Department, Rothschild Police Department, and Marathon County Sheriff’s Department. The ATF Madison Crime Gun Task Force also investigated the case. The task force consists of federal agents from ATF and Task Force Officers (TFOs) from local agencies including the Dane County and Clark County Sheriff’s Offices and the Fitchburg, Madison, Sun Prairie, and La Crosse Police Departments. Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Ayala prosecuted this case.
This case has been brought as part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), the U.S. Justice Department’s program to reduce violent crime. The PSN approach emphasizes coordination between state and federal prosecutors and all levels of law enforcement to address gun crime, especially felons illegally possessing firearms and ammunition and violent and drug crimes that involve the use of firearms.
MADISON, WIS. – Timothy M. O’Shea, United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, announced that Tyez D. D. Boyd, 27, Madison, Wisconsin, was sentenced today by Chief U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson to 3 years in federal prison for possessing a firearm as a felon. The prison term will be followed by 3 years of supervised release. Boyd pleaded guilty to this charge on August 14, 2024.
On November 17, 2022, Madison Police Department officers stopped a vehicle in Madison on suspicion that its occupants were engaged in drug trafficking. Officers had intercepted a phone call earlier in the day between the front seat passenger, Davonte King, and a known fentanyl pill dealer setting up a drug deal. Tyez Boyd was a passenger in the rear seat.
Officers took King out of the vehicle and found he was in possession of fentanyl pills, cocaine, and over $1,000 in cash. Officers also found a loaded Taurus 9mm handgun under the front passenger seat where King had been seated. King is prohibited from legally possessing firearms because of a prior felony conviction.
Officers searched Boyd after he got out of the vehicle and found a loaded Kahr .45 caliber handgun in his pocket. Boyd is prohibited from legally possessing firearms because of multiple prior felony convictions. At the time of the stop, Boyd was on state probation for two cases, one involving a strangulation conviction and one involving a domestic violence conviction. Boyd also had three open criminal cases at the time, each of which involved acts of violence. Boyd had two active warrants for his arrest as well. His state probation has since been revoked and he was sentenced to 18 months in state prison on January 27, 2023.
At sentencing, Judge Peterson said Boyd’s possession of a firearm was dangerous by itself, especially when he was carrying it into a dangerous situation with a drug trafficker. Judge Peterson found Boyd’s case was aggravated by his criminal history, which included instances of domestic violence, as well as his history of noncompliance while on supervision. Finally, Judge Peterson said this crime deserved a 4-year sentence but reduced that sentence for time he had already served on his multiple state revocation sentences.
Co-defendant Davonte King pleaded guilty to possessing fentanyl intended for distribution and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and was sentenced by Judge Peterson on September 5, 2024, to 7 years in federal prison.
The charges against Boyd and King were the result of an investigation conducted by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, IRS Criminal Investigations, Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation, and Dane County Narcotics Task Force. The ATF Madison Crime Gun Task Force also investigated the case. The task force consists of federal agents from ATF and Task Force Officers (TFOs) from local agencies including the Dane County and Clark County Sheriff’s Offices and the Fitchburg, Madison, Sun Prairie, and La Crosse Police Departments. The Dane County District Attorney’s Office assisted with the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven P. Anderson prosecuted this case.
This case has been brought as part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), the U.S. Justice Department’s program to reduce violent crime. The PSN approach emphasizes coordination between state and federal prosecutors and all levels of law enforcement to address gun crime, especially felons illegally possessing firearms and ammunition and violent and drug crimes that involve the use of firearms.
MADISON, WIS. – Timothy M. O’Shea, United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, announced that Mario R. Aviles, 27, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, was sentenced October 30, 2024 by U.S. District Judge William M. Conley to 2 years in federal prison for distributing fentanyl and methamphetamine. That prison term will be followed by 3 years of supervised release. Aviles pleaded guilty to this charge on July 16, 2024.
The government’s investigation revealed that Hector Jimenez-Sosa was the leader of a methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cocaine trafficking organization in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. He received large quantities of controlled substances through the mail from his sources in California. Between August and October 2023, law enforcement officers purchased methamphetamine and fentanyl pills from Jimenez-Sosa and his associates on multiple occasions using a confidential informant. The drug sales took place at two workshops operated by Jimenez-Sosa.
Aviles, Jimenez-Sosa’s nephew, was identified as an important member of Jimenez-Sosa’s organization. Aviles sold drugs himself and was also present when Jimenez-Sosa sold drugs. For example, on September 19, 2023, a confidential informant purchased 60 grams of methamphetamine and 20 fentanyl pills from Aviles at Jimenez-Sosa’s shops in Eau Claire. On October 3, 2023, the confidential informant purchased an additional 20 fentanyl pills from Aviles at one of Jimenez-Sosa’s shops. During that drug sale, the confidential informant and Aviles talked about the prior methamphetamine sale as well as a potential future deal for a larger quantity of methamphetamine.
On December 8, 2023, Jimenez-Sosa was arrested at his residence and Aviles was arrested at one of Jimenez-Sosa’s shops. Search warrants were executed at Jimenez-Sosa’s residence and shops. Officers located cocaine, marijuana, ammunition, and drug trafficking supplies.
At sentencing, Judge Conley noted that Aviles’ growing contribution to his uncle’s drug trafficking organization was significant and he arrived at the sentence after weighing Aviles’ conduct against his lack of prior criminal record among other mitigating factors.
Co-defendant Hector Jimenez-Sosa pleaded guilty to distributing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and was sentenced by Judge Conley on September 25, 2024, to 10 years in federal prison.
The charges against Aviles and Jimenez-Sosa were the result of an investigation conducted by the West Central Drug Task Force, Eau Claire Police Department, Eau Claire County Sheriff’s Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, and United States Postal Inspection Service. The Eau Claire County District Attorney’s Office also assisted with the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven P. Anderson prosecuted this case.
Larry D. Williamson used a private plane to bring 19 pounds of methamphetamine and 200,000 fentanyl pills into Dane County
MADISON, WIS. – Timothy M. O’Shea, United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, announced that Larry D. Williamson 36, Waunakee, Wisconsin was sentenced yesterday by Chief U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson to 12 years in federal prison for possessing 500 or more grams of methamphetamine intended for distribution. Williamson pleaded guilty to this charge on June 18, 2024. The prison term will be followed by 8 years of supervised release.
On the evening of February 8, 2024, Williamson and his codefendant Corvalis Stewart landed a rented Cessna 172 aircraft at the Middleton Municipal Airport, in Middleton, Wisconsin. Williamson was a private pilot who had rented the aircraft to fly to Phoenix, Arizona, to pick up drugs. Stewart was the passenger.
Federal and state law enforcement received information about the flight and about Williamson and Stewart’s suspicious behavior in Arizona. Law enforcement tracked the aircraft as it returned to Middleton and landed at approximately 10:55 p.m. Williamson and Stewart got out of the airplane and walked to the parking lot. Stewart was carrying three bags which he put in the back of his vehicle. Law enforcement detained the men and searched the bags.
Two of the bags contained 19 pounds of methamphetamine, and in one were travel receipts from a recent trip that Williamson took. The third bag contained approximately 200,000 fentanyl pills known on the street as M30’s, which are counterfeit Oxycodone pills. This was the largest fentanyl seizure in Dane County, with an estimated street value of $2,000,000.
“This was a brazen effort to introduce a large quantity of methamphetamine and thousands of deadly fentanyl pills into our Dane County community,” said Timothy M. O’Shea, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin. “I commend our federal and state law enforcement partners for their coordinated efforts to quickly identify the suspicious flight and apprehend the individuals involved.”
“The sentencing of these drug traffickers is a decisive victory in our fight against organized crime. Their brazen attempts to evade justice by crossing state lines in an airplane only highlight their disregard for the law. This outcome underscores our unwavering commitment to dismantle such networks,” said HSI Chicago Special Agent in Charge Sean Fitzgerald. “The success of this operation was made possible through the tireless efforts and cooperation of local law enforcement agencies. Together, we have shown that no matter the lengths criminals go to escape justice, they will be held accountable.”
At sentencing, Judge Peterson characterized the amount of fentanyl involved in the case as staggering. Noting the large quantity and the especially dangerous nature of fentanyl, Judge Peterson determined that a significant sentence was warranted. Judge Peterson also found that Williamson was an active courier who solicited drug trips to make more money.
Williamson’s co-defendant, Corvalis Stewart, pleaded guilty on September 11, 2024, to possessing 400 or more grams of fentanyl intended for distribution. He is scheduled to be sentenced on December 4, 2024, and faces a minimum of 10 years in prison.
The charges against Williamson and Stewart were the result of an investigation conducted by Homeland Security Investigations, Dane County Narcotics Task Force, and the Middleton Police Department, with the assistance of the Air Marine Operations Center in Riverside, California. Assistant U.S. Attorney Corey Stephan prosecuted this case.
CHARLESTON, WV — Gov. Justice and the West Virginia State Parks system announced today a special Veterans Salute Savings offer. Veterans and military members who stay at a West Virginia state park lodge throughout the month of November are eligible for a 50% discount on lodge room stays.
“West Virginia has always been a state that deeply honors and appreciates the service of our veterans and active-duty military,” Gov. Justice said. “This Veterans Day, we want to show our gratitude in a meaningful way by giving back to those who have given so much for our freedoms. It’s an honor to offer this special deal at our beautiful state parks, where our heroes can take time to relax and recharge.”
The Veterans Salute Savings discount, which can be redeemed with the code “VET50”, is available for stays at all West Virginia State Parks lodges and cabins, excluding Stonewall, Blackwater Falls, and Canaan Valley. Guests must present a valid military ID upon check-in.
Veterans and active-duty military personnel can use the code to receive their discount when booking online or over the phone.
A woman has appeared in court charged with the murder of Efthyia Constantinou in Enfield.
Zaneta Peto, 55 (27.03.69) of Charles Street, Enfield, also known as Maria Peto, appeared at Highbury Magistrates’ Court on Saturday, 2 November, charged with murder.
An investigation was launched following a dropped call to police made from an address in Westerham Avenue just after 17:00hrs on Thursday, 30 October.
Officers attended the location and found 62-year-old Efthyia suffering stab injuries. Despite their efforts, Efthyia was pronounced dead at the scene.
Zaneta Peto was arrested in the early hours of Friday, 31 October, and charged as above.
Detective Chief Inspector Sarah Lee, from the Specialist Crime Command, said: “Our sincerest condolences are offered to Efthyia’s family, friends and the wider community who are so deeply saddened by her death.
“The investigation is at an early stage, but I can confirm that Zaneta was known to the victim and that we are not seeking anyone else in relation to this incident.
“Efthyia’s family continue to be supported by specially trained officers.”
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joseph Patrick Kelly, Professor of Literature and Director of Irish and Irish American Studies, College of Charleston
If elected, Donald Trump has vowed to demolish what he calls the “deep state” – a conspiratorial term for the American federal bureaucracy. A second Trump administration, running mate JD Vance has said, should fire thousands of civil servants and replace them with MAGA loyalists.
Trump has said he would tap the billionare Elon Musk as the hatchet man to lead his proposed government commission on “efficiency” in government.
For years, conservatives have claimed that taking power from government agencies gives it back to the people. Yet while it might seem counterintuitive, Americans actually exercise their sovereignty through the administrative state.
The American administrative state was established almost 100 years ago by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As a historian of American democracy, I think it’s valuable to remember what the old deal looked like while Trump rails against the New Deal.
The Gilded Age
Around 1900, America was not really democratic. The federal government did not rule by the consent of the governed. As historian Heather Cox Richardson recently argued, the American government was an oligarchy.
These people were America’s “other half,” as the social reformer Jacob Riis called them in 1890. And they were effectively excluded from the social contract.
Meanwhile, for rich white men like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller it was, as Mark Twain quipped, a “Gilded Age.” Robber barons ran their industrial empires with impunity.
When their employees tried to organize or protest, industrialists got sheriffs and police to suppress them. Or they hired private armies of “detectives,” like the Pinkertons, as Carnegie did when steelworkers struck in Homestead, Pennsylvania.
Governors called in the National Guard, as Ephraim Morgan did in 1921 to suppress a labor dispute in West Virginia. Sometimes, it was the regular Army, as in 1919, when soldiers from Camp Pike propped up the peonage system of tenant farming by indiscriminately machine-gunning Black farmers hiding in the woods outside Elaine, Arkansas.
‘We stand at Armageddon’
Forced by popular clamor, Congress decided to act.
It created the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 and told its commissioners to compel railroads, which were gouging some customers and favoring others, to charge fair rates to everyone.
This was the start of federal regulation.
In 1895, the New York Legislature passed the Bakeshop Act, making it illegal to force an employee to work more than 10 hours a day or 60 hours a week.
The Supreme Court, however, was still friendly to business. In its 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York, the court ruled against the Bakeshop Act. No one could regulate the workday or work week. The decision stripped Congress and state legislatures of their nascent regulatory powers. That enraged President Teddy Roosevelt.
“(T)he right of the people to rule,” Roosevelt later thundered, had been usurped by the corporations. With apocalyptic fury he predicted, “We stand at Armageddon!”
That was in 1912. The Lochner era, as historians call this period when workers and the public had few protections from exploitative businesses, lasted another 20 years.
It was, in essence, a revolution. After nearly 60 years of corporate domination, the 1932 election would “return America to its own people,” to use Roosevelt’s words.
Of course, it was not really a “return.” In the precorporation world, most Americans – notably women and Black people – couldn’t participate in their own government. But 1932 was a giant step toward democracy. And the great innovation that would usher in this modern, liberal democracy was the administrative state: a meritocracy of career civil servants dedicated to carrying out the law.
That’s the administrative state in action. It’s how 122 million people cooperated to make complex, modern society work – without surrendering their sovereignty to some dictator like Benito Mussolini or Josef Stalin.
But the Supreme Court kept striking down New Deal laws and regulations.
After a massive electoral victory in 1936, FDR threatened to “pack” the court by raising the number of justices from nine to 15. Finally, the court relented. In a 5-4 decision, it allowed the state of Washington’s Industrial Welfare Committee to establish a minimum wage – $14.50 for a 48-hour work week.
Most history textbooks don’t mention this milestone, but that’s when liberal democracy was secured.
Why does the U.S. have cleaner air and water today than it did in the 1960s? Because in 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, and a new Environmental Protection Agency was empowered to write and perpetually rewrite regulations that execute Congress’ antipollution laws.
The alternative
This system produces the occasional injustice or overreach.
But gutting regulatory agencies and replacing a meritocratic bureaucracy with MAGA loyalists won’t help small farmers or family-owned fishing boats. It will empower big corporations to pollute, exploit their workers, price-gouge customers, cut corners on safety – and to corrupt the political system.
Unlike presidential appointees, who serve at the pleasure of the president, civil servants work for the people. They are empowered by Congress, and the president cannot fire them. At least for now.
Joseph Patrick Kelly has previously volunteered as an officer at the county and precinct level in the Democratic Party.
A teenager has been jailed for the manslaughter of a young woman on Christmas Eve.
The then 16-year-old male was found guilty at the Old Bailey on Friday, 26 July of the manslaughter of Kacey Clarke at her home in Bermondsey.
On Friday, 1 November, the now 17-year-old was sentenced at the same court to six-and-a-half-years’ imprisonment.
Detective Inspector Adam Cliftonwas one of the senior investigators who investigated the death.He said: “Through a thorough investigation we were able to disprove many assertions made about Kacey, leading to the jury rejecting the defendant’s claim to have been acting in self-defence. I am pleased that we have been able to secure justice for her.
“Reducing violence against women and girls remains a key priority for the Met and I would urge anyone who is suffering abuse to reach out for help.”
Police had been called at 22:03hrs on 24 December 2023 to reports of a stabbing at a flat on Jamaica Road, SE16.
Officers attended along with paramedics from the London Ambulance Service and London’s Air Ambulance. They provided emergency first aid to 22-year-old Kacey Clarke, however she sadly died at the scene.
The subsequent post-mortem examination gave cause of death as a single sharp force trauma to the chest.
The youth was arrested near to the scene by police officers responding to the incident. He was known to Kacey but he cannot be named due to his age.
When questioned by police, the youth claimed that Kacey was the aggressor and had confronted him with a knife.
Some three weeks later, workmen found a blood-stained knife in nearby Rail Sidings Road. This was recovered and forensic examination found it to be stained with Kacey’s blood.
On November 1, 2024, at approximately 11:00 pm, Swan River RCMP responded to a report of an unresponsive male in Legion Park in the Town of Swan River.
Officers arrived on scene and located a 21-year-old male, from Brandon, with obvious injuries who was pronounced deceased on scene.
His death is being investigated as a homicide.
RCMP are seeking out any witnesses and asking anyone who may have information in relation to this homicide to contact the Swan River RCMP at (204) 734-4686, call Crime Stoppers anonymously at 1-800-222-8477, or submit a secure tip online at www.manitobacrimestoppers.com.
Swan River RCMP, along with Major Crime Services and RCMP Forensic Identification Services, continue to investigate.
After further investigation into this collision by an RCMP Forensic Collision Reconstructionist, RCMP have confirmed that the eastbound car, being driven by the 25-year-old male, had crossed over the center line and side-swiped the eastbound SUV, being driven by the 59-year-old male.
The mechanical condition of the car was not a factor in the collision.
St-Pierre-Jolys RCMP continue to investigate.
On October 23, 2024, at approximately 12:30 am, St-Pierre-Jolys received a report of a collision on Highway 1 and Provincial Road 206. When officers arrived on scene, one vehicle was in the south ditch and two vehicles were on the highway.
Investigation determined a car and a SUV were travelling eastbound on Highway 1 and were side-by-side when the passenger tire of the car, with the control arm and other mechanical parts, came off and struck the SUV, which was travelling in the south lane. This caused the car to come to rest on the roadway and immediately catch fire. The 25-year-old male driver from Calgary was able to exit the vehicle. He was transported to local hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
After the SUV was struck by the tire and parts from the car, the SUV entered the ditch and rolled. The 59-year-old male driver, from Steinbach, was pronounced deceased on scene. The 45-year-old male passenger, from the RM of Hanover, was transported to local hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
A third vehicle was travelling close behind the collision and struck the tire component of the car, which was left on the highway after the collision, making the vehicle inoperable. The 28-year-old female driver, from Kenora, Ontario, was transported to hospital with minor physical injuries.
St-Pierre-Jolys RCMP, along with an RCMP Forensic Collision Reconstructionist, continue to investigate.
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today joined a bipartisan multistate coalition of 50 attorneys general in announcing settlements with Heritage Pharmaceuticals (Heritage) and Apotex Inc. (Apotex) totaling $49.1 million for their roles in a massive, long-running scheme to artificially inflate and manipulate prices, reduce competition, and restrict trade for dozens of generic prescription drugs. The companies in the scheme, some of which increased prices by 1,000 percent, manufactured essential medications to treat diseases ranging from diabetes to cancer to ADHD. As part of the settlements, both companies have agreed to cooperate in ongoing multistate investigations against 30 corporate defendants and 25 individual executives. Both companies have also agreed to implement internal reforms to ensure fair competition and compliance with antitrust laws.
“Affordable generic drugs are a lifeline for millions of New Yorkers who rely on them every day to treat everything from diabetes to heart conditions,” said Attorney General James. “The companies involved in this scheme engaged in a massive conspiracy to illegally coordinate prices, driving up costs for consumers as much as 1,000 percent. These two settlements will help enable the victims of this scheme to get compensation, and will hopefully ensure this type of illegal price fixing will not happen again. I thank my fellow attorneys general for their hard work and collaboration to protect consumers from this unfair anticompetitive conduct.”
The settlements are the result of two lawsuits filed by the Office of the Attorney General and a coalition of attorneys general against some of the nation’s largest pharmaceutical companies. The first complaint, filed in 2016, included Heritage and 17 other corporate defendants, two individual defendants, and 15 generic drugs. Two former executives from Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Jeffrey Glazer and Jason Malek, have since entered into settlement agreements and are cooperating with the states’ investigations. The second complaint was filed in 2019 against Teva Pharmaceuticals and 19 of the nation’s largest generic drug manufacturers. The complaint names 16 individual senior executives as defendants. The third complaint was filed in 2020 against Sandoz and 18 other of the nation’s largest generic drug manufacturers, in addition to 10 individual defendants.
The lawsuits allege these companies engaged in a broad, coordinated, and systematic conspiracy to fix prices, avoid competition, and rig bids for more than 100 different generic drugs. The companies maintained an interconnected web of industry executives where these competitors met with each other during industry dinners, “girls’ nights out,” lunches, cocktail parties, and golf outings, and communicated via frequent telephone calls, emails, and text messages that sowed the seeds for their illegal agreements. Defendants used terms like “fair share,” “playing nice in the sandbox,” and “responsible competitor” to describe how they unlawfully discouraged competition, raised prices, and enforced an ingrained culture of collusion.
The drugs included in the scheme span all types, including tablets, capsules, creams, and ointments; and classes, including antibiotics, anti-depressants, contraceptives, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. They treat a range of diseases and conditions from basic infections to diabetes, cancer, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, HIV, ADHD, and more. In some instances, the coordinated price increases were over 1,000 percent. Digoxin, an essential heart medication manufactured by Heritage, tripled in price, causing patients to pay hundreds of dollars more for the drug.
The cases stem from an investigation built on evidence from several cooperating witnesses at the core of the conspiracy, a massive database of over 20 million documents, and a phone records database containing millions of call detail records and contact information for over 600 sales and pricing individuals in the generics industry.
A motion for preliminary approval of the $10 million settlement with Heritage was filed yesterday in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in Hartford. A settlement with Apotex for $39.1 million is contingent upon obtaining signatures from all necessary states and territories and will be finalized and filed in the U.S. District Court.
Consumers who purchased a generic prescription drug manufactured by either Heritage or Apotex between 2010 and 2018 may be eligible for compensation. To determine your eligibility, call 1-866-290-0182, email info@AGGenericDrugs.com or visit www.AGGenericDrugs.com.
Joining Attorney General James in announcing the settlements are the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
These settlements are the latest example of Attorney General James taking action to stop companies from engaging in anticompetitive conduct and harming New Yorkers. In May, Attorney General James joined 40 other states and the Department of Justice in suing Live Nation and Ticketmaster for monopolizing the live music industry. In October 2023, Attorney General James secured $4.5 million from one of the nation’s largest title insurance companies for using illegal no-poach agreements with competitors to keep employees from switching jobs. Attorney General James has now ended the use of no-poach agreements by the five largest commercial underwriters in the United States, including First American, Fidelity, Old Republic, Stewart, and Amtrust. In 2022, Attorney General James sued a ski resort company in Syracuse for buying its main competitor and shutting it down in order to monopolize the local market.
New York’s investigation has been led by Assistant Attorneys General Bob Hubbard and Saami Zain and Legal Assistant Arlene Leventhal of the Antitrust Bureau, under the supervision of Deputy Bureau Chief Amy McFarlane and Bureau Chief Elinor Hoffmann of the Antitrust Bureau. The Antitrust Bureau is part of the Division for Economic Justice, overseen by Chief Deputy Attorney General Christopher D’Angelo and First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy.
RCMP Halifax Regional Detachment is asking for the public’s assistance in locating 15-year-old Santez Burns. He was last seen yesterday at approximately 11 a.m. in North Preston.
Burns is described as five-foot-four, 120-130 lbs. He has dark brown hair and brown eyes. He was last seen wearing a black shirt, black pants, and a black hat.
When someone goes missing, it has deep and far-reaching impacts for the person and those who know them. We ask that people spread the word respectfully.
Anyone with information on the whereabouts of Santez Burns is asked to call police at 902-490-5020. To remain anonymous, call Nova Scotia Crime Stoppers, toll-free, at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477), submit a secure web tip at www.crimestoppers.ns.ca, or use the P3 Tips app.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10)
More Than One-Third of Election Workers Have Experienced Threats, Harassment, Abuse
Read the LetterHere
Washington, DC – Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10) joined Congresswoman Nikema Williams (GA-05) and 59 of his Democratic colleagues in sending a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco urging the Department of Justice (DOJ) to take additional steps to protect election officials, workers, and volunteers in their workers as they carry out their duties during the 2024 election.
“According to recent surveys, more than one in three election officials have experienced threats, harassment, or abuse, and more than half who received threats were threatened in person. Additional research has tied this pervasive hostility to concerning levels of turnover among election workers, leading to increased strain on the expertise of those responsible for facilitating our elections,” the Members wrote.
In 2021, the Department of Justice acknowledged that its response to threats on election officials following the 2020 election was ‘inadequate’. While the Department’s Elections Threats Task Force demonstrates a strong commitment to election workers well-being, its plans to combat harassment of election workers on and after election day, remain unclear.
“With our concerns about threats increasing on and around Election Day itself, we request more information about the Department and the Election Threats Task Force’s rapid response plans to ensure election workers are able to safely, effectively, and securely carry out the 2024 election,” the Members concluded.
Read the letterhere or below:
Dear Attorney General Garland and Deputy Attorney General Monaco:
We write to express our support of the Department of Justice’s Elections Threats Task Force amidst the severe and concerning attacks levied against election workers around the United States, and to call on the Department to take additional steps to protect election officials, workers, and volunteers: the people responsible for ensuring the success of our democracy.
According to recent surveys, more than one in three election officials have experienced threats, harassment, or abuse, and more than half who received threats were threatened in person. Additional research has tied this pervasive hostility to concerning levels of turnover among election workers, leading to increased strain on the expertise of those responsible for facilitating our elections. This turnover is more acute in the most competitive states, where election officials have been particularly targeted for harassment, and where the perception of effective and efficient election administration is particularly important given the scrutiny their results will likely receive.
We are concerned that the attacks on election workers will continue and increase as we approach the 2024 elections, and we are especially concerned about threats, harassment, and violence in the immediate run-up to Election Day, on Election Day, and throughout the counting, reporting, and certification process. In 2021, the Department acknowledged that their response to threats on election officials post-2020 election was “inadequate,” and we are grateful for the focus the Department has placed on ensuring a stronger response this election cycle.
With our concerns about threats increasing on and around Election Day itself, we request more information about the Department and the Election Threats Task Force’s rapid response plans to ensure election workers are able to safely, effectively, and securely carry out the 2024 election. We kindly request answers to the following questions:
1. What is the Department’s plan to ensure threats against election workers are addressed promptly?
2. How will the Department coordinate with federal and local law enforcement to determine the validity of a threat and ensure the safety of election workers?
1. What outreach has already occurred to law enforcement to ensure awareness of the proper forums to report threats against election workers and how to receive support from the Department?
2. What outreach has already occurred to local elections officials to ensure they have the resources and capabilities needed to identify and report serious threats?
3. How will the Department coordinate with local governments and local election administrators to ensure real-time information sharing regarding the safety of election workers?
1. What outreach has already occurred to local governments and election administrators to ensure awareness of the proper forums to report threats against election workers and how to receive support from the Department?
2. What precautions are being taken to ensure any public-facing updates do not unnecessarily expose local officials’ private information?
3. Does the Department have any dedicated personnel devoted entirely to outreach to election officials in critical periods like this? If not, what personnel is responsible for this outreach?
4. What resources, if any, has the Department developed, either on its own or in concert with partners such as CISA or the EAC, to provide security information to election workers?
1. If so, what outreach has been done to increase awareness of these resources?
2. If not, are there plans for developing new resources or updating older ones? Are there plans to engage stakeholders in the development of those resources?
5. What financial authorities, if any, has the Department utilized to build local capacity to protect election workers and respond to threats to election workers?
1. If financial authorities have been used, how?
6. What additional Congressional support would aid the Department in protecting election workers?
Thank you and the Department for your commitment to keeping the backbone of our democracy safe, and taking steps to ensure that officials are able to carry out free, fair, efficient, safe, and secure elections that enable all of our constituents to have their voices heard. We look forward to continuing to partner with you in defense of our democracy.
Police are appealing for witnesses following a serious collision in Wandsworth.
Police were called at about 22:30hrs on Friday, 1 November to reports of a collision involving a van and a cyclist on Tooting Bec Road at the junction with Franciscan Road, SW17.
Officers and the London Ambulance Service attended. The cyclist has been taken to hospital where they remain in a life-threatening condition.
The 50-year-old driver of the van was arrested on suspicion causing serious personal injury by dangerous driving, failing to stop at an accident and unfit through drink. He remains in custody at this time.
Detectives from the Roads and Transport Policing Command are investigating.
Anyone with information or dash cam footage is asked to call 101 reference 8934/01Nov.
Sadly, a man has died following a two vehicle crash on the Bass Highway near Elizabeth Town in the state’s north early this morning. Acting Inspector Aleena Crack said police and emergency services were called to the scene about 7.20am, following reports of a crash between two trucks at he intersection of the Bass Highway and Bengeo Road. Emergency services quickly arrived on the scene where sadly, a male driver of one of the trucks was confirmed deceased. The male driver of the other vehicle was transported to the Launceston General Hospital with non life threatening injuries. “The circumstances leading up to the crash are being investigated by police and a report will be prepared for the Coroner,” Acting Inspector Crack said. “Anyone with information or relevant dash cam footage, is asked to contact police on 131 444.” “Our thoughts are with everyone involved.”
Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services
Northern Territory Police no longer hold concerns for the welfare of a 38-year-old Palmerston man.
He was located safe and well by police a short time ago.
NT Police would like to thank the public for their assistance.
Investigations into the disturbance are ongoing, and anyone with information is urged to contact police on 131 444 or Crime Stoppers via 1800 333 000 or https://crimestoppersnt.com.au/.
There is some disagreement among legal practitioners and scholars about whether corporations have duties under international law.
Many argue that only states are bound by international law, and it is those states which are obliged to regulate how businesses operate within their borders. Corporations have only a voluntary responsibility to avoid committing human rights violations through their operations.
I have been doing research in the area of corporate accountability for human rights violations since 2006. My most recent paper looks at the role of multinational corporations (multinationals) in benefiting from and perpetuating structural poverty in the global south.
I argue that international law can no longer exempt corporations from liability for human rights violations, including those arising from poverty. Under certain circumstances, corporations should have duties under international law to ensure human rights are fulfilled. I argue that this is particularly true when it comes to socio-economic rights such as the rights to housing, education, food, water and healthcare.
International human rights law must be developed to impose duties directly on multinational corporations to alleviate poverty in the developing countries where they operate.
This is not an absolute duty – it would only arise in certain circumstances and for specific periods of time, as I show in my paper.
Poverty and corporations
Some estimate that as many as 1.3 billion people live in poverty – more than 10% of the world’s population, the vast majority in the global south.
Poverty is also deadly. It is estimated that at least 21,300 people die every day as a result of poverty and inequality. Poverty is a human rights violation, affecting the rights to dignity, life, food and water.
Businesses have a long history of profiting from human rights abuses. Finance and transport companies have acknowledged ties to the slave trade. European banks reportedly assisted South Africa’s apartheid government to procure arms.
Even when they are not directly responsible for human rights violations, multinational corporations may be complicit. Multinationals based in the global north tend to exploit developing countries for their cheap labour, natural resources and weak regulatory frameworks. In other words, corporations benefit from poverty.
International law
In 2005, Professor John Ruggie was appointed as the United Nations secretary-general’s special representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. He developed the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This framework adopts the position that only states are subjects and have duties under international human rights law.
The UN guiding principles are organised around three pillars, known as Protect, Respect and Remedy. The first pillar relates to states’ obligations to uphold human rights. It includes the duty to regulate businesses to ensure they do not violate rights through their operations. The second pillar refers to corporations’ responsibility to respect human rights. This is voluntary and not a legal obligation. The third pillar ensures that victims of human rights violations have access to effective remedies.
This framework relies on three factors: states which have the interests of their citizens at heart, corporations complying with human rights standards, and effective remedial systems. If all three work together, then the UN guiding principles can address corporate accountability for rights violations.
In practice, however, this is not the case. Many states, particularly those in the developing world with high levels of poverty, rely on foreign investment. This creates a power imbalance when negotiating with large multinational corporations. Multinationals are able to demand favourable investment conditions, including relaxing laws that might protect human rights.
Under the UN guiding principles, if states do not impose obligations on corporations to comply with human rights, they do not have such obligations.
Next steps
Not all corporations should have the same duties as states. I propose a set of factors that would determine when a corporation might have a duty under international human rights law to fulfil socio-economic rights. These factors are:
the extent of the violation
the position or vulnerability of the victim
the urgency of the situation
whether the corporation is the only actor that can fulfil the right.
For example, let us imagine a scenario in which a company operates a mine in the Central African Republic. It has built a hospital for its workers and management. Surrounding the mining operations are indigent communities who resided in the area before the operations began.
One day, a child from one of the settlements is knocked over by a car. Her injuries are not life-threatening, but they are severe and the child is in terrible pain. The closest hospital is the mine-owned private hospital. There is a public hospital, but it is far away and travelling there would take time and be costly. The child’s family rushes her to the mine’s hospital for emergency treatment. Does the hospital have a legal duty to admit the child and pay for her treatment?
Applying a combination of the factors, the answer is yes. The child is vulnerable by virtue of her age and poverty, the situation is urgent, and the mine hospital is the only entity that can fulfil the right under the circumstances.
Using this framework, I argue that international human rights law should be developed to mitigate the harm of poverty in the global south, by imposing duties on corporations that benefit from poverty. Some corporations have a perverse incentive to keep communities poor. International law has a role to play in overturning this state of affairs.
Ultimately, my proposal seeks to review what we think of as a fair and just economy. Nothing will change if only states have obligations under international law. The global economic market is neither free nor fair. It has created the most severe human rights violations of our age. International human rights law must address this.
Bonita Meyersfeld has received funding from the National Research Foundation as part of her NRF rating.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Bonita Meyersfeld, Associate Professor, University of the Witwatersrand
There is some disagreement among legal practitioners and scholars about whether corporations have duties under international law.
Many argue that only states are bound by international law, and it is those states which are obliged to regulate how businesses operate within their borders. Corporations have only a voluntary responsibility to avoid committing human rights violations through their operations.
I have been doing research in the area of corporate accountability for human rights violations since 2006. My most recent paper looks at the role of multinational corporations (multinationals) in benefiting from and perpetuating structural poverty in the global south.
I argue that international law can no longer exempt corporations from liability for human rights violations, including those arising from poverty. Under certain circumstances, corporations should have duties under international law to ensure human rights are fulfilled. I argue that this is particularly true when it comes to socio-economic rights such as the rights to housing, education, food, water and healthcare.
International human rights law must be developed to impose duties directly on multinational corporations to alleviate poverty in the developing countries where they operate.
This is not an absolute duty – it would only arise in certain circumstances and for specific periods of time, as I show in my paper.
Poverty and corporations
Some estimate that as many as 1.3 billion people live in poverty – more than 10% of the world’s population, the vast majority in the global south.
Poverty is also deadly. It is estimated that at least 21,300 people die every day as a result of poverty and inequality. Poverty is a human rights violation, affecting the rights to dignity, life, food and water.
Businesses have a long history of profiting from human rights abuses. Finance and transport companies have acknowledged ties to the slave trade. European banks reportedly assisted South Africa’s apartheid government to procure arms.
Even when they are not directly responsible for human rights violations, multinational corporations may be complicit. Multinationals based in the global north tend to exploit developing countries for their cheap labour, natural resources and weak regulatory frameworks. In other words, corporations benefit from poverty.
International law
In 2005, Professor John Ruggie was appointed as the United Nations secretary-general’s special representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. He developed the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This framework adopts the position that only states are subjects and have duties under international human rights law.
The UN guiding principles are organised around three pillars, known as Protect, Respect and Remedy. The first pillar relates to states’ obligations to uphold human rights. It includes the duty to regulate businesses to ensure they do not violate rights through their operations. The second pillar refers to corporations’ responsibility to respect human rights. This is voluntary and not a legal obligation. The third pillar ensures that victims of human rights violations have access to effective remedies.
This framework relies on three factors: states which have the interests of their citizens at heart, corporations complying with human rights standards, and effective remedial systems. If all three work together, then the UN guiding principles can address corporate accountability for rights violations.
In practice, however, this is not the case. Many states, particularly those in the developing world with high levels of poverty, rely on foreign investment. This creates a power imbalance when negotiating with large multinational corporations. Multinationals are able to demand favourable investment conditions, including relaxing laws that might protect human rights.
Under the UN guiding principles, if states do not impose obligations on corporations to comply with human rights, they do not have such obligations.
Next steps
Not all corporations should have the same duties as states. I propose a set of factors that would determine when a corporation might have a duty under international human rights law to fulfil socio-economic rights. These factors are:
the extent of the violation
the position or vulnerability of the victim
the urgency of the situation
whether the corporation is the only actor that can fulfil the right.
For example, let us imagine a scenario in which a company operates a mine in the Central African Republic. It has built a hospital for its workers and management. Surrounding the mining operations are indigent communities who resided in the area before the operations began.
One day, a child from one of the settlements is knocked over by a car. Her injuries are not life-threatening, but they are severe and the child is in terrible pain. The closest hospital is the mine-owned private hospital. There is a public hospital, but it is far away and travelling there would take time and be costly. The child’s family rushes her to the mine’s hospital for emergency treatment. Does the hospital have a legal duty to admit the child and pay for her treatment?
Applying a combination of the factors, the answer is yes. The child is vulnerable by virtue of her age and poverty, the situation is urgent, and the mine hospital is the only entity that can fulfil the right under the circumstances.
Using this framework, I argue that international human rights law should be developed to mitigate the harm of poverty in the global south, by imposing duties on corporations that benefit from poverty. Some corporations have a perverse incentive to keep communities poor. International law has a role to play in overturning this state of affairs.
Ultimately, my proposal seeks to review what we think of as a fair and just economy. Nothing will change if only states have obligations under international law. The global economic market is neither free nor fair. It has created the most severe human rights violations of our age. International human rights law must address this.
– Big companies profit from poverty but aren’t obliged to uphold human rights. International law must change – scholar – https://theconversation.com/big-companies-profit-from-poverty-but-arent-obliged-to-uphold-human-rights-international-law-must-change-scholar-241398
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Israel’s deadly siege on northern Gaza has entered a 30th day. Early week, the World Health Organisation managed to deliver some medical supplies to the Kamal Adwan Hospital, but on Thursday, Israeli fighter jets bombed the hospital’s third floor, where the supplies were being stored.
Al Jazeera reports Israeli forces are continuing to shell Beit Lahia, the scene of multiple massacres last week. On Wednesday, an Israeli attack on a market in Beit Lahia killed at least 10 Palestinians. Earlier in the week, Israel struck a five-story residential building, killing at least 93 people, including 25 children.
Meanwhile, at the United Nations, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Francesca Albanese, has released a major report accusing Israel of committing genocide.
Albanese concludes that Israel’s war on Gaza is part of a campaign of, “long-term intentional, systematic, state-organised forced displacement and replacement of the Palestinians” . The report is titled Genocide as Colonial Erasure.
AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese is now facing intensifying personal attacks from Israeli and US officials. She was set to brief Congress earlier last week, but the briefing was cancelled. On Tuesday, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, wrote on social media, “As UN Special Rapporteur Albanese visits New York, I want to reiterate the US belief she is unfit for her role. The United Nations should not tolerate antisemitism from a UN-affiliated official hired to promote human rights.”
On Wednesday, Francesca Albanese spoke at the United Nations and responded to the US attacks.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I have the same shock that you have, looking at how the United States is behaving in this context, in the context of the genocide that is unfolding in Gaza. I’m not — I’m not surprised that they attack anyone who speaks to the facts that are, frankly, on our watch in Gaza. And they do that so brutally because they feel called out, because it’s not that it’s that the United States is simply an observer. The United States is being an enabler in what Israel has been doing.
AMY GOODMAN: That was UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese speaking at the United Nations on Wednesday. She joins us here in our studio.
Welcome back to Democracy Now! Thanks so much for joining us.
Well, before we get you to further respond to what the US and Israel is saying, can you lay out the findings of your report?
Colonial Erasure’: UN expert Francesca Albanese on Israel’s “intent to destroy” Gaza Video: Democracy Now!
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Absolutely. First of all, thank you for having me.
I have to say that this report is the second I write on — and I present to the United Nations on the topic of genocide. And it has been very reluctantly that I’ve taken on the responsibility to be the chronicler of — the chronicler of an unfolding genocide in Gaza.
In March this year, I concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Israel had committed at least three acts of genocide in Gaza, like killing members of the protected group, Palestinians; inflicting severe bodily and mental harm; and creating conditions of life that would lead to the destruction of the group. And the reason why I identified these were not just war crimes and crimes against humanity is because I identified an intent to destroy.
And I understand that even in this country, people are quite confused about what is genocidal intent, because it’s not a motive. One can have many motives to commit a crime. And I understand genocide is a very insidious one, and it’s difficult to identify what’s a motive. But this is not about the motives. The intent to commit genocide is the determination to destroy, which is fully evident in — especially in the Gaza Strip, as I identified in — as argued in March already.
The reason why I continue to write about genocide — and, in fact, this report walks on the heels of the previous one — is in order to better explain the intent, especially state intent, because there is another misunderstanding that there should be a trial of the alleged perpetrators in order to have — to attribute responsibility to a state.
No, because not only you have had acts committed that should have been prevented by the — in a rule of law, in a proclaimed rule of law system like Israel, where there is the government, the Parliament, the judiciary, working as checks and balances, genocide has not only been not prevented, [it] has been enabled through the various organs of the state.
And I explain what has happened as of October 7, which has provided the opportunity to escalate violence, to build on the rage and on the fury of many Israelis, turning the soldiers into willful executioners, is that there was already a plan, hatred.
I mean, the Palestinians, like Ilan Pappé says, are victims not of war, but of a political ideology that has been unleashed. Palestinians have always been an unwanted encumbrance in the Israeli mindset, because they are an obstacle both as an identity and as legal status to the realisation of Greater Israel as a state for Jewish Israelis only.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:So, we’ll go back to — because I do want to ask about the Israeli state institutions that you name and the branches of the Israeli state that have been involved in forming this state’s intent. But if you could elaborate on the point that you make, the difference between intent and motive, and in particular what you say in the report about how it’s critical to determine genocidal intent, “by way of inference”?
You know, that’s a different phrasing than one has heard in all of this conversation about genocide so far. If you explain what you mean by that and what such a determination makes possible? So, rather than just looking at genocidal intent in other forms, what it means to infer genocidal intent?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: So, first of all, what constitutes genocide is established by Article II of the Genocide Convention, which creates a twofold obligation for member states, to prevent genocide so genocide doesn’t have to complete itself. When there is a manifestation of intent, even genocidal intent, there is already an obligation to intervene, because a crime is unfolding.
And then there is an obligation to punish. How the jurisprudence, especially after Rwanda and after former Yugoslavia, there have been cases both for criminal proceedings, where individual perpetrators have been investigated and tried, and [the] responsibility of the state, litigated before the International Court of Justice. This is how the jurisprudence on genocide has developed.
And the intent has been further elaborated upon what the Genocide Convention says. And while it might be difficult to have direct intent, meaning to have — it’s difficult but not impossible, in fact, to have a state official say, “Yes, let’s go and destroy everyone” — although I do believe that there is direct intent in this genocide in Gaza.
But the court also established that genocide can be inferred from the scale of the attack on the people, the nature of the attack, the general conduct. And what it says is that normally there should be a holistic approach in order to identify intent, which is exactly what I’ve done.
And indeed, this is why I proposed in this report what I called the triple lens approach. We need to look at the conduct, like the totality of the conduct, instead of studying with a microscope each and every crime. We need to look at the whole, against the totality of the people, the Palestinians as such, in the totality of the land, that Israel has slated as its own by divine design.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: No, absolutely. And then, if you could — the other precedent you’ve just spoken about — of course, Rwanda and former Yugoslavia — another case that you cite in the International Court of Justice is The Gambia v. Myanmar. So, how is that comparable to what we see happening in Gaza? Why is that a relevant example and different from both Rwanda and former Yugoslavia?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Let me tell you what I see as the major differences in the case of Israel, because it’s a very complex discussion. But in all four cases, there is a toxic combination of hatred, ideological hatred, which has informed political doctrines. And this is true in all the various contexts we are mentioning. The other common element is that there is [a] combination of crimes. Like, forced displacement is not an act of genocide per se, but the jurisprudence says that it can contribute to corroborate the intent.
But, again, mass killing or mass destruction of property, torture and other crimes against a person, which translate into an infliction of physical and mental harm to the group, not individuals as such, but individuals as part of the group, these are common elements to all genocides.
What I find characteristic in this one is, first of all, this is not — I mean, the state of Israel is not Myanmar and is not Rwanda 30 years ago. This is not war-torn former Yugoslavia. This is a state which has a separation of powers, different organs, as I said, checks and balances. And let me give you a specific example, because you asked me to comment on the state functions.
In January this year, the International Court of Justice issued a set of preliminary measures in the context of its identification, before even looking at the merits of the case initiated by South Africa for Israel’s breach, alleged breach, of the Genocide Convention, which identified the plausibility of risk for the rights protected — of the rights of the Palestinians protected under the Genocide Convention, which means plausibility — it’s semantics, but it’s plausibility that genocide might be committed against the Palestinians in Gaza.
And the provisional measures included an obligation to investigate and prosecute the various cases of incitement, genocidal incitement, that the court had already identified. And it mentions leaders, senior leaders, of the Israeli state. Has there been any investigation? Has there been any prosecution?
But I’m telling you more. The genocidal statements didn’t resonate as shocking in the Israeli public, not only because there was rage, an enormous rage and animosity, of course. I mean, this is understandable, that the facts of October 7 were brutal and traumatized the people.
But at the same time, hatred against the Palestinians and hate speech, it’s not something that started on October 7. I do remember, and I do remember the shock I felt because no one was reacting, and years ago, there were Israeli ministers talking of — freely, of killing, justifying the killing of Palestinians’ mothers and children because they would turn into terrorists.
AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese, talk about the title of your report, Genocide as Colonial Erasure.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: This is another element which I think — and, in fact, it’s the most important, where we see the difference between this genocide and others, because there is a settler-colonial component. And again, if you look at what the International Court of Justice in July this year concluded, when it decided that the — when it found that Israel’s 57 years of occupation in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is unlawful and needs to be withdrawn totally and unconditionally, as rapidly as possibly, which the General Assembly says by September 2025.
The court said that it amounts to — that the colonies amount to — have led to a process of annexation and racial segregation and apartheid. And these are the features of settler colonialism, the taking of the land, the taking of the resources, displacing the local population and replacing it. This has been a feature.
Now, it is in this context that we need to analyse what is happening today. And by the way, don’t believe, don’t listen only to Francesca Albanese. Listen to what these Israeli leaders and ministers are saying — reoccupying Gaza, retaking Gaza, recolonising Gaza, reconquesting Gaza. This is what they are saying.
And there are settlers on expeditions, not only to Gaza but also to Lebanon. So, this is why I say that the main difference, the main feature of this genocide, apart all the horrible aspects of it, is that this is the first settler-colonial genocide to be ever litigated before a court, an international court.
And this is why coming to this country, which is a country birthed from a genocide, when I meet the Native Americans, for example, I feel the pain of these people. And I say if we manage to build on the intersectionality of Indigenous struggle, the cry for justice behind this case for Palestine will resonate even louder, because it will somewhat be an act of atonement from the settler-colonial endeavor, which has sprouted out of Europe, toward Indigenous peoples. So there is a lot of symbolism behind it.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:And, you know, the analogy — first of all, you talked about the case brought by South Africa, so what they share, apart from South Africa and Israel-Palestine, is both the fact that they were colonial-settler states, as well as the fact that apartheid has been established as having occurred in both places.
Now, in the case of South Africa, it was a decision that was taken by the United Nations at the time of apartheid, was unseating South Africa from the General Assembly. There have been calls now to do the same with Israel. So, if you could — if you could comment on that?
And then, I just want to quote another short sentence from your report, in which you say, “As the world watches the first live-streamed settler-colonial genocide, only justice can heal the wounds that political expedience has allowed to fester.” So, if you could talk about the International Court of Justice’s case in that context, what role you think they can play, South Africa’s case, in resolving or addressing — seeing and addressing this wound?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: First of all, let me unpack the question of the unseating Israel, because this is one of the recommendations I made in my report. Under Article 6 of the UN Charter, a member state can be suspended of its credentials or its membership by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the UN Security Council. And the first criticism I got is that we cannot do that, because every states commit international law violations. Absolutely. Absolutely.
But there are two striking features here. First, Israel is quite unique in maintaining an unlawful occupation, which has deemed such by — in at least one full occasion, but again, there was already a case brought before the ICJ in 2004, so there have been two ICJ advisory opinions.
There is a pending case for genocide. There has been the violations of hundreds of resolutions by the — on Israel — over occupied Palestinian territory, by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and steady violation of international humanitarian law, human rights law, the Apartheid Convention, the Genocide Convention. So this is quite unique.
But all the more, this year alone, Israel has conducted an attack, an unprecedented attack, against the United Nations. It has attacked physically, through artillery, weapons, bombs, UN premises. Seventy percent of UNRWA offices and UNRWA buildings, clinics, distribution centers have been hit and shelled by the Israeli army.
Two hundred and thirty UN staff members have been killed by Israel in Gaza alone. UN peacekeepers in Lebanon have been attacked. And this doesn’t even take into account the smear, the defamation against senior UN officials, the declaration of the secretary-general as persona non grata, the referring to the General Assembly as a “cloak of antisemites”.
Again, this has mounted to a level — the hubris against the United Nations and international law has been unchecked and unbounded forever, but now, especially after the Knesset passed a law outlawing UNRWA, declaring UNRWA a terrorist organisation, and therefore disabling it from its capacity to deliver aid and assistance especially in Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, this is the nail in the coffin of the UN Charter.
And it can also contribute to that sense of colonial erasure, because here it’s not just at stake the function of a UN body — and UNRWA is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, so it’s even more serious. But there is the capacity of UNRWA to deliver humanitarian aid in a desperate situation, and also the fact that UNRWA is seen by Israel as the symbol of Palestinian identity, especially the Palestinian refugees. So there is an attempt to erase Palestinianness, including by hitting UNRWA.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about your trip here, as we begin to wrap up. The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, quoted on — tweeted on Tuesday, “As UN Special Rapporteur Albanese visits New York, I want to reiterate the US belief she is unfit for her role. The United Nations should not tolerate antisemitism from a UN-affiliated official hired to promote human rights.” If you can further address their charge of antisemitism against you?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what happened. You were supposed to come to Congress and speak and brief them, but that was cancelled this week.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yes, it was canceled. But let me — first of all, I’m very embarrassed to read this, because a senior US official who writes this, I mean, it shows a little bit of desperation. I’m sorry, but, you know, I’m very candid.
And let me unpack my antisemitism for the audience. So, what I’ve been accused of — the reason why I’ve been accused of antisemitism — is because I’ve allegedly compared the Jews to the Nazis. Never done. Never done.
What I’ve said, what I’ve done is saying, and I keep on saying, that history is repeating itself. I’ve never done such a comparison where I draw the parallel. It’s on the behaviour of member states who have the legal and moral obligation to prevent atrocities, including an unfolding genocide.
In the past, they have done nothing — nothing — until the end of the Second World War, to prevent the genocide of the Jews and the Roma and Sinti. And they’ve done nothing to prevent the genocide of the Bosnians.
And they’ve done nothing to prevent the genocide of the Rwandans. And they are doing the same today. This is where I insist that now, compared to when there was the Holocaust, now we have a human rights framework that should prevent this. The Genocide Convention to prevent this. So, this is one of the points.
The second point, — which leads to portray me as an antisemite, which is really offensive — is that I’ve said that October 7 was not — I’ve contested, I’ve challenged the argument that October 7 was an antisemitic attack. October 7 was a crime, was heinous. And again, I’ve condemned the acts that were directed against the Israeli civilians, and expressed solidarity with the victims, with the families. I’ve been in contact with the families of the hostages.
But I’ve also said the hatred that led that attack, that prompted that attack, to the extent it hit civilians, not the military, but it was prompted not by the fact that the Israelis are Jews, but the fact that the Israelis — I mean, the Israelis are part of that endeavor that has kept the Palestinians in a cage for 17 years and, before, under martial law for 37 years. And Palestinians have tried — it’s true they have used violence, but before violence, they have tried dialogue. They have tried collaboration. They have tried a number of means to access justice, and they have gone nowhere.
I can — I mean, let me relate just this case, because last year I worked with children. And someone who was 17 years old before October 7 last year had never set foot out of Gaza. This is the reality. And I spoke with children while I was writing my report on “unchilding”, the experience of Palestinians under Israeli occupation. And one of them — I mean, there were these two girls fighting, because one of them had been able to go to Israel and the West Bank because she had cancer and could be treated, and the other was jealous, because, she said, “At least she was sick, and she could go, she could travel. I’ve never seen the mountains.”
And again, this doesn’t justify violence, but, please, please, put things in context. And even Israeli scholars have said claiming that October 7 was prompted by antisemitism is a way to decontextualize history and to deresponsibilise Israel.
I condemn Israel not because it’s a Jewish state. It’s not about that, but because it’s in breach of international law through and through. And were the majority of Israelis Buddhists, Christians, atheists, it would be the same. I would be as vocal as I am now.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Francesca, just one last question, and we only have a minute. Your recent book, J’Accuse, you take the title, of course, from the letter Émile Zola wrote during the Dreyfus Affair to the French president. You came under severe criticism for the choice of that title. Could you explain why you chose it and what it means in this context?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Absolutely. I have the sense that whatever I say comes under scrutiny and criticism. But J’Accuse is — first of all, it’s the title that was proposed by the editor, the publisher. And I was against it until October 7.
When I saw the narrative, the dehumanization of the Palestinians after October 7, and what it was legitimising, I said, “This is the title. We need to use it,” because I draw the parallel between what is happening to the Palestinians and what has happened to other groups, particularly the Jewish people in Europe.
I say the Holocaust was not just about the concentration camps. The Holocaust was a culmination of centuries of discrimination, and the previous decades had led the Jewish people in Europe to be kicked out of jobs, professions, to be treated like subhumans, as animals. And it’s this dehumanisation that we need to look at in the face today, in the eyes today, and recognise as leading to atrocity crimes.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you for being with us, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Police are reiterating warnings to bushwalkers after another search and rescue response was launched to rescue 4 bushwalkers near Mount Anne in the Southwest National Park. Around 10.30am this morning police received a call from bushwalkers after several tents were destroyed overnight during strong and gusty winds. The weather prevented the party from walking out of the area and concerns were held due to further deterioration of weather conditions. The rescue helicopter responded with weather hampering efforts, requiring a walking party to be inserted to aid the bushwalkers. Just after 2.30pm this afternoon rescue personnel consisting of a police rescue officer and a flight paramedic reached the bushwalkers. The rescue is continuing, with the bushwalkers not expected to be extracted from the area for several hours. A severe weather warning had been issued in recent days including for that area, and due to those forecasts it is remarkable that bushwalkers chose to continue. Whilst the group was well prepared with necessary equipment, not recognising the risks associated with those warnings has placed the party and responding search and rescue personnel in danger. Police again remind those venturing outdoors to monitor weather warnings and consider the impact of the weather on their activities. Other essential safety considerations include; · Taking sufficient communication devices including mobile phones, charging banks and Personal Locator Beacons (PLB’s) · Ensuring sufficient emergency food, water and spare clothing is carried in the event the length of the trip extends · Research impending weather conditions for the area and do not continue with plans where inclement weather is due.