NewzIntel.com

Category: Politics

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

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL Security OSI –

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

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL Security OSI –

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

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Will we persevere?  We always do.

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

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

    MIL Security OSI –

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

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you.  

    MIL Security OSI –

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

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

    MIL Security OSI –

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

    Source: International Association of Drilling Contractors – IADC

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI Economics –

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

    Source: City of Portsmouth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

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

    Source: City of Plymouth

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

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

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

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

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

    The cause of the fire is being investigated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

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

    Source: Scottish Greens

    05 Feb 2025 Economy Energy

    Local Green MSP reacts to brutal INEOS cuts at Grangemouth

    More in Economy

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

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

    Ms Mackay said:

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

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

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

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

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And it was well deserved.

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

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

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

    Point one: Know what you stand for.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Point two: Maintain a sense of perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL Security OSI –

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

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

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

    This is a distinguished crowd.  Thank you to:

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

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

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

    Iowa shaped my values.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Criminals look at that and they see dollar signs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    These are impressive numbers. 

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

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

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

    We are going to keep up this pace. 

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

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

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

    MIL Security OSI –

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

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

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

    Thank you also to:

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

    Thank you all for being here.

    It is good to be back. 

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

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

    I am proud of what we accomplished together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Our strong law enforcement partnerships are paying off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is what we can achieve when we work together.

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

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

    MIL Security OSI –

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

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL Security OSI –

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

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We are well aware that heroes walk these hallways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Please join me in welcoming Major General Robert LaBrutta.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim Remarks at the American Bar Association Antitrust Section Fall Forum

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    “November Rain”: Antitrust Enforcement on Behalf of American Consumers and Taxpayers

    Good morning, and thank you for the kind introduction.  I’d like to thank the American Bar Association for your invitation to this year’s Fall Forum and Deb Garza for her leadership of the Section this year. 

    I find it hard to believe it’s been only a little more than a year since I was confirmed as AAG and spoke at last year’s Fall Forum.  Over the past year, the Antitrust Division has been hard at work on behalf of American consumers. We made a number of significant enforcement actions this week, but before I turn to those, I’d like to update you on a few recent changes in the Front Office. 

    First, Michael Murray recently joined us from the Deputy Attorney General’s office, where he served as Associate Deputy Attorney General.  Mike now will be a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Front Office, where he will be overseeing our Appellate Section and our 4A damage actions on behalf of the American taxpayer.  Mike has significant appellate experience, including as a law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy. 

    In addition, our new acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics is Jeff Wilder.  Jeff received his Ph.D. from MIT and has distinguished himself as an outstanding economist serving as one of the leaders in the Division’s Economic Analysis Group, and we’re happy to have him join us in the Front Office.

    Some of you may remember that at last year’s Fall Forum, I spoke about antitrust and deregulation.  In those remarks, I focused on remedies, including our preference for structural remedies and our emphasis on making consent decrees more enforceable.  I also discussed our commitment to the view that antitrust enforcement is law enforcement, not industrial regulation, and that the Antitrust Division should strive to accomplish its law enforcement mission in the most efficient and effective way possible.  The Division has stood by those principles. 

    More recently, in a speech at Georgetown, I announced several improvements to the merger review process.  We are making good on those changes as well.  Today, we posted a model timing agreement and a model voluntary request letter on our website.  Those documents increase transparency and predictability and will help merging businesses and their counsel know what to expect as part of the merger review process.  We’ve also begun tracking the duration of merger reviews more carefully, so that we can monitor our performance and factors affecting it.  You will recall our goal is to resolve investigations within six months of filing, provided that the parties cooperate and comply with our document and data requests during the entire process.

    I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks today on four important settlements in the last week that reflect the Antitrust Division’s commitment to vigilant and effective antitrust enforcement. 

    As some of you may have seen, the Division announced just yesterday a set of global settlements with three South Korean companies.  Those unprecedented settlements resolve criminal charges and civil claims arising from a bid-rigging conspiracy that targeted fuel supply contracts to U.S. military bases in South Korea.  They are the result of tremendous hard work in parallel criminal and civil investigations by the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal I Section, the Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture Section, and the Fraud Section of the Civil Division.  We were assisted ably by our partners at the FBI and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

    The United States currently maintains numerous military bases in South Korea, housing American soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors in the region.  These military bases need fuel for various purposes, and two Department of Defense agencies, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), contract with South Korean companies to supply fuel to the numerous U.S. military bases throughout South Korea. 

    Our investigation, which is ongoing, revealed that SK Energy, GS Caltex, Hanjin Transportation, along with other co-conspirators, rigged bids and fixed prices for fuel supply contracts issued by the U.S. military in South Korea for over a decade.  They cheated the Military and American taxpayers out of precious limited resources.  As a result of the conspiracy, the Department of Defense paid substantially more for fuel supply services.  Although the immediate victim here was the U.S. military, the American taxpayer, you and me, ultimately footed the bill. 

    The three companies agreed yesterday to plead guilty to criminal charges under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and they will pay at least $82 million in criminal fines for their involvement in the conspiracy.  Importantly, the three defendants have also agreed to cooperate with the ongoing criminal investigation of the conduct. 

    Robert Jackson, who is one of my legal heroes, recognized that bid rigging is particularly harmful to government purchasers.  When he served as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, Jackson broadly denounced arrangements that “compel purchasers to pay a price based on calculation, not competition,” and specifically emphasized that “[w]hatever the effect of this on private buyers, it completely destroys the mechanism set up by federal, state, and municipal governments to keep favoritism and corruption out of public buying.”

    The harm Jackson recognized still exists today, and these settlements serve as an important reminder that the Justice Department and its law enforcement partners will investigate aggressively and prosecute without hesitation companies who cheat the United States government and the American taxpayer. 

    We did not stop there.  We are committed to using all authorities Congress has granted to us to remedy antitrust injuries to the American taxpayer.  Those tools include the authority conferred in Section 4A of the Clayton Act.  Section 4A is an important but underused enforcement tool that allows the government to recover treble damages for antitrust violations when the government itself is the victim. 

    To that end, the Division established a parallel civil enforcement team, led by Kathy O’Neill and a group of capable litigators from the Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture Section to pursue parallel civil actions for damages.  We negotiated separate civil resolutions with each of the three defendants on behalf of American taxpayers.  We also worked alongside our partners in the Civil Division’s Fraud Section, who pursued charges against the defendants under the False Claims Act for making false statements to the government in connection with their conspiracy. 

    To resolve both the civil antitrust and the False Claims Act violations, these three defendants have agreed to pay an additional $154 million in total.  They also have agreed to cooperate fully with the Division’s ongoing civil investigation and to implement effective antitrust compliance programs.

    These historic cases mark the first significant settlements under Section 4A in many years.  In fact, as far as we can tell based on our records, they are the largest settlements the government has ever recovered since the enactment of Section 4A.    

    Let me take a step back to review the history of Section 4A. 

    When Congress enacted the Sherman Act in 1890 and the Clayton Act in 1914, neither statute contained a provision specifically allowing the government to recover damages it suffered as a result of an antitrust violation.  In 1939, the United States, led by Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold, brought its first-ever antitrust suit for damages on its own behalf.   The government claimed authority to do so under Section 7 of the Sherman Act, which was the predecessor of Section 4 of the Clayton Act.  As most of you know, Section 4 permits “any person” injured by an antitrust violation to recover the damages they suffered. 

    In that pioneering case, United States v. Cooper, the government alleged that eighteen defendants had “collusively fixed” bids that were “identical to the penny on eighty-two different sizes of tires” sold to the United States.  The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the action on the question of whether the government is a “person” entitled to bring an action for damages under the statute.  The Second Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court ultimately held that the United States is not a “person” entitled to sue. 

    In 1955, Congress amended the Clayton Act in response to the Court’s ruling in Cooper by adding Section 4A.  As originally enacted, Section 4A allowed the government to recover only single damages, so that the government could recover damages where it was the victim of an antitrust violation. 

    At first, the Division used Section 4A aggressively, filing numerous cases for damages throughout the 1960s and 1970s.  In the 1980s, however, the government brought only four cases under Section 4A—a remarkable decline from the prior two decades.  Some attributed this drop, in part, to the Supreme Court’s Illinois Brick decision in 1978, because many of the cases brought in the ‘60s and ‘70s involved claims by the United States as an indirect purchaser.  The government, however, increasingly purchases goods and services directly.

    The next milestone came in 1990, when Congress amended the Clayton Act again to allow the government to seek treble damages in Section 4A cases. 

    Since 1990, a span of nearly thirty years, only three Section 4A cases have been filed.  In 1991, the Division recovered $250,000 from two companies for rigging bids to purchase surplus gunpowder.  In 1994, the Division filed suit against two defense contractors for entering into a “teaming” arrangement that eliminated competition in supplying the Department of Defense with cluster bombs.  In that case, the Division recovered $4 million on behalf of American taxpayers and obtained an $8 million discount on the bid price.  In 2012, the Division challenged collusion between two companies bidding on four natural gas leases at auctions run by the Bureau of Land Management.  The Division recovered $275,000 from each company. 

    The American Taxpayer deserves to see a revitalization of the government’s Section 4A authority.  This week’s settlements are only the first in that direction.  Going forward, the Division will exercise 4A authority to seek compensation for taxpayers when the government has been the victim of an antitrust violation.  We hope that these efforts will also deter future violations. 

    In light of our policy of seeking damages under Section 4A where available, I would like to address how parallel criminal and civil enforcement will proceed going forward. 

    First, the Division’s new focus on Section 4A enforcement will not require any changes to the Division’s leniency policy.  The Division offers strong incentives to come forward to report criminal antitrust violations in exchange for leniency, and those incentives do not change when the government is harmed by the violation. 

    The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, better known as ACPERA, created another valuable incentive for leniency applications.  Under ACPERA’s detrebling provision, those who successfully qualify for leniency will be subject only to single damages in follow-on civil suits, rather than treble damages.  In addition, those who successfully qualify for leniency are not subject to joint and several liability.

    This detrebling incentive will apply to any Section 4A claims brought by the government.  We will also follow the underlying requirements for ACPERA in Section 4A cases: companies will need to cooperate with the civil team, as they would with any private plaintiff, in order to reap the detrebling benefits.

    The bottom line is that the Division’s enforcement of Section 4A will increase the incentive for co-conspirators in cartel cases to come forward. 

    Separately, I should note that global resolutions like the ones announced yesterday should serve the interests of the parties as well.  Cooperating companies subject to penalties under multiple statutes can gain certainty and finality.  Employees, customers, and investors can resolve the problem and move on. This is consistent with the Department’s broader policies on coordination of corporate penalties.

    Next, as we pursue Section 4A damages going forward, global resolutions of criminal and civil antitrust liability will help maintain a consistent policy on how to calculate civil damages.  Yesterday’s settlements underscore this point.  They provide that SK Energy, GS Caltex, and Hanjin each will pay an amount calculated to exceed the overcharge paid by the government.  At the same time, the amount reflects both the value of the cooperation commitments each defendant made as a condition of settlement and the cost savings the Division realized by avoiding extended litigation.  

    As a general matter, if the government is required to litigate claims it brings under Section 4A, the government will seek treble damages.  In addition, we anticipate that earlier cooperators will benefit by paying a lower multiple of damages, because the value of their cooperation is higher earlier in our investigation. 

    I will turn now to another significant settlement the Division filed this week, one which resolves a complaint against six broadcast television companies alleging that they engaged in widespread, unlawful sharing of non-public, competitively sensitive information.  Along with the complaint, the Division filed proposed final judgments requiring the companies to cease such conduct and to undergo rigorous compliance and reporting measures for the next seven years.

    We uncovered this conduct during our investigation into Sinclair Broadcasting Group’s proposed acquisition of Tribune Media Company, which has since been abandoned. 

    As we allege in the complaint, the defendants agreed in local broadcasting markets throughout the United States to exchange revenue pacing information and other competitively sensitive information.  “Pacing” compares a broadcast station’s revenues booked for a certain time period to the revenues booked in the same point in the previous year.  Pacing indicates how each station is performing versus the rest of the market and provides insight into each station’s remaining spot advertising for the period. 

    We discovered that the defendants had been exchanging pacing information either directly between stations or corporate headquarters, or indirectly through national representatives that help local stations sell advertisements to national advertisers.  By exchanging this information, the broadcasters were better able to anticipate whether their competitors were likely to raise, maintain, or lower spot advertising prices, which in turn helped inform the stations’ own pricing strategies and negotiations with advertisers.  As a result, the information exchanges harmed the competitive price-setting process.

    We have not heard any legitimate pro-competitive justification for this conduct.  We are therefore pleased that these companies recognized that a protracted investigation and litigation would serve no purpose, and we welcome their cooperation as our investigation continues.  We also want to remind businesses, as well as the antitrust practitioners that advise them, that agreements between competitors to exchange competitively sensitive information can violate the antitrust laws and lead to a civil enforcement action even if the conduct does not amount to the type of hard core cartel conduct that the Antitrust Division prosecutes criminally.

    Finally, this morning we announced the third significant enforcement resolution this week—a settlement with Atrium Health, formerly known as Carolinas Healthcare System.  We were joined in the settlement by the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office, and we thank them for their partnership in this action.  The settlement resolves over two years of civil antitrust litigation challenging the hospital system’s use of anticompetitive steering restrictions in its contracts with major health insurers.  These steering restrictions prevented health insurers from promoting innovative health plans and more cost-effective healthcare providers.  

    Atrium is the dominant hospital system in the Charlotte, North Carolina metropolitan area.  It used its market power to limit major health insurers’ ability to introduce plans designed to encourage consumers to choose cost-effective healthcare providers.  Specifically, Atrium would agree to participate in a broad network plan only if the insurer would commit not to introduce other plans that would steer patients away from Atrium.  The steering restrictions also deliberately constrained insurers from providing consumers with transparency into the comparative cost and quality of their healthcare alternatives.

    Because the steering restrictions were in place, insurers could not introduce more innovative health insurance plans that create financial incentives for patients to use lower-cost healthcare services.  Needless to say, competition for patients encourages healthcare providers to reduce costs, lower prices, and increase quality.  These steering restrictions inhibited competition among healthcare providers to provide higher quality, lower-cost services.  

    The resolution prevents Atrium from enforcing the steering restrictions in its contracts with major health insurers.  If approved by the Court, it will restore competition between healthcare providers in Charlotte, North Carolina.

    I would like to make a broader point about the Division’s settlements this week.  The consent decrees in all three cases, like all other decrees the Division has entered into the past 13 months, include specific new provisions designed to improve their enforceability. 

    These provisions (i) address the burden of proof in a civil contempt action by providing that the preponderance standard will apply; (ii) make defendants responsible for reimbursing the government for all costs it incurs in connection with enforcing the decree; (iii) allow the United States to seek a one-time extension of the term of the decree in the event of a violation, or to terminate the decree early if continuation is no longer necessary or in the public interest.  Another provision addresses interpretation of the decree by stating that courts can enforce any provisions that are stated specifically and in reasonable detail, whether or not they are clear and unambiguous on their face.

    The Division serves as a guardian of American consumers, and we act in the public’s trust.  When the Division enters into a consent decree to resolve charges of anticompetitive conduct, we will hold parties’ feet to the fire and enforce the decrees. 

    Finally, last Friday, three defendants pled guilty to conspiring to rig bids and allocate the market in auctions of foreclosed properties in Palm Beach County, Florida.  This case is unlike the Division’s prior foreclosure auction prosecutions because the auction occurred online rather than in-person, and the collusion occurred primarily by text message rather than in-person.  It is a good illustration of the fact that while defendants may use new platforms and technologies to commit antitrust crimes, the Division too is evolving and stands ready to prosecute these crimes in the digital age.

    The conspiracy took place in the aftermath of the financial crisis, which affected the housing market nationwide and the Florida real estate market in particular.  Defendants and their affiliated business entities were the largest buyers of foreclosed properties in Palm Beach County.  Together, the commerce affected by the defendants’ collusion was $25 million. 

    The Division began an investigation into possible collusion in online foreclosure auctions in Palm Beach County, Florida after receiving an anonymous citizen complaint that included a link to a YouTube video detailing the collusion. 

    Co-conspirators texted each other to coordinate their bidding and facilitate the conspiracy to obtain foreclosed homes at suppressed prices.  Most commonly, bidders would agree to stop bidding or to refrain from bidding at their co-conspirators’ request.  In some instances, they lowered bids for each other’s benefit. 

    After learning of the investigation, one of the defendants used and encouraged other co-conspirators to use a text messaging application to continue colluding.  He believed that law enforcement would be unable to read or trace any messages sent through the application.

    The three defendants were indicted by a grand jury in November 2017.  Since then, all three have pleaded guilty.

    I will conclude by taking this opportunity to highlight the outstanding attorneys and economists at the Antitrust Division.  They are the core of executing the Division’s mission and work tirelessly in their commitment to protect competition and consumers.    

    It has been a busy year at the Antitrust Division.  We have been working hard on behalf of America’s consumers and taxpayers, and look forward to continuing our efforts on their behalf in the year to come. 

    Thank you.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at the Interpol 87th General Assembly

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    It is a privilege to join you at this 87th INTERPOL General Assembly.  I am grateful to the United Arab Emirates for hosting our conference. Thank you President Kim Jong Yang for your exceptional leadership and for providing stability to INTERPOL.  

    Our theme this year is innovation.  Many digital innovations affect law enforcement, from the rise of cybercrime, to the increasing importance of electronic evidence, to encryption and the dark net. 

    In addressing these innovations, we must respect the primary value that is constant in our work: the rule of law.  Law provides the framework for civilized people to conduct their lives.  At its best, law reflects moral choices; principled decisions that promote the best interests of society, and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. 

     The term “rule of law” describes the government’s obligation to follow neutral principles and fair processes. The ideal dates at least to the time of Greek philosopher Aristotle, who wrote, “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the law.”

    The rule of law is indispensable to a thriving and vibrant society.  It shields citizens from government overreach.  It allows businesses to invest with confidence.  It gives innovators protection for their discoveries.  It keeps people safe from dangerous criminals.  And it allows us to resolve differences peacefully through reason and logic.

    When we follow the rule of law, it does not always yield the outcome that we prefer. In fact, one indicator that we are following the law is when we respect a result although we do not agree with it. We respect it because it is required by an objective analysis of the facts and a rational application of the rules.

    The rule of law is not simply about words written on paper.  The culture of a society and the character of the people who enforce the law determine whether the rule of law endures.

    Since we met last year in Beijing, the news media has reported several prominent challenges to the rule of law, including the lawless attacks on Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Jamal Khashoggi.  Last month, international attention focused on INTERPOL, as a result of the disappearance of President Meng Hongwei.  Such events give rise to questions about whether our member countries abide by shared principles.  In evaluating our actions at this General Assembly, observers may ask whether our votes reflect the values that we profess. We must stand for the rule of law.  

    INTERPOL exists to promote international police coordination and discourage departures from the law. We represent diverse forms of government. But if we serve with integrity, each of us functions as a trustee for our fellow citizens.

    When our successors look back on how we dealt with the issues of our era, they will ask whether we honored our fiduciary duties.

    First, did we develop the knowledge to understand our challenges?

    Second, did we inculcate the wisdom to solve them?

    Third, did we demonstrate the courage to defend our principles?

    Fourth, did we maintain the resolve to achieve our goals?

    I traveled here to speak about INTERPOL’s role in responding to the major innovation of our lives: the rise of a cyber-connected world. 

    The Internet holds immeasurable promise as a repository of ideas, and as a forum for speech and commerce.  It connects citizens across cultures and countries.  It is accessible to the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless.  It creates efficiencies and innovations that immensely improve our lives.

    But like every innovation that offers opportunities for good, the Internet also can be exploited by wrongdoers. Today, there is a growing divergence between the Internet as it is, and the Internet as it could be.

    Malicious actors use the Internet for evil ends.  Cyber criminals employ modern technologies to damage information systems, steal data, commit fraud, violate privacy, attack critical infrastructure, and sexually exploit children. They also launch misleading schemes to influence people’s opinions, seeking to foment division and disrupt democratic processes.

    The Internet enables attacks on businesses, government agencies, and individual citizens that cause damage costing billions of dollars.  And new technologies allow criminals to conceal themselves, which frustrates law enforcement’s efforts to keep honest citizens safe. 

    We must acknowledge the divergence between the Internet in theory and the Internet in practice. Closing that gap will ensure the viability of an open Internet governed by the rule of law.

    Enforcing the law on the Internet requires rapid and accurate detection of criminal activity; cooperation among law enforcers from different nations; prosecution of accused criminals in judicial systems that provide due process of law; and just punishment of guilty offenders.  It means not tolerating virtual online locations where crime is unchallenged.  It means not condoning physical safe havens for cyber criminals.

    Detecting, disrupting, deterring, and prosecuting malicious cyber activity are among our highest law enforcement priorities in the United States.  The cyber threats we face are varied and evolving, and our resolve to keep our people safe must extend to every corner of the Internet.

    My office recently issued a comprehensive report about our work to combat cybercrime.  It describes the global challenges posed by cyber-enabled crime.  It explains how hostile cyber actors damage computer systems, steal data, engage in cyber fraud, violate personal privacy, infiltrate critical infrastructure, and pursue malign foreign influence operations.  The report also details our efforts to detect and disrupt those threats, and our commitment to inform citizens about the dangers.

    The perceived anonymity of the Internet attracts many criminals, including terrorists and those trafficking in child pornography, illicit weapons, illegal and deadly drugs, murder-for-hire, malware, and stolen identities.  The barriers to entry are low.  Criminal opportunities are on offer for anyone with an Internet browser and an inclination to break the law.  

    Yet our police agencies repeatedly demonstrate that with the support of international partners, we can find and dismantle malign internet operations.  We identify anonymous users who commit illegal activity, seize their infrastructure and proceeds, and pursue criminal charges against them.  Criminals operating on the dark web should be on notice that our investigative tools allow us to expose them.

    We must not allow cybercriminals to hide behind cryptocurrencies.  Virtual currencies have some legitimate uses.  But bad actors are using them to fund crimes and to hide illicit proceeds.  For example, Bitcoin was the exclusive method of payment for the WannaCry ransomware attack that spread around the globe, causing billions of dollars in losses. 

    In addition, fraudsters use the lure of coin offerings and the promise of new currencies to bilk unsuspecting investors, promote scams, and engage in market manipulation.  The challenges of regulating, seizing, and tracing virtual currencies demand a multinational response.  We must work together to make clear that the rule of law can reach the entire blockchain.

    To that end, last year, prosecutors in the United States announced the indictment of Alexander Vinnick and the virtual currency exchange he allegedly operated. That exchange received more than $4 billion of virtual currency. It was designed without any means to control money laundering, so predictably it served as a hub for international criminals seeking to hide and launder ill-gotten gains. 

    We filed criminal charges and assessed a $110 million civil penalty against the exchange for willfully violating our anti-money laundering laws, as well as a $12 million penalty against Vinnick.

    To prevent virtual currency from being abused by criminals, terrorist financiers, or sanctions evaders, all of us must implement policies that mitigate the risks posed by the new technology.  My country includes virtual currencies in our anti-money laundering regulations.  And the Financial Action Task Force urges all nations to make clear that global anti-money laundering standards apply to virtual currency products and service providers. We must guard against abuses of digital currency.

    We also need to protect against abuses of encrypted communications.  Encryption can be useful in the fight against cybercrime.  Encrypting data makes it more safe and secure.  But the proliferation of warrant-proof encryption also poses a challenge to effective law enforcement. 

    Encryption technologies designed to be impervious to legal process impede our ability to access investigative data.  In September, the chief law enforcement officials of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand joined together to issue a “Statement of Principles on Access to Evidence and Encryption.”

    While acknowledging the benefits of encryption, they called for urgent, sustained attention and informed discussion about the increasing difficulty law enforcement agencies face in accessing evidence of criminal conduct.

    We will continue to work closely with technology companies to establish responsible practices that consider both privacy concerns and public safety imperatives.

    On the Internet, data is decentralized, information flows across continents, and online activities are dispersed across global networks. Cybercrime knows no borders.  As a result, international cooperation is indispensable.  INTERPOL is central to that cooperation.

    We must ensure that appropriate criminal laws are enforced.  Each of us must do our part to bring malicious actors to justice.  We rely on international partners to locate, arrest, and extradite cybercriminals so that they may be held accountable.  Cybercriminals should find no safe haven, either on the dark web or within national borders.

    In the United States, we continue to faithfully discharge our responsibility to extradite fugitives. In the last five years, we extradited 95 Americans, honoring inquiries whenever the requesting state presents sufficient evidence of criminality.

    For example, last year the United States sent Shawn Gregory Towner to Ireland.  Towner was arrested in Ireland in 2006 after authorities found him watching images of child sexual abuse on his laptop in Dublin, but he fled to the United States after being released on bail.  My country located Towner and sent him to Ireland to stand trial. 

    We process extraditions without regard to the nationality of the offender. 

    But that cooperation must be reciprocated.

    International cooperation was essential to our successful dismantlement of the Kelihos botnet, a global network of tens of thousands of infected computers.  Criminals used the network to harvest login credentials, distribute hundreds of millions of spam e-mails, and install ransomware and other malicious software. 

    In 2017, prosecutors obtained judicial orders authorizing law enforcement to neutralize the botnet by seizing control of malicious domains and redirecting traffic to servers we controlled. 

    Disabling the botnet was only part of the equation. The criminals responsible for creating and administering the botnet also should be held accountable. American prosecutors charged Peter Levashov of St. Petersburg, Russia for multiple offenses stemming from his control and operation of the Kelihos botnet.  Levashov is a cybercriminal who operated multiple botnets with impunity for nearly two decades. 

    Spanish authorities arrested Levashov and extradited him to the United States. In September, Levashov was found guilty in a fair and public judicial proceeding.

    Levashov’s extradition represented effective coordination with our foreign partners.  Unfortunately, not every case is a success story.  In some instances, nations shield their citizens from the rule of law with schemes that waste resources, cause needless delay, thwart investigative efforts, and undermine justice. 

    Consider the prosecution of accused hacker Aleksey Belan.  Belan is a Russian national who was indicted in the United States for massive computer breaches on American companies.  After the United States issued an arrest warrant, Belan was reportedly arrested in 2013.  But he was permitted to return to Russia. 

    A second indictment alleges that in 2014, after Belan returned to Russia, Russian intelligence agents recruited him to carry out one of the largest data breaches in history, stealing information from more than 500 million individual email accounts of people around the world. 

    The rule of law suffers when cybercriminals are given safe havens.  The United States will continue to promote the rule of law by identifying, exposing, and seeking to extradite perpetrators who harm innocent people.  And we will continue to support legitimate investigations and prosecutions conducted by our INTERPOL partners. 

    At the same time, we will expose schemes to manipulate the extradition process.  We will identify nations that routinely block the fair administration of justice and fail to act in good faith, with a sincere commitment to holding criminals accountable.

    As cyber threats grow in scale and sophistication, we increasingly need to search throughout the world for evidence, witnesses, and defendants.  Our responses must be as innovative as the criminal activity. We depend on expeditious international cooperation and coordination in dismantling malicious criminal operations. 

    Child exploitation cases provide a useful model for international coordination.  INTERPOL’s International Child Sexual Exploitation image and video database uses image and video comparison software to identify and locate child sexual exploitation victims and their abusers.  The database has led to the arrest of nearly 6,300 offenders. Recently, it helped authorities rescue five victims in Spain.  That is a superb example of innovative law enforcement.

    In my country, we play a leading role by identifying cases in which child exploitation materials are generated from or hosted in other countries.  Then we disseminate the information to the appropriate INTERPOL member countries. Our partners often request follow-up information to assist in their own investigations. Last year, almost nine million investigative leads were distributed through this program, resulting in many arrests and prosecutions. 

    Children around the world are safer when our law enforcement agencies work together – quickly, and with methods like those pioneered by INTERPOL.

    Finally, I am proud that the United States takes seriously our responsibility to help secure evidence that our international partners need for their investigations.  We receive thousands of requests for mutual legal assistance each year, and we do all that we can to comply.  We employ expert attorneys and staff dedicated to assisting with foreign requests for electronic evidence.  We devote additional resources when necessary to meet your needs.

    We call upon each of you to do the same.  By devoting appropriate resources to international cooperation efforts, we can properly address the increasing threat of cybercrime.

    My country recently enacted a new law to remove legal impediments to compliance with foreign court orders in cases that involve serious crimes.  The legislation demonstrates our commitment to the vision of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, the primary treaty for harmonizing national interests and enhancing international cooperation against cybercrime.  Sixty-one nations have fully ratified the treaty, agreeing that national laws should include authority to compel providers to disclose data they control, even when it is held elsewhere. 

    New cyber conventions are sometimes proposed that would limit the free flow of information between nations. But that would dangerously impede efforts to investigate cybercrime. It would protect criminals and allow cyber threats to proliferate and grow in scale and sophistication.  That is untenable in a world in which criminals using computers shielded by layers of anonymity can harm innocent victims in any one of our nations, anywhere in the world. Such limitations would be a step backward, not an innovative law enforcement approach.

    No nation should exempt itself from just and reasonable law enforcement cooperation. No nation will be more prosperous, more secure, or more respected because it supports cybercriminals. 

    My fellow delegates, there is a parable about three stonecutters asked to describe what they are doing.  They answer in varying ways. The first stonecutter focuses on how the job benefits him. He says, “I am earning a living.” The second man narrowly describes his personal task: “I am cutting stone.” The third man has a very different perspective. Instead of focusing solely on his work, he explains what it means to others: “I am helping these stonecutters build a shrine.”

    Similarly, each of us helps to construct a legacy. INTERPOL delegates should always support leaders and policies that promote international police coordination and preserve the rule of law – in practice, and not just in theory. We must uphold the rule of law, so it will be there for us when we need it.

    When our successors speak of our time here, give them reason to say that we understood the challenges; we found the solutions; we defended our principles, and we stayed the course to support liberty and justice for all. 

    I am honored to work with you in advancing the INTERPOL mission and making the world safer and more prosperous for all law-abiding citizens. Shukran.  Thank you very much.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at the Department of Justice American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month Observance Program

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Thank you, Tracy, for your kind introduction. I appreciate your devoted service as Director of the Office of Tribal Justice. I first met Tracy more than 20 years ago when we were young attorneys in the Criminal Division.  I am grateful to the employees of the Office of Tribal Justice for everything that they do to promote public safety in Indian Country.

    I also want to thank everyone throughout the Department who works to improve our relationship with tribes and to further tribal justice, as well as those who worked to create today’s event.

    It is my great privilege to join you in celebrating American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month.

    The theme for this year’s observance is, “Sovereignty, Trust and Resilience.” It encourages us to reflect on the important contributions of Native Americans and Alaska Natives to the Department, and to our nation’s economic, academic, and cultural institutions.

    American Indians and Alaska Natives are an indispensable part of our national fabric. They are business owners, teachers, first responders, law enforcement offices, and community leaders. They serve with honor in our Armed Forces. And they work proudly in the Department of Justice.

    President Donald Trump said last month, “Native Americans have fortified our country with their traditions and values, making tremendous contributions to every aspect of our national life.  We remain committed to preserving and protecting Native American cultures, languages, and history, while ensuring prosperity and opportunity for all Native Americans.”

    Consistent with the President’s words, we recognize the many contributions and sacrifices by members of this community. Today, we recommit ourselves to ensuring opportunities for all Americans. Every American enriches the quality and character of our great nation.

    The Department of Justice plays a unique role in the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Tribal Nations.

    Our U.S. Attorney’s Offices and law enforcement components, such as the FBI and the DEA, are responsible for investigations, prosecutions, and victim services in 51 judicial districts that include Indian country. Federal prosecutors exercise criminal jurisdiction over 250 distinct regions of Indian country, covering more than 55 million acres of land.

    Our offices work together with Tribal law enforcement, state and local law enforcement agencies, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to improve the safety and security of Native American and Alaska Native communities.

    The Justice Department also handles a large caseload of civil litigation in Indian country. Our civil cases include matters relating to environmental and natural resources, Tribal treaty rights, and Native Americans’ civil rights.

    Our grant making components provided over $259 million to Tribes last year. Those components include the Office of Justice Programs, the Office for Victims of Crime, the Office on Violence Against Women, and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Their grants support police, serve victims, combat domestic violence and sexual abuse, and strengthen tribal justice systems.

    We are particularly proud of the Tribal Access Program. That effort is coordinated by the Office of Tribal Justice and the Department’s Chief Information Officer. It provides computer kiosks that allow Tribes to access federal crime databases. The kiosks allow Tribes to protect victims of domestic violence, identify sex offenders, keep guns out of criminals’ hands, and help locate missing people.

    There are many success stories involving the kiosks.

    Last year, the Gila River Police Department received a report about a sexual assault against a juvenile. Police quickly identified a suspect, and a warrant followed. But the suspect fled.

    Using a kiosk, tribal police entered the warrant into the FBI’s National Crime Information Center, which we call NCIC. NCIC is a computerized index of criminal justice information. One of its most important functions is to help police apprehend fugitives.

    When police encountered the suspect outside Tribal territory, an NCIC check revealed the tribal warrant. Police took the suspect into custody and transported him to the tribal jail where he was booked using a federal workstation.

    Successes likes that would not be possible without the kiosk system. Since the program started in 2015, 47 participating Tribes have entered more than 600 sex offender registrations into the system. Participating Tribes also have entered arrest data that prevents criminals from purchasing firearms. And Tribes have conducted more than 4,500 fingerprint-based record checks for civil purposes, including employment.

    The total number of tribes with kiosk access will expand to 114 by the end of 2019.

    We are also proud of the Department’s new program to appoint Special Assistant United States Attorneys to work on Tribal issues. The initiative, funded through the Office on Violence Against Women, hires prosecutors to bring cases in both tribal and federal courts. That increases prosecution capacity and helps to prevent criminals from avoiding prosecution because of jurisdiction or sovereignty issues. It will promote the goal of ensuring that every perpetrator of domestic or sexual violence is brought to justice.

    These initiatives demonstrate our Department’s steadfast commitment to improving public safety in Indian country by promoting coordination among tribal, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.

    As part of our observance today, we are fortunate that John Tahsuda is here as a guest speaker.

    Mr. Tahsuda is an enrolled member of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Oklahoma State University, and a law degree from Cornell Law School.

    Mr. Tahsuda then worked as the acting general counsel of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York. He also taught classes at Cornell Law School about federal Indian law, policy, and history.

    Mr. Tahsuda later served as general counsel and legislative director of the National Indian Gaming Association, where he monitored legislation and policy issues affecting the organization’s 180 member tribes and assisted with their lobbying efforts.

    In 2002, Mr. Tahsuda joined the staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, first as senior counsel and later as staff director. He handled policy and legislation affecting gaming, federal recognition, self-governance, and Indian health care.

    From 2007 through 2017, Mr. Tahsuda worked in the private sector, providing clients with advocacy and counsel services about tribal affairs policy issues.

    Last year, Mr. Tahsuda was appointed as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. Indian Affairs manages Federal trust, treaty, and other responsibilities to 573 federally recognized Indian Tribes. Mr. Tahsuda helps to develop and interpret policies affecting Indian Affairs bureaus, offices, and programs.

    He is a strong advocate for Indian country issues, and we are grateful to him for joining us today. Please welcome John Tahsuda.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at the “SamSam” Ransomware Press Conference

    Source: United States Attorneys General 13

    Remarks as prepared for delivery

    Good morning. I am joined by Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski, New Jersey U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito, and FBI Executive Assistant Director Amy Hess.

    Also on stage are the two prosecutors handling this matter: Assistant U.S. Attorney Justin Herring, and Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section Senior Counsel William Hall Jr.

    A federal grand jury in New Jersey indicted two Iranian citizens for a three-year scheme that involved hacking into computers of hospitals, municipalities, public institutions, and businesses. It involved a high-tech, sophisticated extortion plot.

    The defendants allegedly hijacked victims’ computer systems and shut them down until the victims paid a “ransom.”

    The conspirators collected more than $6 million in extortion payments and caused more than $30 million in losses.

    Many of the victims were public agencies with missions that involve saving lives and performing other critical functions for the American people. 

    The indictment was returned on November 26, and unsealed today in Newark, New Jersey. It alleges that Faramarz Shahi Savandi and Mohammad Mehdi Shah Mansouri used sophisticated software to execute their computer hacking and extortion scheme.

    Acting from inside Iran, the men developed and deployed a form of ransomware that they named “SamSam.”  Ransomware is a destructive computer code that encrypts victims’ computers and then holds the computers “hostage” until a “ransom” fee is paid.

    Starting in January 2016, the defendants gained access to victims’ computers by exploiting cyber security weaknesses.  After gaining access to the computers, they remotely installed ransomware.  The ransomware encrypted computer data, crippling the ability of the victims to operate their businesses and provide critical services to the public. 

    The victims included two major municipalities – the City of Atlanta, Georgia and the City of Newark, New Jersey.  The defendants also sought to interrupt critical transportation infrastructure by infiltrating the Port of San Diego, California, and the Colorado Department of Transportation. 

    In addition, the defendants infected the computers of six health-care related entities from across the country, impairing the ability of these businesses to provide health care to sick and injured people. 

    The defendants chose to focus their scheme on public entities, hospitals, and municipalities.  They knew that shutting down those computer systems could cause significant harm to innocent victims.

    The indictment alleges that the defendants demanded payment from their victims in the form of the virtual currency known as Bitcoin.  Bitcoin contributes to the increasing sophistication of criminal schemes.  It is a common currency for criminal schemes, including websites that distribute child pornography and deadly opioid drugs, and ransomware and other tools of extortion.

    The defendants allegedly communicated with victims using Tor, an encrypted computer network designed to facilitate anonymous communication over the Internet. 

    We support the use of encryption to safeguard private information and strengthen cybersecurity.  But this case highlights another example of the challenges posed to law enforcement by encryption designed to resist law enforcement. 

    Sophisticated encryption technologies like the Tor network are used by cybercriminals to commit serious offenses.  These sophisticated technologies pose a real threat to the government’s ability to keep people safe and ensure that criminals and terrorists are caught and brought to justice.

    Every sector of our economy is a target of malicious cyber activity.  But the events described in this Indictment highlight the urgent need for municipalities, public utilities, health care institutions, universities and other public organizations to enhance their cyber security. 

    Publicly revealing this nefarious hacking scheme makes it harder for the perpetrators, and others like them, to do business in the future.  As a result of the Indictment, the defendants are now fugitives from justice.  They face arrest and extradition to the United States in many nations that honor the rule of law. 

    We call on all civilized nations to prevent their citizens from using the internet to perpetrate fraud schemes in foreign countries.

    By making clear that criminal actions have consequences, we deter schemes to victimize the United States government, businesses, and citizens, and we help to protect foreign allies.

    This case demonstrates the Department of Justice’s commitment to identifying and prosecuting cybercriminals, regardless of where they base their operations. 

    We are grateful for outstanding work and collaboration between American and international law enforcement partners in this investigation.  In particular, I want to thank two United Kingdom agencies – the National Crime Agency, and the West Yorkshire Police – and two Canadian agencies, the Calgary Police Service, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 

    Our National Security Division and our Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs also provided critical support.

    Next, I want to invite Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski to provide some remarks. 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Serial Fraudster Sentenced to 10 Years in Federal Prison for Stealing Nearly $3 Million and Five Indianapolis Homes

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

    EVANSVILLE— James Henley, 35, of Greenwood, Indiana, has been sentenced to ten years in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to aggravated identity theft, conspiracy to commit access device fraud, two counts of money laundering, and eight counts of wire fraud. Henley has also been ordered to pay $1,887,426.63 in restitution.

    According to court documents, over the course of three years, Henley orchestrated multiple large and complex fraud schemes, resulting in a total loss of $2,927,758.95 to individual homeowners, an Indiana attorney, a bank, and ten state governments. As part of his fraud schemes, Henley registered five fake businesses (OnTrack Real Estate Solutions, LDI Investments Corp, Lucario Investments, 317 Traffic, and Henley Real Estate Solutions) with the states of Indiana and Kentucky, claiming to serve as the Chief Executive Officer for most of them. None of the businesses were legitimate. Instead, Henley used the businesses to mask his identity, make his schemes appear more credible, and launder the stolen money.

    Henley’s schemes are broken down as follows:

    COVID-19 Fraud:

    Between May 2020 and March 2021, James Henley, his wife Jameka Henley, and his associate Jimmie Bickers used the stolen personally identifiable information of 76 real individuals to submit 120 unemployment insurance applications to ten states during the COVID-19 pandemic. Once the applications were approved, the trio used 65 unemployment insurance debit cards to make purchases at retailers and withdraw cash at ATMs in the Evansville and Indianapolis areas. The states paid a total of $1,119,426.63 in unemployment benefits in connection with the group’s fraudulent applications.  In July 2020, Henley used funds withdrawn from ATMs to buy a Chevrolet Camaro for $22,801.

    Bickers and Jameka Henley have been formally charged for their roles in this scheme but have not pleaded guilty.

    Home Title Fraud:

    Between December 2021 and May 2023, Henley stole five homes in Indianapolis by filing fraudulent deeds with the Marion County Recorder’s Office. Through the filings, Henley claimed that the homeowners had sold their homes to his fake businesses, but, in reality, he had never even spoken with the homeowners.  Unbeknownst to the victims, Henley filed these fraudulent deeds and then sold the homes for significantly less than their market value, pocketing more than $260,000 in profits.

    Henley also attempted to steal and sell an additional 14 homes in Indianapolis and Evansville.  With one exception, the individuals who bought the homes from Henley took possession and ultimately kept the homes.

    For one homeowner, the property Henley stole was her childhood home. She purchased the home while her mother was in the hospital with the hope that, when her mother’s condition improved, her mother would be able to live out her remaining years in the house.

    Mortgage Fraud:

    In November 2021, an associate of Henley’s purchased a home in Indianapolis, using a mortgage loan from a bank.  In April 2022, Henley filed a fraudulent document with the Marion County Recorder’s Office to make it seem as if the mortgage loan had been paid off, when it had not been paid. Henley then filed a deed naming himself a joint owner of the home. Henley and his associate subsequently sold the property for $255,000, pocketing all the proceeds, even though the bank should have received the majority of the funds.

    Auto Loan Fraud:

    In March 2023, Henley purchased a Dodge Durango in Indianapolis for $71,479, using an auto loan from Everwise Credit Union. A few months later, in June 2023, Henley purchased a Chevrolet Silverado in Plainfield for $54,270, using a second loan from Everwise Credit Union.

    In October 2023, Henley connected a JPMorgan Chase bank account to his auto loans, via Everwise’s online payment portal.  Henley falsely represented that the Chase account belonged to Jimmie Bickers, and that he had authority to make payments on his loans using funds from the Chase account.

    The Chase account was actually an Indiana attorney’s Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA), which is a highly regulated bank account used by lawyers to hold client funds.  The interest earned on IOLTA accounts is used to fund grants for nonprofit groups that promote pro bono and access to justice programs. Henley did not have the attorney’s permission to access or withdraw funds from the IOLTA account.

    Between October and November 2023, Henley used the IOLTA account to make two payments, totaling $98,000, toward his auto loans.

    Henley has prior felony convictions for financial crimes, including theft, forgery, and fraud.

    “James Henley went to great lengths to coordinate exceptionally greedy, complex schemes that exploited hard-working families and state government programs,” said John E. Childress, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. “Undeterred by prior felony convictions for the same conduct, this defendant stole over a million dollars, wreaking financial and logistical havoc on hundreds of victims. The Department of Justice will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to investigate allegations of fraud and seek prosecution as appropriate.”

    “James Henley filed fraudulent unemployment insurance (UI) claims in the names of identity theft victims in order to receive UI benefits to which he was not entitled. He enriched himself by defrauding a program that was intended to assist struggling American workers during an unprecedented global pandemic,” said Megan Howell, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge, Great Lakes Region, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General. “We and our law enforcement partners are committed to protecting the integrity of the UI system from those who seek to exploit this critical benefit program.”

    “This lengthy prison sentence sends a clear message: individuals who attempt to exploit and commit financial crime and identity theft will be brought to justice,” said Ramsey E. Covington, Acting Special Agent in Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation, Chicago Field Office. “IRS Criminal Investigation and our fellow law enforcement partners are committed to protecting the integrity of our financial institutions and will continue to hold criminals like James Henley accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”

    “This case should serve as a powerful reminder that individuals with a history of financial crimes will face significant consequences when they demonstrate a blatant disregard for the law and continue to exploit and deceive others for personal gain,” said FBI Indianapolis Special Agent in Charge Herbert J. Stapleton. “The FBI, working alongside our law enforcement partners, will continue to hold those who perpetuate such offenses accountable and protect the public from those who manipulate the system for their own benefit.”

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, Department of Labor-Office of the Inspector General, and the Indiana Attorney General’s Office Homeowner Protection Unit investigated this case. The sentence was imposed by U.S. District Judge Matthew B. Brookman.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Childress thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Miller, who prosecuted this case.

    On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the COVID‑19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. The Task Force bolsters efforts to investigate and prosecute the most culpable domestic and international criminal actors and assists agencies tasked with administering relief programs to prevent fraud by augmenting and incorporating existing coordination mechanisms, identifying resources and techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes, and sharing and harnessing information and insights gained from prior enforcement efforts.

    Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID‑19  can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF) Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Devolution revolution: six areas to elect Mayors for first time

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Deputy Prime Minister brings six areas onto the Devolution Priority Programme with Mayors to be elected by May 2026 plus four new devolved institutions created.

    A major package of devolution has been announced today – with six new areas confirmed to join the government’s Devolution Priority Programme. 

    Delivering on the government’s commitment to widen devolution, areas will be given sweeping new powers, putting them on the fast track to deliver growth, opportunities, transport and housing for local communities.  

    The programme – one of the largest ever single packages of mayoral devolution in England – will support the areas to move towards devolution at pace, becoming mayor-led strategic authorities by May next year if they proceed.

    Today’s measures brings another 8.8m people under mayoral devolution – or another 15.38% of the population – bringing the total population who will see the benefit from devolution to over 44 million – close to 80% of the country.

    Greater devolution is key to unlocking regional growth, delivering on the government’s Plan for Change and putting more money into working people’s pockets, while also empowering them to direct change in their communities.

    For too long, political power has been hoarded in Whitehall. That’s why the government set out its proposals in the landmark English Devolution White Paper.

    The following areas agreed to join the programme:

    • Cumbria
    • Cheshire & Warrington
    • Norfolk & Suffolk
    • Greater Essex
    • Sussex & Brighton
    • Hampshire & Solent

    These six successful areas will now work to an ambitious devolution timetable, with full government backing, with consultations set to launch shortly. 

    In a further step forward for devolution being delivered at pace, today legislation comes into force to establish four new devolution institutions – as a result of devolution agreements confirmed by the Deputy Prime Minister last year

    This includes establishing two new mayoral authorities in Greater Lincolnshire and Hull and East Yorkshire, and the formation of combined county authorities in Devon and Torbay, and Lancashire.

    The government is also focused on fixing the foundations of local government, with simpler and more effective structures and a reduction in unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. Through a national programme of ambitious local government reform, the government will cut waste and improve accountability, ensuring taxpayers get value for money from their services. To achieve this, all councils in two-tier areas and small neighbouring unitary authorities are now being formally invited to develop unitary proposals – which will bring together lower and upper tier local government services in new unitary councils.   

    Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Angela Rayner said:

    The truth is that for all the promises of levelling up, central government’s first instinct is all too often to hoard power and hold our economy back. Too many decisions affecting too many people are made by too few.

    We promised to achieve a devolution revolution by overseeing the greatest transfer of power from Westminster in a generation, and today’s announcement will help raise living standards, improve public services and build the homes we so desperately need.

    By taking a common-sense approach to reorganisation, boosted by our reforms to give mayors a suite of vital new powers, we will make sure areas can truly deliver on our Plan for Change.

    Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, Jim McMahon OBE MP said:

    In December, we asked areas to come forward to be part of our Devolution Priority Programme. The response was clear—this country is ready for change.

    While devolution can be hard to understand sometimes, the aims of this programme are simple: it puts more money in people’s pockets,  leads to quicker, better, cheaper transport, designed with local people in mind and puts politics back in the service of working people.

    Today’s announcements come just weeks after plans were set out in the English Devolution White Paper to grant mayors control over key areas including strategic planning, housing, transport and skills.

    This will equip these local leaders with the tools they need to deliver for their communities, putting England’s regions centre stage in the government’s Plan for Change missions to grow the economy, deliver 1.5 million homes, and boost opportunity across the country.

    The English Devolution Bill – which is due to be brought forward later this year – will also hardwire proposed new mayoral powers into law.

    In order to allow areas to deliver devolution to this ambitious timetable, the government has carefully considered requests from local councils to postpone a number of May 2025 local elections.

    The bar to postpone elections has been extremely high, and the government has been clear that delays will only be agreed where there is strong justification set out by the local authority. The government has agreed to half of these requests, and will postpone elections due in May 2025 until May 2026 for nine local councils. These councils made the strongest possible case that this is strictly necessary to deliver both reorganisation and devolution to the most ambitious timeframe.

    There is an established precedent, including in the cases of North Yorkshire, Cumbria and Somerset elections, and Buckinghamshire district councils elections, under the previous government when reorganisation happened there. The legislation to enable this  will shortly be laid, subject to Parliamentary timetables. 

    In North Yorkshire, unitarisation enacted in 2023 has enabled the council to manage financial pressures though structural changes and service transformation, which is expected to achieve more than £40m in savings by March 2026. 

    Ministers will also continue to work with Lancashire, which is in a unique position as it is establishing a non-mayoral institution and is committed to reviewing its future devolution arrangements by the autumn, including steps to deepen devolution. This review will consider all options available for the area, including aligning with the Devolution Priority Programme when it concludes. 

    Also, given the urgency of creating sustainable unitary local government for Surrey, we will postpone the county election for that area from May 2025 to May 2026, helping to speed up reorganisation and deliver the local ambitions for devolution with the benefits it will bring.

    Updates to this page

    Published 5 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Ukraine has every right to determine its own future: UK Statement to the OSCE

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    UK Military Advisor, Joby Rimmer, says Russia’s war of aggression has achieved little except the catastrophic loss of life, the loss of Russia’s military credibility, and the loss of Russia’s international reputation.

    Thank you, Mr Chair. Sadly, we have started this year like the last, and the overwhelming concern of this forum remains: Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. The UK remains resolutely committed to supporting the people of Ukraine as they defend their homeland. Since the start of the full-scale invasion, the UK has provided over £3 billion per year in military, humanitarian and financial assistance, and this support will continue for as long as necessary to ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored.

    What has Russia accomplished so far? Russia’s full-scale invasion has been nothing short of a disaster. The Russian state’s bold assertion that the subjugation of Ukraine would be accomplished within a matter of days was made almost three years ago. Having failed in pursuit of its own strategic aims, the campaign has achieved little except the catastrophic loss of life on both sides, the loss of Russia’s military credibility, and the loss of Russia’s international reputation.

    The UN estimates that more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians and some 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed as a direct result of Russian aggression. Independent reports suggest approximately 830,000 Russian casualties, a number that demonstrates President Putin’s disregard for his own countrymen sent to fight in a war they did not choose. On 29th January alone, the Russian military lost 1,670 men with Russian casualties for January averaging over 1,500 per day. At the current rate of loss, Russia will have suffered over 1 million casualties by June 2025. As Russian casualties mount, Russian recruitment in Moscow has reduced, with military recruitment currently at 40 personnel a day, five times lower than the Summer-Autumn 2024 average of 200 recruits a day. Half of these recruits are reportedly indebted Russians and foreign nationals. The direct participation of DPRK troops in combat operations is another dangerous expansion of Putin’s illegal war. Of the 11,000 DPRK troops deployed in Kursk, reporting indicates that 4,000 are already casualties, including 1,000 fatalities.

    What has Russia accomplished militarily? Reports from the region paint a stark image of Russian military mediocrity. Russia has reportedly now lost over 3,700 Main Battle Tanks, over 8,000 armoured vehicles and 1,800 pieces of artillery. Any marginal Russian gains around Donetsk, Toretsk and Pokrovsk have been extremely costly, with progress augmented through the cynical use of glide bombs, drone and missile attacks, causing widespread damage to local housing, medical facilities and critical infrastructure. Independent reports state that Russia launched over 1,250 aerial bombs and over 1,000 attack drones into Ukraine in the last week of January. Nearly all resulted in civilian casualties.

    Last week, the Ukrainian army’s general staff reported that Russian forces bombed a boarding school in an area of Kursk under Ukrainian control, where civilians were sheltering and preparing to evacuate. Four people were killed and dozens injured. Russia’s continued disregard for human life cannot, and will not, be overlooked.

    Russia is also suffering the cost to its international reputation. The war in Ukraine clearly violates the UN Charter and contravenes our shared commitments of the Helsinki Final Act – respecting sovereignty, territorial integrity and the non-use of force. This full-scale invasion is not just an illegal act that contravenes international law; it is a serious miscalculation and one that fundamentally represents loss; most appallingly, the loss of human life, the loss of Russia’s international reputation, and the loss of Russia’s military credibility.

    Finally, the UK remains firm in its belief that any path to peace must be grounded in a position of strength for Ukraine. Ukraine must not be coerced into peace talks under duress or pressure from the aggressor. Ukraine has every right to determine its future, and its right to self-determination must be upheld. The UK is proud to be a steadfast friend of Ukraine and will not rest until Ukraine achieves peace on its own terms – Russia must cease hostilities in Ukraine and remove its forces from Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders. Thank you, Mr Chair.

    Updates to this page

    Published 5 February 2025

    Invasion of Ukraine

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James and Coalition of 13 Attorneys General Issue Joint Statement on Protecting Access to Gender-Affirming Care 

    Source: US State of New York

    NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today joined a coalition of 13 attorneys general to reaffirm their commitment to protecting access to gender-affirming care in the face of the Trump administration’s recent Executive Order. The coalition released the following statement: 

    “As state attorneys general, we stand firmly in support of health care policies that respect the dignity and rights of all people. Health care decisions should be made by patients, families, and doctors, not by a politician trying to use his power to restrict your freedoms. Gender-affirming care is essential, life-saving medical treatment that supports individuals in living as their authentic selves.

    “The Trump administration’s recent Executive Order is wrong on the science and the law. Despite what the Trump administration has suggested, there is no connection between ‘female genital mutilation’ and gender-affirming care, and no federal law makes gender-affirming care unlawful. President Trump cannot change that by Executive Order.  

    “Last week, attorneys general secured a critical win from a federal court that directed the federal government to resume funding that had been frozen by the Trump administration. In response to the court’s order, the Department of Justice has sent a notice stating that ‘federal agencies cannot pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards or obligations on the basis of the OMB memo, or on the basis of the President’s recently issued Executive Orders.’ This means that federal funding to institutions that provide gender-affirming care continues to be available, irrespective of President Trump’s recent Executive Order. If the federal administration takes additional action to impede this critical funding, we will not hesitate to take further legal action. 

    “State attorneys general will continue to enforce state laws that provide access to gender-affirming care in states where such enforcement authority exists, and we will challenge any unlawful effort by the Trump administration to restrict access to it in our jurisdictions.” 

    Joining Attorney General James in issuing this statement are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

     

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Video: UK E-petition debate relating to career breaks for parents of ill children – Monday 3 February

    Source: United Kingdom UK Parliament (video statements)

    The Petitions Committee has scheduled a debate relating to career breaks for parents of ill children

    Robbie Moore MP, has been asked by the Committee to open the debate. The Government will send a Minister to respond.

    Read the petition:
    https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/638449

    Find petitions you agree with, and sign them: https://petition.parliament.uk/

    What are petition debates?

    Petition debates are ‘general’ debates which allow MPs from all parties to discuss the important issues raised by one or more petitions, and put their concerns to Government Ministers.

    Petition debates don’t end with a vote to implement the request of a petition. This means that MPs will not vote on the issues raised in the petition at the end of the debate.

    The Petitions Committee can only schedule debates on petitions to parliament started on petition.parliament.uk

    Find out more about how petition debates work: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/326/petitions-committee/content/194347/how-petitions-debates-work/

    Stay up-to-date
    Follow the Committee on Twitter for real-time updates on its work: https://www.twitter.com/hocpetitions

    Thumbnail image ©UK Parliament / Jessica Taylor

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vwk9YTWQpQ

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI USA: A Warning from GAO – America’s Fiscal Health at Risk

    Source: US Government Accountability Office

    WASHINGTON (February 5, 2025) As the federal government’s publicly held debt continues to grow, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) today issued its annual report on the nation’s fiscal health. The report again warns Congress and the Administration about the federal government’s long-term fiscal path and calls for decisive action. As it has since 2017, GAO recommends a strategy be developed to inform the difficult policy choices in addressing our unsustainable fiscal path. 

    “With this report, we project that public debt will reach an unprecedented level by 2027,” said Gene L. Dodaro, U.S. Comptroller General and head of the GAO. “We’re calling on Congress and the Administration to act now to develop and implement a strategy to address this acute challenge. Inaction could result in great difficulties for many Americans and impede policymakers’ flexibility to respond to future economic recessions or unexpected events.”

    Unless spending and revenue policies change, the debt will continue to grow faster than the economy—even during times of growth. This is unsustainable. In fiscal year (FY) 2024, the government spent over $1.8 trillion more than it took in, marking the fifth year in a row with a deficit above $1 trillion. This gap will continue to grow as revenue is not expected to cover growing spending for mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare. The government will have to keep borrowing to finance budget deficits each year. GAO projects that, absent a change in fiscal policy, debt held by the public will grow more than twice as fast as the economy over a 30-year period and will be double the size of the U.S. economy by 2047.

    Similar to other borrowers, the government has to pay interest on its debt. As the debt increases and interest rates rise, the government’s annual spending on interest costs have grown dramatically—and will continue to grow without policy changes. In FY 2024, the government spent $882 billion on net interest—more than was spent on national defense or Medicare. Annual spending on net interest has more than tripled since FY 2017, when it was $263 billion. We estimate spending on interest will be more than $1 trillion in FY 2025.  The growing debt and interest costs pose serious economic, security, and social challenges to the U.S.

    Higher interest rates for the government mean higher interest rates for individuals, households, and businesses. This adversely impact the lives of Americans who may experience higher borrowing costs, stagnant wages, and more expensive goods and services. Find out more with GAO’s new resource, How Could the Federal Debt Affect You?

    GAO’s past and current work supports a strategy for long-term fiscal sustainability. That strategy, outlined in today’s report, calls on the federal government to:

    • Establish fiscal rules and targets to address spending and revenue imbalances
    • Address financing gaps for Social Security and Medicare
    • Reduce improper payments and improve fraud risk management
    • Replace the debt limit with an approach linking debt decisions to spending and revenue decisions. Statutory changes are needed to avert the risk of government default and its potentially severe consequences.

    The sooner the federal government takes action to address the nation’s fiscal outlook, the less drastic those efforts will need to be. Congress and the administration will need to make difficult budgetary and policy decisions to address the key drivers of the debt and alter the government’s fiscal trajectory.

    For more information, visit GAO’s web page, America’s Fiscal Future, or contact Jessica Baxter at media@gao.gov.

    #####

    The Government Accountability Office, known as the investigative arm of Congress, is an independent, nonpartisan agency that exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities. GAO also works to improve the performance of the federal government and ensure its accountability to the American people. The agency examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO provides Congress with timely information that is objective, fact-based, nonideological, fair, and balanced. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta and 14 Attorneys General Issue Joint Statement on Protecting Access to Gender-Affirming Care

    Source: US State of California Department of Justice

    Wednesday, February 5, 2025

    Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

    OAKLAND – Attorney General Bonta today joined a coalition of 14 attorneys general to reaffirm their commitment to protecting access to gender-affirming care in the face of the Trump Administration’s recent Executive Order. The coalition released the following statement:  

    “As state attorneys general, we stand firmly in support of healthcare policies that respect the dignity and rights of all people. Health care decisions should be made by patients, families, and doctors, not by a politician trying to use his power to restrict your freedoms. Gender-affirming care is essential, life-saving medical treatment that supports individuals in living as their authentic selves.  

    The Trump Administration’s recent Executive Order is wrong on the science and the law. Despite what the Trump Administration has suggested, there is no connection between “female genital mutilation” and gender-affirming care, and no federal law makes gender-affirming care unlawful. President Trump cannot change that by Executive Order.  

    Last week, attorneys general secured a critical win from a federal court that directed the federal government to resume funding that had been frozen by the Trump Administration. In response to the Court’s Order, the Department of Justice has sent a notice stating that “federal agencies cannot pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards or obligations on the basis of the OMB memo, or on the basis of the President’s recently issued Executive Orders.” This means that federal funding to institutions that provide gender-affirming care continues to be available, irrespective of President Trump’s recent Executive Order. If the federal administration takes additional action to impede this critical funding, we will not hesitate to take further legal action. 

    State attorneys general will continue to enforce state laws that provide access to gender-affirming care, in states where such enforcement authority exists, and we will challenge any unlawful effort by the Trump Administration to restrict access to it in our jurisdictions.” 

    Joining Attorney General Bonta in issuing this statement are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why is Trump’s preferential treatment of Russia shifting? Because there’s nothing in it for him

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

    When Donald Trump assumed power in the United States for a second time, it was initially assumed that it didn’t bode well for Ukraine.

    During his first term, Trump maintained questionable connections to Russia. Furthermore, his claim that he would end the Russia-Ukraine conflict in a day — with Russia still occupying much of Ukraine — led many analysts to believe that any such policy would favour the Russians.



    Read more:
    Can Trump deliver on his promise to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

    These fears, at least so far, have not come to pass. In Trump’s inaugural address, many of the items he highlighted on the campaign trail figured prominently.

    Noticeably absent, however, was Ukraine. When it comes to Trump’s “America First,” philosophy, Ukraine and Russia have seemingly lost significance.

    Strategy of distraction

    Trump, with his bombastic nature, dominates the media cycle. His proclamations, social media statements threats and insults occur with such regularity that it’s difficult for anyone to keep pace.

    Just as one news item comes into focus, a new comment or ultimatum overtakes it.

    In many ways, this works to Trump’s advantage. People can be too distracted by the latest outlandish statement to pay close attention as Trump pursues his ambitious domestic policy goals. Lost in the media turmoil of Trump’s executive orders, tariff threats and heightened deportation campaign has been a shift on Russia and Ukraine.

    Ukraine, for Trump, is a secondary concern. His priorities, first and foremost, are domestic and aimed at remaking America.

    As such, rather than being driven by any foreign policy goals, Trump’s engagement with Ukraine and Russia will be determined by how he perceives he can benefit domestically in return. His calculations, in this regard, appear to have shifted.

    Complicated relationship with Ukraine

    Trump’s relationship with Ukraine during his first term was, to put it mildly, difficult. His infatuation with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and Russia’s open disdain for Ukraine, caused him to largely ignore the country.

    When he did pay attention to Ukraine, it was as part of an effort to acquire information to damage his presumed political rival, former president Joe Biden. This effort resulted in Trump withholding aid from Ukraine unless it acquiesced to his demands.

    Trump’s position on Ukraine, however, has shifted over time. His antagonistic relationship with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has seemingly improved.

    While there are still tension points, most notably when Zelenskyy visited Pennsylvania during the U.S. presidential election campaign, Trump has moderated his comments on his Ukrainian counterpart. Ukraine’s purchase of American equipment and ammunition, furthermore, supports Trump’s focus on domestic production.

    Lastly, Trump has expressed interest in accessing Ukraine’s rare earth metals. China currently dominates the rare earth metal market, which puts the U.S. at a disadvantage due to the minerals’ importance for future technological innovation. That means Trump has a stake in Ukraine’s future.

    These developments don’t mean the relationship is perfect. Instead, Trump is unlikely to be a burden to Ukraine, and this development is in part due to his declining view of Putin.

    Trump/Putin relationship

    The initial assumption of many analysts when Trump came to power again was that he would immediately favour Putin. The close relationship between the two is well-documented, and has been open to considerable speculation as to why Trump courted such favour with Putin in his first term.

    Trump, however, has upped his rhetoric against Russia since assuming the presidency. First, he threatened Putin with additional economic sanctions. Second, he stated that he would like OPEC to increase oil production and therefore inhibit Russia’s war effort by undermining its primary source of revenue.

    Why the pivot? It likely goes to the core foundation of Trump’s persona: he likes winners. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia and Putin have displayed considerable weakness in execution during the war. The Russian military, once feared globally, has largely proven to be a paper tiger.

    While Russia still has several advantages in the war, it is only doing so by leveraging its future. According to Trump, Russia is in “big trouble” in terms of its economic woes. Trump is not alone in this view. Analysts, as well as perhaps Putin himself, recognize the serious challenges facing the Russian economy.

    It’s not just economically that Russia has leveraged its future. To avoid straining the Russian people, Putin has reached a deal with North Korea, which is providing soldiers for the war against Ukraine.



    Read more:
    Amid the West’s wavering aid to Ukraine, North Korea backs Russia in a mutually beneficial move

    Furthermore, Russia has deepened ties with Iran in exchange for Iranian drones.

    What Putin has provided North Korea and Iran in exchange for these soldiers is unclear. That said, Russia can only provide any technological exchanges for these soldiers and drones one time, as once shared, the same technology cannot be part of other arrangements. This reality limits Russia’s influence in the years ahead.

    The new art of the deal?

    Trump, almost certainly, wants to make a peace deal on Ukraine. It would burnish his reputation as a statesman while simultaneously demonstrating American strength and influence to the world at a minimal cost to the U.S.

    The terms of that deal, however, have shifted in the face of Russian weakness.

    That’s why it’s not surprising that the mercurial Trump has pivoted his stance on Russia. Until Russia can display the strength that Trump thought it possessed, he’s unlikely to do the Russians any favours in the future.

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

    – ref. Why is Trump’s preferential treatment of Russia shifting? Because there’s nothing in it for him – https://theconversation.com/why-is-trumps-preferential-treatment-of-russia-shifting-because-theres-nothing-in-it-for-him-248365

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta and 13 Attorneys General Issue Joint Statement on Protecting Access to Gender-Affirming Care

    Source: US State of California

    Tuesday, February 4, 2025

    Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

    OAKLAND – Attorney General Bonta today joined a coalition of 13 attorneys general to reaffirm their commitment to protecting access to gender-affirming care in the face of the Trump Administration’s recent Executive Order. The coalition released the following statement:  

    “As state attorneys general, we stand firmly in support of healthcare policies that respect the dignity and rights of all people. Health care decisions should be made by patients, families, and doctors, not by a politician trying to use his power to restrict your freedoms. Gender-affirming care is essential, life-saving medical treatment that supports individuals in living as their authentic selves.  

    The Trump Administration’s recent Executive Order is wrong on the science and the law. Despite what the Trump Administration has suggested, there is no connection between “female genital mutilation” and gender-affirming care, and no federal law makes gender-affirming care unlawful. President Trump cannot change that by Executive Order.  

    Last week, attorneys general secured a critical win from a federal court that directed the federal government to resume funding that had been frozen by the Trump Administration. In response to the Court’s Order, the Department of Justice has sent a notice stating that “federal agencies cannot pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate any awards or obligations on the basis of the OMB memo, or on the basis of the President’s recently issued Executive Orders.” This means that federal funding to institutions that provide gender-affirming care continues to be available, irrespective of President Trump’s recent Executive Order. If the federal administration takes additional action to impede this critical funding, we will not hesitate to take further legal action. 

    State attorneys general will continue to enforce state laws that provide access to gender-affirming care, in states where such enforcement authority exists, and we will challenge any unlawful effort by the Trump Administration to restrict access to it in our jurisdictions.” 

    Joining Attorney General Bonta in issuing this statement are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Rhode Island and Vermont.

    # # #

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Industry and Municipal Leaders Unite to Fast-Track Cleantech Adoption Across Canada

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Feb. 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Foresight Canada is proud to announce the formation of the Cleantech Adoption Platform Advisory Board, a key initiative aimed at accelerating the deployment of vetted sustainable technologies across Canadian municipalities and organizations. The advisory board will provide strategic guidance to Cleantech Adoption Platform, which is set to launch later this year, ensuring that Canadian innovators, and public and private sector leaders, can connect more effectively to drive measurable impact.

    Joining the advisory board are exceptional individuals from across Canada, each bringing their unique expertise in CAP’s initial focus sectors: Built Environment, Energy Generation and Storage, Water Tech, Transportation, and Waste Management. These leaders understand the complexities of integrating cleantech solutions into industrial and municipal operations, and will play a critical role in identifying and overcoming adoption barriers. Their strategic guidance will be invaluable as the platform expands to include additional sectors and end-users.

    The Cleantech Adoption Platform Advisory Board

    • Adrian Dirassar (Senior Legal Counsel)
    • Bofa Udisi (Project Manager, City of Toronto; Founder, AlphaCor Sustainability Solutions)
    • Samantha Agtarap (Program Manager, powerNEXT, Foresight Canada; Councillor, Port Moody City Council)
    • Todd Burns (CEO, Cypher Environmental)

    Bridging the Gap Between Innovators and End-Users

    Cleantech adoption faces two key challenges: innovators need buyers, and buyers need streamlined access to proven solutions. Foresight Canada recognizes the urgency of fostering these connections to ensure that high-impact cleantech innovations reach the market faster. The Cleantech Adoption Platform serves as a centralized hub designed to simplify and de-risk solution sourcing for industrial and municipal buyers.

    Buyers will gain access to a curated selection of ready-to-deploy cleantech solutions, commercial products, and completed pilots (TRL 8+). The platform provides a structured, data-backed approach to accelerating procurement and adoption.

    Key Features of the Cleantech Adoption Platform

    The platform offers a holistic experience for both public and private sector buyers, providing invaluable tools and resources to facilitate adoption, including:

    • Comprehensive technology database of products and solutions with detailed specifications
    • Case studies and success stories showcasing real-world impact
    • Technology roadmaps and business cases to support procurement decisions
    • Self-guided learning modules and peer-to-peer engagement for decision-makers
    • Validated assessments, including LCAs, test results, and other evaluation tools
    • Matchmaking tools and support to streamline connections between buyers and innovators

    A Secure, Buyer-Focused Platform

    Listing a solution is entirely free for all cleantech ventures. The platform operates within a secure, gated environment, ensuring that solution details are visible only to serious buyers—helping innovators get their solutions into the hands of those ready to make a meaningful impact.

    Scaling Canada’s Cleantech Leadership

    By bringing together a network of expert advisors and launching a dedicated platform, Foresight Canada is creating a more efficient, transparent, and scalable pathway for cleantech adoption. This initiative will help public and private sectors identify and integrate high-impact sustainable solutions, while providing innovators with a direct route to commercialization.

    With industry-driven insights and a data-backed approach, the Cleantech Adoption Platform is positioned to:

    • Strengthen Canada’s economic resilience
    • Accelerate emissions reductions
    • Solidify Canada’s leadership in global cleantech deployment.

    Market-Ready Solutions

    Multiple top cleantech solutions have joined the Cleantech Adoption Platform, including:

    Quotes

    “I’m thrilled to see the Cleantech Adoption Platform starting to gain some momentum. Speaking as the CEO and founder of an innovative cleantech company, one of the greatest hurdles to creating adoption is education of the end user that more environmentally friendly, cost-effective solutions do in fact exist, and to get these new technologies specified in procurement contracts. The Cleantech Adoption Platform will address both of these challenges, to not only support the growth of the Canadian economy through a growing cleantech sector, but also allow communities all across Canada to meet their carbon reduction and net zero goals at a much faster pace.” — Todd Burns, CEO, Cypher Environmental

    “The Cleantech Adoption Platform is a game-changer in bridging the gap between innovative climate solutions and real-world implementation. I’m excited to support this initiative in accelerating the adoption of vetted technologies that will help us hasten our journey towards net zero.” — Bofa Udisi, Project Manager, City of Toronto; Founder, AlphaCor Sustainability Solutions

    “The Cleantech Adoption Platform, guided by its Advisory Board, represents a major set of tools and resources with the potential to reshape Canada’s economic landscape. By streamlining access to vetted technologies, we’re helping industries and municipalities reduce costs, improve efficiency, and stay competitive in a low-carbon world. Connecting innovators with serious buyers will drive investment, accelerate commercialization, and strengthen Canada’s overall domestic market.” — Jeanette Jackson, CEO, Foresight Canada

    “We are grateful to the exceptional leaders joining the Cleantech Adoption Platform Advisory Board, whose expertise and insights will be instrumental in breaking down barriers to cleantech adoption. By bringing together industry and municipal experts with deep sector knowledge and real-world implementation experience, this board will help accelerate the deployment of Canada’s top climate solutions, driving meaningful impact where it matters most.” — Joseph Mosca, Senior Program Manager, Cleantech Adoption Platform

    About Foresight Canada

    ​​Foresight Canada helps the world do more with less, sustainably. As Canada’s largest cleantech innovation and adoption accelerator, they connect public and private sectors to the world’s best clean technologies, de-risking and simplifying the adoption of innovative solutions that improve productivity, profitability, and economic competitiveness, all while addressing today’s most urgent climate challenges.

    Contact:
    Heather Kingdon
    Manager, Communications
    hkingdon@foresightcac.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Isle of Wight joins government’s fast-track devolution programme 5 February 2025 Isle of Wight joins government’s fast-track devolution priority programme

    Source: Aisle of Wight

    The Isle of Wight has been included in the government’s fast-track plans for devolution.

    The Isle of Wight Council, alongside Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council, and Southampton City Council, received confirmation today (Wednesday) that their joint expression of interest in the government’s devolution priority programme has been accepted.

    This acceptance marks a pivotal step towards the creation of a new mayoral strategic authority, aiming to transfer power and funding from Whitehall to the Solent and Hampshire region while enabling local councils to collaborate on strategic, region-wide issues.

    The mayoral strategic authority will not replace local councils, but rather work closely with local authorities in the region to develop and deliver their plans with most of its focus on responsibilities which are currently held by Whitehall.

    Councillor Phil Jordan, Leader of the Isle of Wight Council, said: “Currently, central government and Whitehall departments make some key strategic decisions about policy and funding for the Island and the wider area.

    “Devolution would shift more of these policy-making powers and additional funding to local authorities such as the Isle of Wight Council.

    “This change is expected to provide greater local control over vital areas such as major transport infrastructure, and health services, giving residents more power to shape the things that are important to them and ensuring robust local accountability.”

    As part of devolution proposals, a mayor would, subject to agreement and approval, be elected in the spring of 2026 to head up the new strategic combined authority. The mayor would promote the interests of the wider region to central government with the aim of driving local economic growth.

    The government is due to launch a public consultation in the spring to gather residents’ views on the plans. Any devolution deal would then undergo scrutiny and approval by Isle of Wight councillors.

    To facilitate devolution, the government has agreed to defer this year’s Isle of Wight Council elections by 12 months. However, this postponement is contingent on the necessary legislative changes being laid down and approved.

    The government has not yet confirmed arrangements in relation to town, parish, and community council elections.

    Councillor Jordan added: “Given the pressing deadlines, this decision by government is understandable and provides us with the necessary time and capacity to focus intently on this critical work.

    “By collaborating across political parties and engaging with local communities, we can ensure we secure the best possible outcomes for our residents.”

    He added: “The devolution proposal is incredibly promising, with the potential to deliver significant advantages to local residents and businesses.

    “It offers a unique opportunity to tailor decisions to local needs and priorities. This would enable us to shape our own future while potentially attracting significant funding to improve quality of life and promote business growth.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –