Author: lucymaysonet

  • HATJ: Money was a Tool to Serve Lack of Consciousness

    HATJ: Money was a Tool to Serve Lack of Consciousness

     

    COSCO_Long_Beach_1280_800_84_s_c1-640x400

    From: Terran
    To: TUCCI-JARRAF, HEATHER ANN
    Subject: Trump forces China to sell port of Long Beach
    Date: 10/10/2019 7:21 AM

    OCTOBER 08, 2019

    JUDICIAL WATCH

    https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/trump-rids-major-u-s-container-port-of-chinese-communist-control/

    TRUMP RIDS MAJOR U.S. CONTAINER PORT OF CHINESE COMMUNIST CONTROL

    Under a long-term deal sealed by the Obama administration, a Chinese Communist company was set to control the second-busiest container port in the United States. In an unreported Trump administration victory, the Communists are out after a drawn-out national security review forced a unit of China-based COSCO Shipping Holdings Co. (Orient Overseas Container Line OOCL) to sell the cherished container terminal business, which handles among the largest freight of imports into the U.S.

    It all started with a 40-year container terminal lease between the Port of Long Beach in southern California and Hong Kong. The Obama administration proudly signed the agreement in 2012 giving China control of America’s second-largest container port behind the nearby Port of Los Angeles. One of the Trump administration’s first big moves was to get the Communists out of the Port of Long Beach. After a national security review and federal intervention, the Long Beach terminal business, which handles millions of containers annually, is finally being sold to an Australian company called Macquarie Infrastructure Partners. That essentially kills China’s decades-long contract with the Obama administration.

    The deal never should have been signed in the first place considering the facility’s size, significance and the national security issues associated with a hostile foreign government controlling it. The southern California port is the premier U.S. gateway for trans-Pacific trade, according to its website, and handles trade valued at more than $194 billion annually.

    It is one of the few ports that can accommodate the world’s largest vessels and serves 140 shipping lines with connections to 217 seaports around the world. The facility encompasses 3,200 acres with 31 miles of waterfront, 10 piers,??62 berths and 68 post-Panamax gantry cranes. In 2018, the Long Beach port handled more than??8 million container units, achieving the busiest year in its history.

    Removing Chinese Communists from this essential port is a tremendous feat and a huge victory for U.S. national security. You’d never know it because the media, consumed with the impeachment debacle, has ignored this important achievement. The only coverage of the finalized transfer is found in Long Beach’s local newspaper, which published a brief article omitting important background information on the Trump administration’s work to take back the terminal from the Communists. The story makes it seem like a regular business transaction in which “a Chinese state-owned company, reached a deal to sell the terminal, one of the busiest in the port, for $1.78 billion.”??The piece also quotes the Port of Long Beach’s deputy executive director saying that the transaction process was intricate and involved one of “our most valuable port assets.”

    Buried at the bottom of the article is a sentence mentioning that the U.S. government, which regulates mergers for antitrust and security reasons, stepped in and required COSCO to sell its rights to the container terminal.

    In the last few years China has bought cargo ports throughout the world, including in Latin America, the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Chinese-owned ports are located in Greece, Italy, Spain and other European locations. In sub-Saharan Africa there are dozens of existing or planned port projects funded or operated by China, according to a study that highlights the threat the Chinese investments present to U.S. influence in the region. One troubling analysis points out that “COSCO’s commercial expansion has created leverage for Beijing   leverage that has already resulted in countries that host COSCO ports adopting China’s position on key international issues.”

    –//–

    From: TUCCI-JARRAF, HEATHER ANN
    Subject: RE: Trump forces China to sell port of Long Beach
    Date: Oct 10, 2019 at 11:22 AM

    Yes, “China” and China were very aggressive about taking ports…from Panama Canal to the seemingly littlest port authority…in 2012, I was presented an offer from “China”, via China, for 100% cash trade for the 440+ Million (gold currency/USD equiv) in receivables created from the mortgage fraud and judicial corruption investigations 2010-12, Washington State.  Selling to China was never even a consideration.  Claire Petrich, a close friend of mine at the time and a long-time family friend of the Tucci family, was one of the Tacoma Port Commissioners…and she would tell me about the security issues they faced in general, geopolitical bullshit with harmful ramifications on humanity reminiscent of her time at the US embassy in Libya when it was shut down decades ago…plus, the stories from my friend Troy, multi-generational longshoreman at Port of Tacoma that was permanently injured in a non-reported terrorist event…

    …“China”/China’s “ways” are well known, completely predictable (my love and awareness to Mark Lindquist and Judge Jack Nevin)…and even in 2012, despite the seeming comfort such a bribe would provide, to even consider selling and putting Washington State and those in Washington State further in the hands of China/“China”, ET AL, than they already were, in my mind and heart, WAS/WOULD BE treason… WAS/WOULD BE contrary to Freedom… WAS/WOULD BE contrary to Creation… WAS/WOULD BE contrary to ALL I AM …and it would have put me, my family, and all of humanity in even more of a dangerous situation….. money/commerce as it was previously designed was a tool to serve lack of consciousness, the energy disguised as said receivables sat untouched and protected, now coming out of/emerging from CONVERSION (similar to the caterpillar emerging as a butterfly) for the benefit of All…

    –//–

    From: TUCCI-JARRAF, HEATHER ANN
    Subject: RE: Trump forces China to sell port of Long Beach
    Date: Oct 10, 2019 at 11:22 AM

    Lol… discovered with the Renaud family in Australia (constructed phase 1 and phase 2 of china’s “twin towers” equiv… plus numerous other construction projects around the world), it is important to know who is who… for Australia was former “China”/China and HSBC Board of Director Patrick Wang’s playground and “fishing pool”… it was because of Patrick Wang, apparently in conjunction with Sir Peter, Sir John Bond, Sir Green, other HSBC, UBS, CIA, United Nation’s unnumbered accounts, et al’s dirty money dealings that Obama got his so-called “contentious”/”strong-arm” deal put on Switzerland…

    …who constitutes Macquarie Infrastructure Partners??? …who is Macquarie Infrastructure Partners?…

    …and while one is at it, off with the “Blackrock” and the “Vanguard”!, lol

    ~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/hatj-money-was-a-tool-to-serve-lack-of-consciousness/= this posting

    Share
  • HATJ: Jump!! QE4 “Not a QE” Begins (Heart;)

    HATJ: Jump!! QE4 “Not a QE” Begins (Heart;)

    JEROME-POWELL-300x216

     

    From: HEATHER ANN TUCCI-JARRAF (86748007)

    To: BZ Riger

    Date: 10/11/2019 11:34:50 PM

    Subject: RE: JUMP!! QE4 “Not A QE” Begins (heart

    lol…”beating a dead horse” has turned into “beating a dead fed (reserve)”…and in regards to the repo contractors/facilitators/peddlers/dealers/pimps, my complete compassion, love, gratitude, and heartitude to you all, specifically and particularly including and not limited to Jonathan D. Betts, Karl Langenstein, Evergreen, Brenda “Steely” and the Geneva gang, et al…may your “jumps” be as quick and graceful as possible

    hugs, love, gratitude, and heartitude to all, by all, with all!
    —–Riger, Bz on 10/11/2019 3:06 PM wrote:

    >

    QE4 “Not A QE” Begins: Fed Starts Buying $60BN In Bills Per Month Beginning Next Week
    by Tyler Durden Fri, 10/11/2019 – 13:05
    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/not-qe-begins-fed-start-buying-60bn-bills-month-starting-oct-15

    Just one day after we laid out what Goldman’s revised forecast for the Fed’s “NOT A QE” will look like, which for those who missed it predicted that the Fed would announce “monthly purchases of about $60BN for four months, split across Treasury bills and short maturity coupon Treasuries, in order to replenish the roughly $200bn reserve shortfall and support the pace of growth in non-reserve liabilities”, the Fed has done just that and moments ago – well ahead of consensus expectations which saw the Fed making this announcement some time in November – the US central bank announced it would start purchasing $60BN in Bills per month starting October 15. This will be in addition to rolling over “all principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury securities and the continued reinvestment all principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities received during each calendar month.”

    In short, the proposed schedule is virtually identical to the one Goldman “proposed” yesterday, one which sees the Fed purchase a grand total of $100BN or so in TSYs the near term, and one which is meant to “engineer a one-off level shift of roughly $200bn over the course of four months.”

    But wait there’s more, because just as today’s surprising spike in repo use suggested, mere “NOT A QE” may not cut it, and just in case, in order to provide an “ample supply of reserves”, the Fed will continue with $75BN in overnight repos and $35 billion in term repos twice per week, “at least through January of next year.”
    Powell Says ‘Time Is Now’ for Fed to Grow Balance Sheet, But It’s Not QE

    Where the Fed’s announcement differs from Goldman’s proposed POMO schedule, is that this appears to be a far more aggressive form of “NOT A QE” because as the Fed notes it will continue well into the second quarter of 2020, meaning it will last beyond the 4 months proposed by Goldman, to wit: “in light of recent and expected increases in the Federal Reserve’s non-reserve liabilities, the Federal Reserve will purchase Treasury bills at least into the second quarter of next year in order to maintain over time ample reserve balances at or above the level that prevailed in early September 2019.”

    The Fed’s proposal indicates that between the continuation of repo operations, and the net $60BN balance sheet expansion, the Fed’s balance sheet will reach roughly $4.2-$4.3 trillion some time in Q2 2020.

    Here is the full statement from the Fed explaining all of the above:
    Reclusive Millionaire Warns: “Get Out Of Cash” Here’s Why

    PhD Millionaire who called Dotcom crash, housing bust, and market’s surge since ’09 is now predicting a ‘cash panic’ in 2019. Find out why here.
    Sponsored By Stansberry Research

    In light of recent and expected increases in the Federal Reserve’s non-reserve liabilities, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) directed the Desk, effective October 15, 2019, to purchase Treasury bills at least into the second quarter of next year to maintain over time ample reserve balances at or above the level that prevailed in early September 2019. The Committee also directed the Desk to conduct term and overnight repurchase agreement operations (repos) at least through January of next year to ensure that the supply of reserves remains ample even during periods of sharp increases in non-reserve liabilities, and to mitigate the risk of money market pressures that could adversely affect policy implementation.

    In accordance with this directive, the Desk plans to purchase Treasury bills at an initial pace of approximately $60 billion per month, starting with the period from mid-October to mid-November. These reserve management purchases of Treasury bills will be in addition to the Desk’s ongoing purchases of Treasury securities related to the reinvestment of principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities. Detailed information on the schedule for reserve management purchases of Treasury bills will be announced on or around the 9th business day of each month on the Treasury Securities Operational Details site.

    Consistent with this directive, the Desk will roll over at auction all principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury securities. As Treasury bill holdings mature, the principal payments will be rolled into new Treasury bill securities.

    In addition, at least through January of next year, the Desk will conduct overnight and term repo operations to ensure that the supply of reserves remains ample and to mitigate the risk of money market pressures. Term repo operations will generally be conducted twice per week, initially in an offering amount of at least $35 billion per operation. Overnight repo operations will be conducted daily, initially in an offering amount of at least $75 billion per operation. Detailed information on the schedule of term and overnight repurchase agreement operations will be announced on or around the 9th business day of each month on the Repurchase Agreement Operational Details site.

    So with a combined firepower between POMO and Repo in the $100s of billions per month, someone will still have the gall not to call this QE 4 “NOT A QE”?

    Why yes: the Fed itself, because the last thing the Fed needs is for pundits to start asking question why Powell is launching QE when the economy is supposedly stable (and just weeks after Trump said the Fed should do “some QE”), to wit:

    These actions are purely technical measures to support the effective implementation of the FOMC’s monetary policy, and do not represent a change in the stance of monetary policy.

    Sure, Jerome, whatever you say: A $60BN Bill POMO + $75BN in weekly O/N Repo + $70BN (2x$35BN) in weekly Term Repo is clearly “NOT A QE”.

    ~~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/hatj-jump-qe4-not-a-qe-begins-heart/= this posting

    Share
  • EO 13892 Executive Order on Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1.  Policy.  The rule of law requires transparency.  Regulated parties must know in advance the rules by which the Federal Government will judge their actions.  The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., was enacted to provide that “administrative policies affecting individual rights and obligations be promulgated pursuant to certain stated procedures so as to avoid the inherently arbitrary nature of unpublished ad hoc determinations.”  Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 232 (1974). The Freedom of Information Act, America’s landmark transparency law, amended the APA to further advance this goal.  The Freedom of Information Act, as amended, now generally requires that agencies publish in the Federal Register their substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of law that are generally applicable and both formulated and adopted by the agency (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)(D)).  The Freedom of Information Act also generally prohibits an agency from adversely affecting a person with a rule or policy that is not so published, except to the extent that the person has actual and timely notice of the terms of the rule or policy (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)).

    Unfortunately, departments and agencies (agencies) in the executive branch have not always complied with these requirements. In addition, some agency practices with respect to enforcement actions and adjudications undermine the APA’s goals of promoting accountability and ensuring fairness.

    Agencies shall act transparently and fairly with respect to all affected parties, as outlined in this order, when engaged in civil administrative enforcement or adjudication.  No person should be subjected to a civil administrative enforcement action or adjudication absent prior public notice of both the enforcing agency’s jurisdiction over particular conduct and the legal standards applicable to that conduct.  Moreover, the Federal Government should, where feasible, foster greater private-sector cooperation in enforcement, promote information sharing with the private sector, and establish predictable outcomes for private conduct.  Agencies shall afford regulated parties the safeguards described in this order, above and beyond those that the courts have interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution to impose.

    Sec. 2.  Definitions For the purposes of this order:

    (a)  “Agency” has the meaning given to “Executive agency” in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but excludes the Government Accountability Office.

    (b)  “Collection of information” includes any conduct that would qualify as a “collection of information” as defined in section 3502(3)(A) of title 44, United States Code, or section 1320.3(c) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, and also includes any request for information, regardless of the number of persons to whom it is addressed, that is:

    (i)   addressed to all or a substantial majority of an industry; or

    (ii)  designed to obtain information from a representative sample of individual persons in an industry.

    (c)  “Guidance document” means an agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, but does not include the following:

    (i)    rules promulgated pursuant to notice and comment under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;

    (ii)   rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under section 553(a) of title 5, United States Code;

    (iii)  rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice;

    (iv)   decisions of agency adjudications under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;

    (v)    internal guidance directed to the issuing agency or other agencies that is not intended to have substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties; or

    (vi)   internal executive branch legal advice or legal opinions addressed to executive branch officials.

    (d)  “Legal consequence” means the result of an action that directly or indirectly affects substantive legal rights or obligations.  The meaning of this term should be informed by the Supreme Court’s discussion in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. 1807, 1813–16 (2016), and includes, for example, agency orders specifying which commodities are subject to or exempt from regulation under a statute, Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U.S. 40, 44–45 (1956), as well as agency letters or orders establishing greater liability for regulated parties in a subsequent enforcement action, Rhea Lana, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, 824 F.3d 1023, 1030 (D.C. Cir. 2016).  In particular, “legal consequence” includes subjecting a regulated party to potential liability.

    (e)  “Unfair surprise” means a lack of reasonable certainty or fair warning of what a legal standard administered by an agency requires.  The meaning of this term should be informed by the examples of lack of fair notice discussed by the Supreme Court in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142, 156 & n.15 (2012).

    (f)  “Pre-enforcement ruling” means a formal written communication from an agency in response to an inquiry from a person concerning compliance with legal requirements that interprets the law or applies the law to a specific set of facts supplied by the person.  The term includes informal guidance under section 213 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121 (Title II), as amended (SBREFA), letter rulings, advisory opinions, and no action letters.

    (g)  “Regulation” means a legislative rule promulgated pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions.

    Sec. 3.  Proper Reliance on Guidance Documents.  Guidance documents may not be used to impose new standards of conduct on persons outside the executive branch except as expressly authorized by law or as expressly incorporated into a contract.  When an agency takes an administrative enforcement action, engages in adjudication, or otherwise makes a determination that has legal consequence for a person, it must establish a violation of law by applying statutes or regulations.  The agency may not treat noncompliance with a standard of conduct announced solely in a guidance document as itself a violation of applicable statutes or regulations.  When an agency uses a guidance document to state the legal applicability of a statute or regulation, that document can do no more, with respect to prohibition of conduct, than articulate the agency’s understanding of how a statute or regulation applies to particular circumstances.  An agency may cite a guidance document to convey that understanding in an administrative enforcement action or adjudication only if it has notified the public of such document in advance through publication, either in full or by citation if publicly available, in the Federal Register (or on the portion of the agency’s website that contains a single, searchable, indexed database of all guidance documents in effect).

    Sec. 4.  Fairness and Notice in Administrative Enforcement Actions and Adjudications.  When an agency takes an administrative enforcement action, engages in adjudication, or otherwise makes a determination that has legal consequence for a person, it may apply only standards of conduct that have been publicly stated in a manner that would not cause unfair surprise.  An agency must avoid unfair surprise not only when it imposes penalties but also whenever it adjudges past conduct to have violated the law.

    Sec. 5.  Fairness and Notice in Jurisdictional Determinations.  Any decision in an agency adjudication, administrative order, or agency document on which an agency relies to assert a new or expanded claim of jurisdiction — such as a claim to regulate a new subject matter or an explanation of a new basis for liability — must be published, either in full or by citation if publicly available, in the Federal Register (or on the portion of the agency’s website that contains a single, searchable, indexed database of all guidance documents in effect) before the conduct over which jurisdiction is sought occurs.  If an agency intends to rely on a document arising out of litigation (other than a published opinion of an adjudicator), such as a brief, a consent decree, or a settlement agreement, to establish jurisdiction in future administrative enforcement actions or adjudications involving persons who were not parties to the litigation, it must publish that document, either in full or by citation if publicly available, in the Federal Register (or on the portion of the agency’s website that contains a single, searchable, indexed database of all guidance documents in effect) and provide an explanation of its jurisdictional implications.  An agency may not seek judicial deference to its interpretation of a document arising out of litigation (other than a published opinion of an adjudicator) in order to establish a new or expanded claim or jurisdiction unless it has published the document or a notice of availability in the Federal Register (or on the portion of the agency’s website that contains a single, searchable, indexed database of all guidance documents in effect).

    Sec. 6.  Opportunity to Contest Agency Determination.  (a)  Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, before an agency takes any action with respect to a particular person that has legal consequence for that person, including by issuing to such a person a no-action letter, notice of noncompliance, or other similar notice, the agency must afford that person an opportunity to be heard, in person or in writing, regarding the agency’s proposed legal and factual determinations.  The agency must respond in writing and articulate the basis for its action.

    (b)  Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to settlement negotiations between agencies and regulated parties, to notices of a prospective legal action, or to litigation before courts.

    (c)  An agency may proceed without regard to subsection (a) of this section where necessary because of a serious threat to health, safety, or other emergency or where a statute specifically authorizes proceeding without a prior opportunity to be heard.  Where an agency proceeds under this subsection, it nevertheless must afford any person an opportunity to be heard, in person or in writing, regarding the agency’s legal determinations and respond in writing as soon as practicable.

    Sec. 7.  Ensuring Reasonable Administrative Inspections. Within 120 days of the date of this order, each agency that conducts civil administrative inspections shall publish a rule of agency procedure governing such inspections, if such a rule does not already exist.  Once published, an agency must conduct inspections of regulated parties in compliance with the rule.

    Sec. 8.  Appropriate Procedures for Information Collections. (a)  Any agency seeking to collect information from a person about the compliance of that person or of any other person with legal requirements must ensure that such collections of information comply with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, section 3512 of title 44, United States Code, and section 1320.6(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, applicable to collections of information (other than those excepted under section 3518 of title 44, United States Code).

    (b)  To advance the purposes of subsection (a) of this section, any collection of information during the conduct of an investigation (other than those investigations excepted under section 3518 of title 44, United States Code, and section 1320.4 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, or civil investigative demands under 18 U.S.C. 1968) must either:

    (i)   display a valid control number assigned by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; or

    (ii)  inform the recipient through prominently displayed plain language that no response is legally required.

    Sec. 9.  Cooperative Information Sharing and Enforcement.  (a)  Within 270 days of the date of this order, each agency, as appropriate, shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, propose procedures:

    (i)    to encourage voluntary self-reporting of regulatory violations by regulated parties in exchange for reductions or waivers of civil penalties;

    (ii)   to encourage voluntary information sharing by regulated parties; and

    (iii)  to provide pre-enforcement rulings to regulated parties.

    (b)  Any agency that believes additional procedures are not practicable — because, for example, the agency believes it already has adequate procedures in place or because it believes it lacks the resources to institute additional procedures — shall, within 270 days of the date of this order, submit a report to the President describing, as appropriate, its existing procedures, its need for more resources, or any other basis for its conclusion.

    Sec. 10.  SBREFA Compliance.  Within 180 days of the date of this order, each agency shall submit a report to the President demonstrating that its civil administrative enforcement activities, investigations, and other actions comply with SBREFA, including section 223 of that Act.  A copy of this report, subject to redactions for any applicable privileges, shall be posted on the agency’s website.

    Sec. 11.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    (d)  Notwithstanding any other provision in this order, nothing in this order shall apply:

    (i)    to any action that pertains to foreign or military affairs, or to a national security or homeland security function of the United States (other than procurement actions and actions involving the import or export of non-defense articles and services);

    (ii)   to any action related to a criminal investigation or prosecution, including undercover operations, or any civil enforcement action or related investigation by the Department of Justice, including any action related to a civil investigative demand under 18 U.S.C. 1968;

    (iii)  to any action related to detention, seizure, or destruction of counterfeit goods, pirated goods, or other goods that infringe intellectual property rights;

    (iv)   to any investigation of misconduct by an agency employee or any disciplinary, corrective, or employment action taken against an agency employee; or

    (v)    in any other circumstance or proceeding to which application of this order, or any part of this order, would, in the judgment of the head of the agency, undermine the national security.

    ~~~~~~~

    Related: http://wetheonepeople.com/executive-order-promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-improved-agency-guidance-documents/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/eo-13892-executive-order-on-promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-transparency-and-fairness-in-civil-administrative-enforcement-and-adjudication/= this posting

     

    Share
  • POTUS: Trump Signs Executive Orders at the White House, Oct 9, 2019

    trump-signs-executive-orders-10.9.19-300x158POTUS signs Executive Orders on transparency in federal guidance and enforcement

    ~ Executive Order on Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents

    ~ Executive Order on Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication

    Read EO here: http://wetheonepeople.com/executive-order-promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-improved-agency-guidance-documents/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/potus-trump-signs-executive-orders-at-the-white-house-oct-9-2019/= this posting

    Share
  • Executive Order Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents

    Executive Order Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents

    Section1.  Policy.  Departments and agencies (agencies) in the executive branch adopt regulations that impose legally binding requirements on the public even though, in our constitutional democracy, only Congress is vested with the legislative power.  The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires agencies, in exercising that solemn responsibility, to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to provide public notice of proposed regulations under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, allow interested parties an opportunity to comment, consider and respond to significant comments, and publish final regulations in the Federal Register.

    Agencies may clarify existing obligations through non binding guidance documents, which the APA exempts from notice-and-comment requirements.  Yet agencies have sometimes used this authority inappropriately in attempts to regulate the public without following the rulemaking procedures of the APA.  Even when accompanied by a disclaimer that it is non-binding, a guidance document issued by an agency may carry the implicit threat of enforcement action if the regulated public does not comply.  Moreover, the public frequently has insufficient notice of guidance documents, which are not always published in the Federal Register or distributed to all regulated parties.

    Americans deserve an open and fair regulatory process that imposes new obligations on the public only when consistent with applicable law and after an agency follows appropriate procedures.  Therefore, it is the policy of the executive branch, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to require that agencies treat guidance documents as non-binding both in law and in practice, except as incorporated into a contract, take public input into account when appropriate in formulating guidance documents, and make guidance documents readily available to the public.  Agencies may impose legally binding requirements on the public only through regulations and on parties on a case-by-case basis through adjudications, and only after appropriate process, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.

    Sec. 2.  Definitions.  For the purposes of this order:

    (a)  “Agency” has the meaning given in section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended.

    (b)  “Guidance document” means an agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, but does not include the following:

    (i)    rules promulgated pursuant to notice and comment under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;

    (ii)   rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under section 553(a) of title 5, United States Code;

    (iii)  rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice;

    (iv)   decisions of agency adjudications under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;

    (v)    internal guidance directed to the issuing agency or other agencies that is not intended to have substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties; or

    (vi)   internal executive branch legal advice or legal opinions addressed to executive branch officials.

    (c)  “Significant guidance document” means a guidance document that may reasonably be anticipated to:

    (i)    lead to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

    (ii)   create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

    (iii)  materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

    (iv)   raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles of Executive Order 12866.

    (d)  “Pre-enforcement ruling” means a formal written communication by an agency in response to an inquiry from a person concerning compliance with legal requirements that interprets the law or applies the law to a specific set of facts supplied by the person.  The term includes informal guidance under section 213 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121 (Title II), as amended, letter rulings, advisory opinions, and no-action letters.

    Sec. 3.  Ensuring Transparent Use of Guidance Documents.  (a) Within 120 days of the date on which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency or agency component, as appropriate, shall establish or maintain on its website a single, searchable, indexed database that contains or links to all guidance documents in effect from such agency or component.  The website shall note that guidance documents lack the force and effect of law, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.

    (b)  Within 120 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency shall review its guidance documents and, consistent with applicable law, rescind those guidance documents that it determines should no longer be in effect.  No agency shall retain in effect any guidance document without including it in the relevant database referred to in subsection (a) of this section, nor shall any agency, in the future, issue a guidance document without including it in the relevant database.  No agency may cite, use, or rely on guidance documents that are rescinded, except to establish historical facts.  Within 240 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum, an agency may reinstate a guidance document rescinded under this subsection without complying with any procedures adopted or imposed pursuant to section 4 of this order, to the extent consistent with applicable law, and shall include the guidance document in the relevant database.

    (c)  The Director of OMB (Director), or the Director’s designee, may waive compliance with subsections (a) and (b) of this section for particular guidance documents or categories of guidance documents, or extend the deadlines set forth in those subsections.

    (d)  As requested by the Director, within 240 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, an agency head shall submit a report to the Director with the reasons for maintaining in effect any guidance documents identified by the Director.  The Director shall provide such reports to the President.  This subsection shall apply only to guidance documents existing as of the date of this order.

    Sec. 4.  Promulgation of Procedures for Issuing Guidance Documents.  (a)  Within 300 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency shall, consistent with applicable law, finalize regulations, or amend existing regulations as necessary, to set forth processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents.  The process set forth in each regulation shall be consistent with this order and shall include:

    (i)    a requirement that each guidance document clearly state that it does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract;

    (ii)   procedures for the public to petition for withdrawal or modification of a particular guidance document, including a designation of the officials to which petitions should be directed; and

    (iii)  for a significant guidance document, as determined by the Administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (Administrator), unless the agency and the Administrator agree that exigency, safety, health, or other compelling cause warrants an exemption from some or all requirements, provisions requiring:

    (A)  a period of public notice and comment of at least 30 days before issuance of a final guidance document, and a public response from the agency to major concerns raised in comments, except when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates such finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor into the guidance document) that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest;

    (B)  approval on a non-delegable basis by the agency head or by an agency component head appointed by the President, before issuance;

    (C)  review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under Executive Order 12866, before issuance; and

    (D)  compliance with the applicable requirements for regulations or rules, including significant regulatory actions, set forth in Executive Orders 12866, 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation), 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), and 13777 (Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda).

    (b)  The Administrator shall issue memoranda establishing exceptions from this order for categories of guidance documents, and categorical presumptions regarding whether guidance documents are significant, as appropriate, and may require submission of significant guidance documents to OIRA for review before the finalization of agency regulations under subsection (a) of this section.  In light of the Memorandum of Agreement of April 11, 2018, this section and section 5 of this order shall not apply to the review relationship (including significance determinations) between OIRA and any component of the Department of the Treasury, or to compliance by the latter with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13609, 13771, and 13777.  Section 4(a)(iii) and section 5 of this order shall not apply to pre-enforcement rulings.

    Sec. 5.  Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13609.  The requirements and procedures of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13609 shall apply to guidance documents, consistent with section 4 of this order.

    Sec. 6.  Implementation.  The Director shall issue memoranda and, as appropriate, regulations pursuant to sections 3504(d)(1) and 3516 of title 44, United States Code, and other appropriate authority, to provide guidance regarding or otherwise implement this order.

    Sec. 7.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    (d)  Notwithstanding any other provision in this order, nothing in this order shall apply:

    (i)    to any action that pertains to foreign or military affairs, or to a national security or homeland security function of the United States (other than guidance documents involving procurement or the import or export of non-defense articles and services);

    (ii)   to any action related to a criminal investigation or prosecution, including undercover operations, or any civil enforcement action or related investigation by the Department of Justice, including any action related to a civil investigative demand under 18 U.S.C. 1968;

    (iii)  to any investigation of misconduct by an agency employee or any disciplinary, corrective, or employment action taken against an agency employee;

    (iv)   to any document or information that is exempt from disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act); or

    (v)    in any other circumstance or proceeding to which application of this order, or any part of this order, would, in the judgment of the head of the agency, undermine the national security.

    DONALD J. TRUMP

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    October 9, 2019.

    ~~~~~~~~~

    Related: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-combating-bureaucratic-abuse-holding-federal-agencies-accountable/

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/acting-omb-director-vought-trump-keeps-promise-tame-bureaucracy-runs-roughshod-americans/

    Video from EO: http://wetheonepeople.com/potus-trump-signs-executive-orders-at-the-white-house-oct-9-2019/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/executive-order-promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-improved-agency-guidance-documents/= this posting

    Share
  • Excerpts from the White House’s Letter to House Democrats Regarding their Unconstitutional Inquiry

    fullsizeoutput_19ac

    LAW & JUSTICE: 

    REJECTING HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ UNCONSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY

    • “Your unprecedented actions have left the President with no choice. In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances.”
    • “Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to participate in it.”
    • “Consistent with the duties of the President of the United States, and in particular his obligation to preserve the rights of future occupants of his office, President Trump cannot permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances.”
    • “If the Committees wish to return to the regular order of oversight requests, we stand ready to engage in that process as we have in the past, in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.”
    • “We hope that, in light of the many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.”

    THEIR ATTEMPT TO OVERTURN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

    • “President Trump and his Administration reject your baseless, unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process.”
    • “Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the President they have freely chosen.”
    • “As one member of Congress explained, he is ‘concerned that if we don’t impeach the President, he will get reelected.’”
    • “The effort to impeach President Trump…is a naked political strategy that began the day he was inaugurated, and perhaps even before.
    • “In fact, yours transparent rush to judgment, lack of democratically accountable authorization, and violation of basic rights in the current proceedings make clear the illegitimate, partisan purpose of this purported ‘impeachment inquiry.’”
    • “Precisely because it nullifies the outcome of the democratic process, impeachment of the President is fraught with the risk of deepening divisions in the country and creating long-lasting rifts in the body politic.”

    UNPRECEDENTED, CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID, IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS

    • In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step.”
    • “To comply with the Constitution’s demands, appropriate procedures would include – at a minimum – the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony.”
    • “[T]he Committees must provide for the disclosure of all evidence favorable to the President and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called to testify in the inquiry.”
    • “In addition, the House has not provided the Committees’ Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas.”

    HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ OUTRAGEOUS ACTIONS

    • “Perhaps the best evidence that there was no wrongdoing on the call is the fact that, after the actual record of the call was released, Chairman Schiff chose to concoct a false version of the call and to read his made-up transcript to the American people at a public hearing.”
    • “The real problem, as we are now learning, is that Chairman Schiff’s office, and perhaps others – despite initial denials – were involved in advising the whistleblower before the complaint was filed.”
    • “Anyone who was involved in the preparation or submission of the whistleblower’s complaint cannot possibly act as a fair and impartial judge in the same matter – particularly after misleading the American people about his involvement.”

    HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ THREATS AND INTIMIDATION

    • “Threats by the Committees against Executive Branch witnesses who assert common and longstanding rights destroy the integrity of the process and brazenly violate fundamental due process.”
    • “In letters to State Department employees, the Committees have ominously threatened – without any legal basis and before the Committees even issued a subpoena – that ‘[a]ny failure to appear’ in response to a mere letter request for a deposition ‘shall constitute evidence of obstruction.’”
    • “[T]he Committees have broadly threatened that if State Department officials attempt to insist upon the right for the Department to have an agency lawyer present at depositions to protect legitimate Executive Branch confidentiality interests – or apparently if they make any effort to protect those confidentiality interests at all – these officials will have their salaries withheld.”
    • “The Committees’ assertions on these points amount to nothing more than strong-arm tactics designed to rush proceedings without any regard for due process and the rights of individuals and of the Executive Branch. Threats aimed at intimidating individuals who assert these basic rights are attacks on civil liberties that should profoundly concern all Americans.”
    READ THE FULL LETTER

    ~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/excerpts-from-the-white-houses-letter-to-house-democrats-regarding-their-unconstitutional-inquiry/= this posting

     

    Share
  • HATJ: Thirteen and a tones of GoldOLWorth up to £520 Million is Found in a Corrupt Chinese Official’s Home

    HATJ: Thirteen and a tones of GoldOLWorth up to £520 Million is Found in a Corrupt Chinese Official’s Home

    19191868-7528217-image-m-9_1570005424274From: TUCCI-JARRAF, HEATHER ANN
    Subject: RE: Man found with 13 tonnes of gold
    Date: Oct 4, 2019 at 1:50 PM

    Karl Langstein’s “buddy”, or at least his “top dog”, lol… I wonder if they found the purported 700 Million USD cash in Lance’s basement yet…or any of the other “cash stash” in the other million or so basements around China…oh my! <3

    Forbes hasn’t nailed the so-called wealthiest people since its inception…but misdirection is Forbes, et al’s job, lol

    complete love, compassion, gratitude, and heartitude as the termination/jump is completed <3

    —-
    —–Ferguson, William on 10/4/2019 10:06 AM wrote:

    Thirteen and a half tonnes of gold worth up to £520million is found in a corrupt Chinese official’s home and £30BILLION in suspected bribe money in his bank account

    by Billie Thomson, for Daily Mail, published on October 2, 2019 

    * Thirteen and a half tonnes of gold worth up to ??520million is found in a corrupt Chinese official’s home and ??30BILLION in suspected bribe money in his bank account

    * Thousands of golden bars and bricks were discovered in a room during a raid?? Inspectors also discovered ??30 billion in suspected bribes on his account

    * The 58-year-old official in Haikou has been sacked and is under investigation

    * He would have been richer than China’s richest man if charges turn out to be true

    A powerful Communist official in China is suspected to have received 13.5 tonnes of gold and????30 billion cash in bribes.

    Thousands of??golden bars and bricks were discovered at the leader’s home during a raid by corruption inspectors earlier this month.

    Their value could be worth up to ??520 million, according to international trading prices.

    Thousands of golden bars and bricks were discovered by corruption inspectors at the man’s home in Hainan Province, China, earlier this month. The official is being investigated

    Zhang Qi, 58, who was a top official in the province of Hainan has been sacked.??
    In addition to the gold, inspectors discovered 268 billion yuan (??30 billion) in suspected bribes on the man’s account, according to reports.??

    He was also thought to have received multiple luxurious villas as perks.??

    If Mr Zhang’s alleged corruption turns out to be true, he would have been richer than Jack Ma, the wealthiest man in China worth??$37 billion??(??30 billion) according to Forbes.??

    Mr Zhang (left) was the secretary of the Communist Party Committee of Haikou. Apart from gold, inspectors also discovered ??30 billion in suspected bribes on the man’s account

    Mr Zhang was the secretary of the Communist Party Committee of Haikou, the provincial capital city of Hainan with a population around nine million people.??

    He had equal power as the city’s mayor, according to the ranking of Chinese Communist party officials.??

    He was also a member of the??Standing Committee of Hainan Province.

    He has been stripped of both titles by the??Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.

    Mr Zhang was a highly powerful man in Haikou (pictured), the provincial capital of Hainan

    Footage circulating on Twitter shows one person counting lumps of gold in a room believed to be in Mr Zhang’s lavish home.??

    The clip and related news have been censored in mainland China.??

    In a statement on September 6, the country’s corruption watchdog said Mr Zhang was suspected to have seriously violated the law and??discipline.??

    He is currently under inspection and investigation from the authority.??

    Chinese President Xi??has launched a tough anti-corruption campaign since taking office. The Communist leader is seen??delivering a speech on the country’s National Day on October 1

    Mr Zhang was born in eastern China’s Anhui Province and joined the Communist Party in 1983.??

    Before ascending to power in Haikou, he served as the deputy mayor of Sanya city and the mayor of Danzhou. Both cities are in Hainan Province.

    Chinese President Xi Jinping has launched a tough anti-corruption campaign since he took office in 2012.??

    Statistics show at least 53 officials have been caught receiving more than 100 million yuan (??11 million) in bribes in the past seven years in the nation. ??

    Mr Zhang is the 17th senior official to have been investigated for corruption in China since the beginning of the year, according to Chinese media.

    ~~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/hatj-thirteen-and-a-tones-of-goldolworth-up-to-520-million-is-found-in-a-corrupt-chinese-officials-home/= this posting

    Share
  • HATJ: at Least 130 State Dept. Official Notified of Possible ‘Culpability’ in ‘Security Incident’ Related to Hillary Private Email Server

    fullsizeoutput_19cdHATJ:

    From: HEATHER ANN TUCCI-JARRAF

    To: BZ Riger

    Date: 10/4/2019 5:50:26 PM

    Subject: RE: At least 130 State Dept. officials notified ofv

    “…orgy of scandals…”…lol, who writes this stuff????…no one is afforded any more “time” to play any scandals out…

    *termination/jump completing*

    hugs, love, and celebrations for All, by All, with All!

    __ _
    —–Riger, Bz on 10/4/2019 2:21 PM wrote:

    At least 130 State Dept. officials notified of possible ‘culpability’ in ‘security incidents’ related to Hillary’s private email server

    By Thomas Lifson, published on American Thinker, on September 29, 2019

    The wheels of federal bureaucratic responsibility, like the wheels of justice, grind very slowly, so only now are we learning that the scandal of Hillary Clinton’s private email server used for official business is still being scrutinized. And while the Big Fish, Hillary Clinton, is out there shooting off her mouth accusing President Trump of the corrupt practices she undertook, the smaller fish in the State Department are learning of their own culpability in corresponding with her on a private server.

    Just the kind of leverage a determined prosecutor could use to obtain plea deals implicating higher ups. Ask General Flynn or Paul Manafort what that sort of pressure could mean. The Washington Post reports:

    As many as 130 officials have been contacted in recent weeks by State Department investigators — a list that includes senior officials who reported directly to Clinton as well as others in lower-level jobs whose emails were at some point relayed to her inbox, said current and former State Department officials. Those targeted were notified that emails they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and now constitute potential security violations, according to letters reviewed by The Washington Post.

    State Department investigators began contacting the former officials about 18 months ago, after President Trump’s election, and then seemed to drop the effort before picking it up in August, officials said.Senior State Department officials said that they are following standard protocol in an investigation that began during the latter days of the Obama administration and is nearing completion.

    “This has nothing to do with who is in the White House,” said a senior State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about an ongoing probe. “This is about the time it took to go through millions of emails, which is about 3 1/2 years.”

    To many of those under scrutiny, including some of the Democratic Party’s top foreign policy experts, the recent flurry of activity surrounding the Clinton email case represents a new front on which the Trump administration could be accused of employing the powers of the executive branch against perceived political adversaries.

    The WaPo and other Democrats are anxious to discredit the probe by blaming Trump for pushing it, but the officials in question deny any pressure and claim that the probe began before he took office.

    State Department officials vigorously denied there was any political motivation behind their actions, and said that the reviews of retroactively classified emails were conducted by career bureaucrats who did not know the names of the subjects being investigated.

    “The process is set up in a manner to completely avoid any appearance of political bias,” said a second senior State Department official, who was speaking on condition of anonymity to describe the mechanics of an internal probe.

    My own suspicion is that we are headed for an orgy of scandals between now and Election Day next year. The rush of House Democrats toward impeachment reflects their own understanding and fear of what is going to be made public. In the meantime, about 130 State Department officials — “including some of the Democratic Party’s top foreign policy experts” — are going to need the services of some very expensive DC lawyers, the kind of help that can force a person to sell his house. Or else, tell all to prosecutors and make a deal.

    ~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/hatj-at-least-130-state-dept-official-notified-of-possible-culpability-in-security-incident-related-to-hillary-private-email-server/= this posting

    Share
  • Trump Administration asks for Comments on Child Sex Trafficking in Foster Care System

    Trump Administration asks for Comments on Child Sex Trafficking in Foster Care System

    43135788_1893526040731209_5550006952353857536_nWASHINGTON—The Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services is putting out a call for whistleblowers and concerned citizens to come forward to discuss child sex trafficking in the foster care system.

    “The National Advisory Committee on the Sex Trafficking of Children in Youth in the United States has discussed vulnerabilities of children and youth who have interacted with foster care systems and is working on recommendations for professionals in these settings. We encourage everyone with specific ideas or recommendations to submit them in writing for the members’ consideration: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/otip/resource/nacpublic18,” the Committee exclusively told The Epoch Times on Friday, Oct. 4, the day the Committee held a public meeting on ways to combat child sex trafficking.

    “If you have comments for the Committee, contact adonald@nhttac.org,” the committee’s official comments page states.

    The Committee held its meeting in Alexandria, Virginia on the same day that parents staged a rally at the California state capitol in Sacramento to speak out against Child Protective Services (CPS), alleging widespread abuse and corruption in the CPS system.

    The Epoch Times reported that the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), spearheaded by Hillary Clinton and signed into law in 1997 by her husband President Bill Clinton, created a program by which the federal government sends incentive checks to states for each child adopted out of foster care—with mandatory adoptions occurring when a child has been in foster care for 15 of the past 22 months.

    The state of California, which officially labels all missing foster care children as “runaways,” has been rocked by allegations of child sex abuse in the Contra Costa County foster care system. The State Department’s 2019 human trafficking report stated that “in the United States, traffickers prey upon children in the foster care system.” President Donald Trump’s Family First Prevention and Services Act, which eliminates some financial incentives for removing children from their biological families, went into effect on Oct. 1 but some advocates say the law does not go far enough.

    Public comments already started flowing in ahead of Friday’s meeting.

    “As an advocate for families and children, financial incentives pose a big problem to the already broken family court system and their unethical practices,” citizen Amy Betts said in a public comment published by HHS. “Jurisdiction as defined, is not followed by these state run family courts. Including that they violate rights daily through use of their unethical and fraudulent activities that they currently use to incentivize the state and its funding. Children are taken from fit families, including through fraudulent orders by the state run family courts.

    “Through the use of ‘Hague Conventions’ stated in the fraudulent orders being created, these courts take and keep children from their families-putting them in worse situations than they were taken from. Many of these children run away, and have issues stemming from the abuses that have been created by these family courts, who through the assistance of DHHS, CPS, and other state run agencies, power goes unchecked and children and families lives are destroyed.

    “This is where the majority of your trafficking victims come from. When wrongdoing is proven by way of these state courts and administrative agencies, there is then no recourse for the victims.”

    “Reform the State run Family Courts! Stop incentivizing the states and these agencies through taking children and placing them in foster care and adopted homes! Assistance must be to the biological families. And abusers must be held accountable. Counseling (and forgiveness) will not change the actions of those causing harm.

    “Without accountability, the abusers understand that they get to continue with what they are doing, then learn new ways to hide behind the law and continue with their fraudulent practices. There are many families, including children that suffer,” Betts stated in her comment.

    “Our agencies and our foster care system has shown the wide range of outcomes for children in foster care,” stated citizen Devra Waterman and others, who submitted the same letter calling for teenagers in foster care to be allowed to return to their families if they wish. “For those who struggle to find a safe place within the system, their outcomes are dismal. Homelessness, joblessness, drug use, prostitution and without family reunification, lacking any support when they age out of foster care. Many adoptive and foster children do not find a permanent place with their adoptive or foster parents. Often, the relationship ends when they age out of the system.”

    “I ask you not to wait. I ask you to implement this simple policy to allow older children subjected to foster care to be able to request and voice their desire to return to the safe family member with support from state agencies to provide the reunification for families nationwide while reducing the number of runaways and sex trafficked foster kids,” Waterman and others said.

    ~~~~~~~~~

    Related: http://wetheonepeople.com/intel-report-children-abuse-bebest-for-beless/

    http://wetheonepeople.com/trump-administration-asks-for-comments-on-child-sex-trafficking-in-foster-care-system/= this posting

    Share
  • Federal Law Enforcement Action Involving Fraud Genetic Testing Results in Charges Against 35 Individuals Responsible for over $2.1 Billion in Losses in one of the Largest Health Care Fraud Schemes Ever Charged

    Federal Law Enforcement Action Involving Fraud Genetic Testing Results in Charges Against 35 Individuals Responsible for over $2.1 Billion in Losses in one of the Largest Health Care Fraud Schemes Ever Charged

    fullsizeoutput_19cdElderly Patients Nationwide Lured into Criminal Scheme; Centers for Program Integrity & Medicare Services Takes Administrative Action against Providers that Submitted Over $1.7 Billion in Claims

    A federal law enforcement action involving fraudulent genetic cancer testing has resulted  in charges in five federal districts against 35 defendants associated with dozens of telemedicine companies and cancer genetic testing laboratories (CGx) for their alleged participation in one of the largest health care fraud schemes ever charged. According to the charges, these defendants fraudulently billed Medicare more than $2.1 billion for these CGx tests.  Among those charged today are 10 medical professionals, including nine doctors.

    The Department of Justice, Criminal Division, together with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) and FBI spearheaded today’s landmark investigation  and prosecution that resulted in charges against CEOs, CFOs and others.

    In addition, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Program Integrity (CMS/CPI), announced today that it took adverse administrative action against cancer genetic  testing companies and medical professionals who submitted more than $1.7 billion in claims to the Medicare program.

    Today’s announcement is a culmination of coordinated law enforcement activities over the past month that were led by the Criminal Division’s Health Care Fraud Unit, resulting in charges against over 380 individuals who allegedly billed federal health care programs for more than $3 billion and allegedly prescribed/dispensed approximately 50 million controlled substance pills in Houston, across Texas, the West Coast, the Gulf Coast, the Northeast, Florida and Georgia, and the Midwest.  These include charges against 105 defendants for opioid-related offenses, and charges against 178 medical professionals.

    Today’s enforcement actions were led and coordinated by the Health Care Fraud Unit of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section in conjunction with its Medicare Fraud Strike Force (MFSF), as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Southern District of Florida, Middle District of Florida, Southern District of Georgia, Eastern District of Louisiana, and Middle District of Louisiana.  The MFSF is a partnership among the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the FBI, DEA and HHS-OIG.  In addition, the operation included the participation of various other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, including the Louisiana Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.

    The coordinated federal investigation targeted an alleged scheme involving the payment of illegal kickbacks and bribes by CGx laboratories in exchange for the referral of Medicare beneficiaries by medical professionals working with fraudulent telemedicine companies for expensive cancer genetic tests that were medically unnecessary.

    Often, the test results were not provided to the beneficiaries or were worthless to their actual doctors.  Some of the defendants allegedly controlled a telemarketing network that lured hundreds of thousands of elderly and/or disabled patients into a criminal scheme that affected victims nationwide.  The defendants allegedly paid doctors to prescribe CGx testing, either without any patient interaction or with only a brief telephonic conversation with patients they had never met or seen.

    “These defendants allegedly duped Medicare beneficiaries into signing up for unnecessary genetic tests, costing Medicare billions of dollars,” Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.  “Together with our law enforcement partners, the Department will continue to protect the public fisc and prosecute those who steal our taxpayer dollars.”

    “The scope and sophistication of the health care fraud detected in Operation Double Helix and the related Operation Brace Yourself is nearly unprecedented.  But the citizens of the Southern District of Georgia should know that we put together an unprecedented response,” said U.S. Attorney Bobby L. Christine of the Southern District of Georgia.  “Our office charged more defendants, responsible for more health care fraud losses, than ever before in this office’s history. While these charges might be some of the first, they won’t be the last.”

    “The defendants allegedly targeted elderly, disabled and other vulnerable consumers, luring them into this fraudulent scheme that affected victims nationwide and generated losses in excess of one billion dollars which spanned multiple jurisdictions,”  said U.S. Attorney Peter G. Strasser for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  “Schemes such as these have a profound effect on our nation, not only by the monies lost in the scheme, but also by stoking public distrust in some medical institutions.  It is imperative to preserve taxpayer confidence whenever and wherever possible.  Our office, along with our investigative partners, reminds seniors and their caregivers to be vigilant for fraudulent schemes.  If you are aware of or believe you are the victim of a health care fraud scheme, please contact law enforcement.”

    “The defendants are alleged to have capitalized on the fears of elderly Americans in order to induce them to sign up for unnecessary or non-existent cancer screening tests,” said U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan of the Southern District of Florida.   “The genetic testing fraud schemes put personal greed above the preservation of the American health care system.  The U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Florida, alongside our law enforcement and USAO partners, remains committed to protecting taxpayer dollars and the Medicare program from abuse.”

    “We are honored to work every day alongside our law enforcement partners to stop the exploitation of vulnerable patients and misuse of taxpayer dollars,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma. “In order to prevent additional financial losses, CMS has taken swift action to protect the Medicare Trust Funds from the providers who allegedly have fraudulently billed over $1.7 billion. CMS continues to use a comprehensive and aggressive program integrity approach that includes fraud prevention, claims review, beneficiary education, and targeting high-risk areas of the federal healthcare programs with new tools and innovative demonstrations.”

    “Healthcare fraud and related illegal kickbacks and bribes impact the entire nation,” said Assistant Director Terry Wade of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division.  “Fraudulently using genetic testing laboratories for unnecessary tests erodes the confidence of patients and costs taxpayers millions of dollars.  These investigations revealed some medical professionals placing their greed before the needs of the patients and communities they serve.  Today’s law enforcement actions reinforce that the FBI, along with its partners, will continue to pursue and stop this type of illegal activity.”

    “Unfortunately, audacious schemes such as those alleged in the indictments are pervasive and exploit the promise of new medical technologies such as genetic testing and telemedicine for financial gain, not patient care,” said Deputy Inspector General for Investigations Gary L. Cantrell of HHS-OIG.  “Instead of receiving quality care, Medicare beneficiaries may bevictimized in the form of scare tactics, identity theft, and in some cases, left to pay out of pocket.  We will continue working with our law enforcement partners to investigate those who steal from federal healthcare programs and protect the millions of Americans who rely on them.”

    *********

    In the Southern District of Florida, the following defendants were charged:

    Richard Garipoli, 42, of Loxahatchee, Florida, the owner of a telemedicine company Lotus Health LLC (Lotus Health), located in Loxahatchee, is charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to pay and receive kickbacks, and substantive counts of health care fraud and receiving kickbacks.  The indictment charges that from January 2017 through September 2019, Garipoli, and unnamed co-conspirators, billed Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans over $326 million, for which Medicare paid over $84 million, for false and fraudulent Cancer Genomic tests (CGx Tests) that were not medically necessary, and not eligible for Medicare reimbursement.  Doctors contracted with Lotus Health allegedly authorized bogus doctors’ orders that the CGx Tests were medically necessary when the doctors did not engage in treatment of the beneficiaries, had no physician-patient relationship with them, and often did not even speak with the beneficiaries for whom they ordered tests.  The Indictment alleges that various companies paid kickbacks to Lotus Health in exchange for ordering and arranging for the ordering of CGx tests for Medicare beneficiaries, without regard to whether the CGx tests were medically necessary or eligible for Medicare reimbursement, and without regard for the fact that the tests were prescribed without any physician-patient relationship.  Various laboratories including Clio Laboratories in Lawrenceville, Georgia and LabSolutions in Atlanta, Georgia and Easton, Pennsylvania then allegedly submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans for the false and fraudulent CGx tests that were not medically necessary and not eligible for Medicare reimbursement.  Garipoli and others allegedly concealed the submission of these false and fraudulent claims to Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans; and diverted fraud proceeds for their personal use and benefit, the use and benefit of others and to further the fraud.  The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys James Hayes and Tim Loper of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section

    Jamie Simmons, 62, a resident of South Carolina, and the owner of telemedicine companies MedSymphony LLC (MedSymphony) and Meetmydocc LLC (Meetmydoc) in Ft. Lauderdale Florida, is charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to pay and receive kickbacks, and substantive counts of health care fraud and receiving kickbacks.  The indictment alleges that from January 2018 through September 2019, Simmons, and unnamed co-conspirators, billed Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans over $56 million, for which Medicare paid over $17 million, for false and fraudulent Cancer Genomic tests (CGx Tests) that were not medically necessary, and not eligible for Medicare reimbursement.  Doctors contracted with MedSymphony authorized bogus doctors’ orders that the CGx Tests were medically necessary when the doctors did not engage in treatment of the beneficiaries, had no physician-patient relationship with them, and often did not even speak with the beneficiaries for whom they ordered tests.  The Indictment alleges that various companies paid kickbacks to MedSymphony through Meetmydoc in exchange for ordering and arranging for the ordering of CGx tests for Medicare beneficiaries, without regard to whether the CGx tests were medically necessary or eligible for Medicare reimbursement, and without regard for the fact that the tests were prescribed without any physician-patient relationship.  Various laboratories then submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans for the false and fraudulent CGx tests that were not medically necessary and not eligible for Medicare reimbursement.  Simmons and others allegedly concealed the submission of these false and fraudulent claims to Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans; and diverted fraud proceeds for their personal use and benefit, the use and benefit of others and to further the fraud.  The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys James Hayes and Tim Loper.

    Minal Patel, 40, of Atlanta, Georgia was charged based on his role in an alleged scheme to solicit medically unnecessary CGx tests from Medicare beneficiaries through telemarketing and “health fairs.”  The tests were then approved by telemedicine doctors who allegedly did not engage in treatment of the beneficiaries, and often did not even speak with the beneficiaries for whom they ordered tests.  Patel, the owner of LabSolutions in Georgia and Pennsylvania, then paid the telemarketers illegal kickbacks and bribes in exchange for the doctor’s orders and medically unnecessary tests.  LabSolutions billed Medicare for more than $494 million.  In addition, the government seized approximately $30 million in bank accounts from Patel, as well as luxury vehicles, including a Ferrari and a Range Rover.  The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Tim Loper and James Hayes.

    In the Eastern District of Louisiana, the following defendant was charged:

    Khalid Satary, 47, of Suwanee, Georgia was charged based on his role in an alleged scheme to solicit medically unnecessary cancer genetic (CGx) tests from Medicare beneficiaries through telemarketing and “health fairs.”  The tests were then approved by telemedicine doctors who did not engage in treatment of the beneficiaries, and often did not even speak with the beneficiaries for whom they ordered tests.  Satary, the owner of several labs in Georgia, Oklahoma and Louisiana, and his co-conspirators, through companies they controlled, then paid the telemarketers illegal kickbacks and bribes in exchange for the doctor’s orders and medically unnecessary tests.  The labs included Performance Laboratories in Oklahoma, Lazarus Services in Louisiana, and Clio Labs in Georgia.  Performance Labs, Clio Labs and Lazarus Services collectively billed Medicare for more than $547 million.  In addition, the government  seized 16 bank accounts and restrained real estate from Satary.  The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Timothy Loper and Jared Hasten.

    In the Southern District of Georgia, 19 defendants were charged:

    Anthony T. Securo, 56, of Columbus, Georgia, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Savannah, Georgia, for his role in a scheme to bill Medicare and other health benefit programs for medically unnecessary durable medical equipment. According to the indictment, Securo, a medical doctor, signed thousands of orders for durable medical equipment for Medicare beneficiaries he claimed to be “treating,” but in fact never even met. These thousands of items were billed to Medicare for more than $23 million. According to the indictment, Securo ordered these medically unnecessary items after having short telephone conversations with the patients, but then signed medical records stating that Securo had performed examinations or physical tests of the patients that were never actually performed.

    In addition, 18 other defendants were charged in the Southern District of Georgia by way of criminal information.  The 18 other defendants include two “telemedicine” physician recruiters, seven physicians, two nurse practitioners, two individuals who brokered the sale of physician orders, one company that brokered the sale of physician orders, and four durable medical equipment companies.  In total, the 19 defendants charged in the Southern District of Georgia were responsible for over $400 million in genetic testing, durable medical equipment, and pain cream billing to Medicare, according to court documents. The cases are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys J. Thomas Clarkson Jonathan A. Porter of the Southern District of Georgia

    In the Northern District of Texas, the following defendant was charged:

    Daniel R. Canchola, M.D., 49, Flower Mound Texas, a physician, was charged for his alleged referral of Medicare beneficiaries for medically unnecessary “cancer screening,” or “CGx,” genetic tests.  Canchola received illegal kickbacks and bribes for the CGx orders he signed, and he did so without examining or speaking to patients and in the absence of any physician-patient relationship.  Oftentimes the beneficiaries for whom Canchola ordered CGx tests never received their test results.  From in or about January 2018 through in or about March 2019, Canchola caused the submission of over $69 million in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare.  The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Brynn Schiess of the Fraud Section.

    Sekhar Rao, M.D., 48 of Austin, Texas, and Vinay Parameswara, M.D., 46, of Austin, Texas, were charged for their role in alleged referrals of TRICARE beneficiaries for medically unnecessary “cancer screening” genetic tests and toxicology tests.  Rao and Parameswara did not examine or speak with the beneficiaries they signed testing orders for and there was no physician-patient relationship between the physicians and these beneficiaries.  Tests were repeated many times and beneficiaries often did not receive the results of their tests. From in or about May 2014 and until in or about June 2016, Rao, Parameswara and others caused the submission of over $36 million in false and fraudulent claims to TRICARE. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant Chief Adrienne Frazior of the Fraud Section.

    In the Middle District of Florida, the following defendant was charged:

    Ivan Andre Scott, 34, Kissimmee, Florida, a marketer, was charged for his role in an alleged $2.8 million scheme to provide Medicare beneficiary information to doctors and telemedicine companies, that could then be billed for medically unnecessary genetic testing.  The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Alejandro J. Salicrup of the Fraud Section.

    In the Middle District of Louisiana, the following defendants were charged:

    Mark Allen, 51, of Greer, South Carolina, and Kevin Hanley, 42, of Prairieville, Louisiana, were charged for their roles in an alleged scheme to solicit medically unnecessary cancer genetic (CGx) tests from Medicare beneficiaries, have the tests approved by telemedicine doctors who did not engage in treatment of the beneficiaries, and submit claims through clinical testing laboratories that paid kickbacks in exchange for the referrals.  Allen and his co-conspirators, through companies they controlled, solicited the tests and arranged for approvals by telemedicine providers.  They then transmitted the test samples and orders to labs in Louisiana, including Acadian Diagnostic Laboratories LLC, where Hanley was the CFO, and elsewhere.  Acadian, through Hanley and others, paid kickbacks to companies controlled by Allen and others to obtain the referrals, and submitted claims to Medicare for the tests.  Acadian and other labs billed Medicare for more than $240 million.  The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Tim Loper, Justin Woodard and Gary Winters of the Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristen Craig of the Middle District of Louisiana.

    In addition, as part of the Northeast Regional Takedown announced on Sept. 26, the District of New Jersey announced charges against the following:

    Matthew S. Ellis, MD, 53, of Gainesville, Florida; Edward B. Kostishion, 59, of Lakeland, Florida; Kyle D. Mclean, 36, of Arlington Heights, Illinois; Kacey C. Plaisance, 38, of Altamonte Springs, Florida; Jeremy Richey, 39, of Mars, Pennsylvania; and Jeffrey Tamulski, 46, of Tampa, Florida. Kostishion, Plaisance, and Richey operated Ark Laboratory Network LLC (Ark), a company that purported to operate a network of laboratories that facilitated genetic testing.  Ark partnered with Privy Health, Inc., a company that McLean operated, and another company to acquire DNA samples and Medicare information from hundreds of patients through various methods, including offering $75 gift cards to patients, all without the involvement of a treating health care professional.  Ellis, a physician based in Gainesville, served as the ordering physician who authorized genetic testing for hundreds of patients across the country that he never saw, examined, or treated.  These included patients from New Jersey and various other states where Ellis was not licensed to practice medicine.  Through this process, Ellis, Kostishion, Plaisance, and McLean submitted and caused to be submitted fraudulent orders for genetic tests to numerous clinical laboratories.  These orders falsely certified that Ellis was the patients’ treating physician and, in many cases, contained false information indicating that a patient had a personal or family history of cancer, when, in fact, the patient had no cancer history whatsoever.  In 2018 alone, Medicare paid clinical laboratories at least approximately $4.6 million for genetic tests that Ellis ordered in this manner.  In addition, Kostishion, Plaisance, Richey, and Tamulski entered into kickback agreements with certain clinical laboratories under which the laboratories would pay Ark a bribe in exchange for delivering DNA samples and orders for genetic tests.  The bribe payments were based on the percentage of Medicare revenue that the laboratories received in connection with the tests.  Among other things, Kostishion, Plaisance, Richey, and Tamulski concealed these kickback arrangements through issuing sham invoices to laboratories that purportedly reflected services provided at an hourly rate even though the parties had already agreed upon the bribe amount, which was based on the revenue the laboratories received.  In 2018, the clinical laboratories paid Ark at least approximately $1.8 million in bribes.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bernard Cooney of the District of New Jersey.

    A complaint, information or indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    The Fraud Section leads the Medicare Fraud Strike Force.  Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which maintains 15 strike forces operating in 24 districts, has charged nearly 4,000 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $16 billion.  In addition, the HHS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with the HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

    Related:

    Owner of Tampa-Area Medical Marketing Company Sentenced to Prison for DNA Testing Fraud Scheme

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-company-targeting-elderly-victims-admits-paying-kickbacks-resolves-related

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-health-care-fraud-takedown-northeastern-us-results-charges-against-48-individuals

    ~~~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/federal-law-enforcement-action-involving-fraud-genetic-testing-results-in-charges-against-35-individuals-responsible-for-over-2-1-billion-in-losses-in-one-of-the-largest-health-care-fraud-schemes-eve/= this posting

     

     

     

    Share
  • U.S. and UK Sign Landmark Cross-Border Data Access Agreement to Combat Criminals and Terrorists Online

    U.S. and UK Sign Landmark Cross-Border Data Access Agreement to Combat Criminals and Terrorists Online

    ag_barr_and_uk_home_secretary_priti_patel_-68_2

    The United States and the United Kingdom entered into the world’s first ever CLOUD Act Agreement that will allow American and British law enforcement agencies, with appropriate authorization, to demand electronic data regarding serious crime, including terrorism, child sexual abuse, and cybercrime, directly from tech companies based in the other country, without legal barriers.

    The current legal assistance process can take up to two years, but the Agreement will reduce this time period considerably, while protecting privacy and enhancing civil liberties.  The historic agreement was signed by U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr and UK Home Secretary Priti Patel at a ceremony at the British Ambassador’s residence in Washington, D.C.

    Attorney General William Barr said: “This agreement will enhance the ability of the United States and the United Kingdom to fight serious crime — including terrorism, transnational organized crime, and child exploitation — by allowing more efficient and effective access to data needed for quick-moving investigations.  Only by addressing the problem of timely access to electronic evidence of crime committed in one country that is stored in another, can we hope to keep pace with twenty-first century threats.  This agreement will make the citizens of both countries safer, while at the same time assuring robust protections for privacy and civil liberties.”

    Home Secretary Priti Patel said: “Terrorists and paedophiles continue to exploit the internet to spread their messages of hate, plan attacks on our citizens and target the most vulnerable.  As Home Secretary I am determined to do everything in my power to stop them. This historic agreement will dramatically speed up investigations, allowing our law enforcement agencies to protect the public.  This is just one example of the enduring security partnership we have with the United States and I look forward to continuing to work with them and global partners to tackle these heinous crimes.”

    Both governments agreed to terms which broadly lift restrictions for a broad class of investigations, not targeting residents of the other country, and assure providers that disclosures through the Agreement are compatible with data protection laws.  Each also committed to obtain permission from the other before using data gained through the agreement in prosecutions relating to a Party’s essential interest—specifically, death penalty prosecutions by the United States and UK cases implicating freedom of speech.

    The novel US-UK Bilateral Data Access Agreement will dramatically speed up investigations by removing legal barriers to timely and effective collection of electronic evidence.  Under its terms, law enforcement, when armed with appropriate court authorization, may go directly to tech companies based in the other country to access electronic data, rather than going through governments, which can take years.  The current Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request process, which sees requests for electronic data from law enforcement and other agencies submitted and approved by central governments, can often take many months.  Once in place, the Agreement will see the timeline obtaining evidence significantly reduced.

    The Agreement will accelerate dozens of complex investigations into suspected terrorists and pedophiles, such as Matthew Falder who was convicted in 2018 in the UK of 137 offenses after an eight-year campaign of online child sexual abuse, blackmail, forced labor and sharing of indecent images, which highlighted the need to speed up these investigations.

    The United States will have reciprocal access, under a U.S. court order, to data from UK communication service providers.  All requests for access to data will be subject to independent judicial authorization or oversight.

    In March 2018, Congress passed the CLOUD Act, which authorizes the United States to enter into bilateral executive agreements with rights-respecting partners that lift each party’s legal barriers to the other party’s access to electronic data for certain criminal investigations.  The Agreement was facilitated by the UK’s Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019, which received Royal Assent in February this year.  The Agreement will enter into force following a six-month Congressional review period mandated by the CLOUD Act, and the related review by UK’s Parliament.

    We anticipate releasing a copy of the agreement in the near future following Congressional and Parliamentary notification.

    For more information on the CLOUD Act, go to: https://www.justice.gov/dag/page/file/1153466/download and https://www.justice.gov/dag/cloudact.

    ~~~~~~~

    http://wetheonepeople.com/u-s-and-uk-sign-landmark-cross-border-data-access-agreement-to-combat-criminals-and-terrorists-online/= this posting

    Share