Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump is Considering a Pardon for Joe Arpaio

President Donald Trump said that he is seriously considering issuing a pardon for Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff who was recently found guilty of criminal contempt for repeatedly profiling Hispanic people in violation of a court order. He has been dubbed “America’s toughest sheriff” and was a staunch Obama opponent who joined Trump in the “birther” movement. And Trump seems to like him quite a bit.

“Is there anyone in local law enforcement who has done more to crack down on illegal immigration than Sheriff Joe?” Trump reportedly said during a conversation with Fox News. “He has protected people from crimes and saved lives. He doesn’t deserve to be treated this way.” Arpaio’s sentencing is scheduled for October 5 and he is facing up to six months behind bars. Trump retweeted a Fox News article about the possibility of a pardon. Yesterday, Trump finally condemned the violence in Charlottesville, so some critics believe that the Arpaio comments might be a nod to white supremacist groups.

Make no mistake: If Trump pardons Arpaio, this would be an official presidential endorsement of racism.

— ACLU National (@ACLU) August 14, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

DOJ Opens Civil Rights Investigation into Charlottesville Violence

This weekend, a white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent. The march began on Friday night, with protesters carrying torches, Nazi flags, and chanting a Nazi slogan. On Saturday, a lot of counter-protesters arrived at the scene. On Saturday afternoon, a car drove straight into the crowd of counter-protesters, killing one woman and injuring over 30 others. The driver was later identified as 20-year-old Ohio native James Alex Fields Jr. He has been charged with murder. Governor Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency Saturday evening.

Alleged driver of car that plowed into Charlottesville crowd was a Nazi sympathizer, former teacher says https://t.co/LWgW6UTy3e

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) August 13, 2017

President Donald Trump finally commented from his New Jersey golf club, saying that he condemns the display of violence “on many sides.” But this very brief and vague comment was heavily criticized for not condemning the brazen white supremacy on display.

The Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the violence and even Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a more emphatic statement than the president. “The violence and deaths in Charlottesville strike at the heart of American law and justice. When such actions arise from racial bigotry and hatred, they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated,” he said.

If ISIS rammed a car into a crowd this would be labeled quickly & logically. Charlottesville – call it what it is, domestic terrorism.

— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) August 13, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

DOJ vs. Affirmative Action

The DOJ intends to direct its Civil Rights Division’s resources to investigate affirmative action policies, specifically what effects those policies have on white applicants. The DOJ may sue universities it believes are discriminating against white applicants. This is an odd use of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which was designed to address issues faced by minority groups in the United States.

Many have also pointed out the irony of the Trump Administration’s crusade against affirmative action:

The people who hate affirmative action because its ‘unfair’ are gonna be really mad when they find out how rich kids get into elite schools

— Ayatollah Cumonme (@Phonycian) August 2, 2017

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action policies was in 2016, affirming the University of Texas’ admissions policy was constitutional after white student Abigail Fisher sued the university. But that hasn’t stopped additional cases from moving forward. Two more, one against Harvard and one against the University of North Carolina, are pending. Unlike the Texas case, they both allege discrimination against African-American students.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

UC Berkeley used to provide thousands of free lectures and podcasts to anyone who was interested. But now, the school has decided to bar the public from accessing 20,000 videos and podcasts in response to complaints that the content did not meet the needs of vision or hearing-impaired students. Last August, the Department of Justice found that UC Berkeley had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires public universities to provide equal education access to students with disabilities.

Officials say that their decision to restrict access to the videos will allow them to focus their resources on creating newer and more accessible material. In a statement, the university’s vice chancellor for undergraduate education Cathy Koshland said:

This move will also partially address recent findings by the Department of Justice which suggests that the YouTube and iTunesU content meet higher accessibility standards as a condition of remaining publicly available. Finally, moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from ‘pirates’ who have reused content for personal profit without consent.

The DOJ’s review, prompted by complaints from two Gallaudet University employees and members of the National Association of the Deaf, found incomplete or inaccurate closed captioning on videos that would pose challenges for those with hearing disabilities. Low color contrast in some videos would make them difficult to watch for vision-impaired viewers as well.

Berkeley isn’t the only institution where lectures have presented difficulties for disabled students. Two years ago, Harvard University and M.I.T. both faced discrimination lawsuits from advocates for the deaf for not including closed captioning on their online lectures.

But other universities say that removing content altogether isn’t the answer. Inside Higher Ed reached out to the University of Minnesota, M.I.T., Georgia Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and the University of Texas at Austin, almost all of which replied that their lectures meet accessibility standards and that they have no intentions to keep the public from viewing their content.

But the UC Berkeley videos are not lost forever, thanks to one website’s decision to make them available to the public again starting in April. LBRY, a “digital marketplace” where users can publish their content and set a price for other users to view their content, announced the site would re-publish the lectures and make them viewable for free.

LBRY CEO Jeremy Kauffman wrote that uploading the files would be legal because they are under a Creative Commons license that permits non-commercial redistribution with attribution. This means LBRY will not charge for the access to the material or make a profit, and will give credit to UC Berkeley. He told UC Berkeley’s campus newspaper, The Daily Californian, that he is open to collaborating with someone who could add subtitles to the videos that LBRY will publish.

“What motivated our community is that we saw information disappearing that shouldn’t disappear, and our technology is designed to keep information around,” he told the paper.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UC Berkeley Lectures Removed After Disability Discrimination Complaints appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch–a week or so before she leaves her post–announced reforms for the Baltimore Police Department, agreed to by the city and the DOJ. The reforms include increased community oversight, and improved recruitment and training policies. In a statement, Lynch said the reforms will help “ensure effective and constitutional policing, restore the community’s trust in law enforcement, and advance public and officer safety.”

The consent decree follows a Department of Justice report on policing in Baltimore that was released last August, the culmination of a year-long investigation spurred by the death of Freddie Gray in 2015. The report, which was based on data from 2010 to 2016, found that the Baltimore Police Department has “systemic deficiencies” in training, and policies that “failed to equip officers with the tools they need to police effectively.” There was widespread racial bias in the department, the report found; police officers were also found to have used excessive force.

Lynch also said that a pending investigation into the Chicago Police Department will be released shortly, perhaps as early as Friday. According to a Chicago Tribune report, the Justice Department found that Chicago police violated the U.S. Constitution with some of their practices. The Chicago investigation began in December 2015, after a video was released that showed a Chicago police officer shooting and killing a black teenager, Laquan McDonald.

“Change is painful. Growth is painful. But nothing is as painful as being stuck in a place that we do not belong,” Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis said at the time of the DOJ report. Under President Barack Obama, the Justice Department has investigated 25 law enforcement agencies across the country; 14 ended in consent decrees. 

These reforms come during a transitional period for the Justice Department. President-elect Donald Trump’s attorney general nominee, Jeff Sessions, has raised concerns that the Justice Department will shield police departments rather than investigate possible reforms. During his two-day confirmation hearing that concluded on Wednesday, Sessions was prodded about how he would enforce consent decrees, and if he would pursue the issue of police reform as attorney general.

“I think there is concern that good police officers and good departments can be sued by the Department of Justice when you just have individuals within a department that have done wrong,” Sessions said. “These lawsuits undermine the respect for police officers and create an impression that the entire department is not doing their work consistent with fidelity to law and fairness, and we need to be careful before we do that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Announces Reforms for Baltimore Police Department appeared first on Law Street.

In the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CIA broadened its torture toolkit. Detainees were stuffed in boxes. They were forced to spend hours holding uncomfortable positions, sometimes barred from sleeping for days at a time. And of course, there was waterboarding. In October 2015, two men who were subjected to the CIA’s interrogations at secret prisons in Afghanistan filed lawsuits against the two CIA contractors who sculpted the agency’s torture program.

The plaintiffs and their lawyers now question whether their quest for justice could be undermined by President-elect Trump, who has expressed support for torture techniques, and will have the power to unilaterally dismiss the suit if he chooses. No government official involved in a torture program has been held accountable, and this suit, backed by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, is the furthest former detainees have gotten.

Suleiman Abdullah Salim of Tanzania, and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud of Libya, along with representatives of a third man who died in the CIA’s secret prison, are the plaintiffs in the case. The defendants are James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, both psychologists and contractors who devised and helped implement the torture program.

If Trump, who recently hinted his position supporting torture might have shifted, decides to invoke the state secrets privilege, the case would be dismissed under the grounds of national security. The Department of Justice under President Obama has blocked civil cases against CIA contractors from proceeding under the same pretense.

But in April, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington, where the suit was filed, dismissed a motion that claimed the suit could reveal security-compromising secrets. Under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreigners to sue in U.S. courts for human rights abuses, Judge Justin Quackenbush allowed the case to proceed. The trial is set for June 2017.

On Tuesday, Mitchell, one of the defendants, is set to release a book titled “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying to Destroy America.” According to The New York Times, which obtained an early copy, Mitchell defends his torture program, saying his “unpleasant” techniques “protected detainees from being subjected to unproven and perhaps harsher techniques made up on the fly that could have been much worse.”

The effectiveness of Mitchell and Jessen’s program was questioned in a 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report, however, which concluded the “inhumane physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Could Dismiss Lawsuit by CIA Torture Victims appeared first on Law Street.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch will likely face more questions in regards to her “secret meeting” with former president Bill Clinton, thanks to a new lawsuit filed Wednesday by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) against the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The meeting between Lynch and Clinton took place aboard her plane on June 27 in Phoenix, Arizona, and lasted about 30 minutes. It was deemed controversial, given that it came a week before Lynch announced that her department had closed its federal probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails without filing any criminal charges.

At the time Lynch claimed that the pair’s conversation was “primarily social” and that they had spoken a great deal about grandchildren, traveling, and golf. But even Lynch agreed that the meeting had “cast a shadow” over the investigation.

The ACLJ previously sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the DOJ and the FBI demanding an explanation as to why the meeting was allowed to transpire, calling for her resignation.

Then last week, in a letter to Congress,  FBI Director James Comey announced a new investigation into Clinton’s emails–this time focusing on emails found on devices belonging to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s longtime aide, and her former husband Anthony Weiner.

In the complaint, the conservative Christian organization is demanding specific information regarding communications sent between Lynch and the former president, as well as the names of any officials or staff members present during the exchange.

The organization has repeatedly condemned President Obama and his appointees  in the past. In fact, this marks the fourth major federal lawsuit the ACLJ has filed against the Obama administration for what it considers to be “corruption and failure to comply with FOIA.” It has also launched a petition demanding a full, thorough, and unbiased FBI investigation into Secretary Clinton’s email server.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ACLJ Sues Loretta Lynch Over “Secret Meeting” With Bill Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Women For Trump?

After Trump’s horrible comments about sexual assault, women supporting Trump are in the limelight and it’s confusing a lot of people.

Take a look:

A lot of us are like: why, just why? Hillary becoming president is one of the best things that can happen for the majority of American women, historically speaking, and they just want to vote for Trump?

It’s their vote, I guess, but WTF.

WE ALL STAND BY TRUMP. WOMEN FOR TRUMP. HE’S OUR ONLY SAVIOR. #maga #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Trump2016 #Trump @Cher pic.twitter.com/vOcgXMr0FB

— Ingrid Mueller1 (@_Women4Trump) October 9, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 14, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday the Justice Department announced new guidelines for collecting nationwide data on law enforcement officials’ use of force in encounters with civilians. According to the New York Times, this is the biggest effort of its kind that the federal government has ever made to account for use of force.

“Accurate and comprehensive data on the use of force by law enforcement is essential to an informed and productive discussion about community-police relations,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch in a statement. She said that the purpose of these new steps is increased transparency and a better understanding between law enforcement officials and the communities that they serve.

The FBI is currently developing a national database as part of the Department of Justice’s efforts to gather… https://t.co/9LE1tzKQ7m

— QkTip (@QkTipcom) October 13, 2016

The Death in Custody Reporting Act (DCRA) that was passed in 2014 requires officials to record and report all deaths of civilians that occur either in custody or during interaction with officers. But they are not required to report non-fatal cases. With the new initiative, officers must collect, maintain and report data on all shootings or violent encounters involving an officer, whether fatal or not, and the same goes for people already in custody.

Last year, the FBI started working on developing a National Use of Force Data Collection, an online portal for reporting use-of-force data from all over the country, in collaboration with local law enforcement. Bigger city police departments and the FBI will start reporting data early next year.

The past year has been dramatic and traumatic and seen several fatal encounters between police and civilians, with casualties on both sides and violent protests as a result. If these new procedures could help to resolve the societal tensions, it is a good start.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The DOJ Will Start Collecting More Info on Police Officers’ Use of Force appeared first on Law Street.

Baltimore police officers routinely engage in unconstitutional searches and arrests, excessive force, and profiling of black people, says a report from the Department of Justice presented on Wednesday morning.

The 163-page report says this pattern exists because of “systemic deficiencies in BPD’s policies, training, supervision, and accountability structures that fail to equip officers with the tools they need to police effectively and within the bounds of the federal law.”

Unconstitutional stops and arrests

The report is not a pleasant read. While people living in the wealthy, predominantly white areas of Baltimore describe the police as responsive and respectful, individuals in the poor, mainly black neighborhoods, on the other hand, describe the police as disrespectful and not responsive to their calls. They are also often targeted for unjustified stops and searches.

The DOJ’s report presents numbers on how many black people were stopped, often without reasonable suspicion. In fact, many were stopped when simply standing or walking on the city’s sidewalks. In the report, an image of a police department permeated with racial bias emerges.

Black people accounted for 95 percent of the 410 people who were stopped 10 times or more in the five and a half year period of data collection. One man, in particular, was stopped 30 times in less than 4 years, without ever being charged with a crime.

.@TheJusticeDept: ‘BPD’s Enforcement Activities Disproportionately Impact African Americans’ https://t.co/c0KeX8WF4X pic.twitter.com/f2Q1I3wXUN

— DOJ Civil Rights (@CivilRights) August 10, 2016

The frequent disregard for the Constitution through mass stops, searches, and arrests seem to be due to the  “zero tolerance” policy from the 1990s, which rewarded officers who make a lot of arrests.

The Baltimore Police also may have been biased against women when handling sexual assault cases. Officers failed to properly and meaningfully investigate cases of sexual assault and also to collect and corroborate evidence supporting the women’s accounts. While the DOJ did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that policing in Baltimore amounted to gender-bias in violation of federal law, some bias appears to have affected officers’ handling of sexual assault cases.

What’s next?

The Department of Justice launched the investigation in the spring of 2015, after the death of Freddie Gray. Reforms to make necessary changes will probably cost tens of millions of dollars and may take several years. The next step in the process is for city and federal officials to negotiate a settlement and present it to a federal judge. The settlement will include a list of requirements that the Baltimore Police Department will need to meet in the coming years.

A positive note is that everyone the DOJ investigators talked to during the investigation agreed that the BPD needs major reforms, even current police officers and city leaders. The DOJ said it will talk to local residents to take their opinions into account during the later stages of negotiation.

“There’s going to be a lot of folks with a lot of ideas about what needs to happen now in the community and in law enforcement, and it’s been really important to us to be able to hear directly from community members,” Vanita Gupta, head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division, said to the Baltimore Sun.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Baltimore Police: Racially Biased, Routinely Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Justice announced Wednesday that a D.C. Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD) officer has been arrested on suspicion of supporting the terror network ISIS. This is the first case of a U.S. law enforcement officer facing terrorism charges. Here’s what we know:

Who Is He?

The officer’s name is Nicholas Young, and he is a 36-year-old man from Fairfax, Virginia. Young has been a MTPD officer since 2003, and has been under surveillance for suspected ties to terrorism for six years.

Breaking: Fairfax home searched, of MetroTransit cop Nicholas Young, 36 charged w attempting to help ISIS @wusa9 pic.twitter.com/AN99yIjQtB

— Peggy Fox (@PeggyTV) August 3, 2016

What Did He Do?

Young is accused of allegedly purchasing nearly $250 worth of gift cards that were intended for ISIS in order to purchase mobile messaging accounts to recruit others to join the terrorist organization.

He is also accused of making vague threats to kill FBI agents and informants or bring guns into federal court, according to a criminal complaint obtained by the Washington Post. The paper writes, “Young allegedly threatened to kidnap and torture an agent who interviewed him, and leave the head of anyone who betrayed him in a cinder block at the bottom of a Virginia lake.”

How Long Has He Been on the FBI’s Radar?

According to the DOJ’s statements, Young has been on the FBI’s radar since 2010. Here is a rough timeline of his encounters with the FBI:

• In 2010, Young was interviewed by law enforcement about his relationship with Zachary Chesser, who later pled guilty to supporting a foreign terrorist organization and making threats against the creators of “South Park” for writing an episode about Islam he disliked.
• In 2011, Young traveled to Libya one time and attempted to travel a second time. He also had several meetings with an undercover law enforcement officer, many of which were with Amine El Khalifi, who later pled guilty to planning to conduct a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol Building in 2012.
• In 2014, Young met approximately 20 times with an FBI informant, who he advised how to travel overseas to join the Islamic State and evade detection.
• In 2016, he contacted the same FBI informant about purchasing the gift cards for ISIS.

Is Metro Safe?

According to authorities, there was never any credible or specific threat to the Metro system. MTPD officials initiated this investigation and have been working closely with the FBI throughout the case. Metro Transit Police Chief Ron Pavlik said in a statement.

This investigation began with concerns that were reported by the Metro Transit Police Department, and it reinforces that, as citizens, we all have a duty to report suspicious activity whenever and wherever it occurs.

Young was terminated from the MTPD Wednesday morning after his arrest.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How did a D.C. Metro Cop Become First U.S. Officer to Face ISIS Charges? appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday it is charging hundreds of individuals across the country with committing health care fraud worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in what is being hailed the largest health care fraud bust in U.S. history. Here are the five fast facts you need to know.

1. 301 People Charged in Health Care Fraud Bust

The bust resulted in the takedown of 301 individuals, including 61 licensed medical professionals, 28 of whom were doctors. The charges include various health care fraud-related crimes, including conspiracy to commit health care fraud, violations of the anti-kickback statutes, money laundering, aggravated identity theft, and Medicare Part D pharmacy fraud.

Attorney General Lynch called out the alleged perpetrators in the release saying,

They target real people – many of them in need of significant medical care.  They promise effective cures and therapies, but they provide none.  Above all, they abuse basic bonds of trust – between doctor and patient; between pharmacist and doctor; between taxpayer and government – and pervert them to their own ends.

2. $900 Million in False Billings

The DOJ found the defendants to be responsible for a total of $900 million in false billings. The largest portion of fraudulent billings was traced to Florida, where a total of 100 defendants were charged for their involvement in approximately $220 million in false billings for home health care, mental health services and pharmacy fraud. According to the release,

In one case, nine defendants have been charged with operating six different Miami-area home health companies for the purpose of submitting false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, including for services that were not medically necessary and that were based on bribes and kickbacks.  In total, Medicare paid the six companies over $24 million as a result of the scheme.

Defendants in California, Texas, and Michigan are charged with committing more than $100 million worth of fraud in each state.

3. This Was a Joint Effort

Medicaid Fraud Control Units in 23 states and the Medicare Fraud Strike Force in 36 federal districts coordinated with the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services in  the “unprecedented nationwide sweep.”

National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results https://t.co/LQk9OJpzKN pic.twitter.com/HMVFxvFrgd

— Justice Department (@TheJusticeDept) June 22, 2016

The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations are part of the Health Care Fraud Prevention & Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), a joint initiative announced in May 2009 between the DOJ and HHS to help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

4. New Study Identifies 27 Home Health Care Fraud “Hotspots”

The U.S. Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General released a new study in conjunction with the DOJ’s arrests citing 27 geographical “hotspots” in 12 states where health care fraud is committed most often.

Eye on Oversight: OIG identified 27 hotspots for probable home health fraud. Watch the VIDEO. https://t.co/1KPY9RQe6D

— OIG at HHS (@OIGatHHS) June 21, 2016

The states include Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah.

5. This Recent Bust Helped Pad Federal Authorities’ Record

Since its launch in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force has charged over 2,900 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for over $8.9 billion. Wednesday’s announcement marks the second time that districts outside of Strike Force locations participated in a national health care fraud bust, and they accounted for 82 defendants charged in this takedown.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Fast Facts: The Largest Health Care Fraud Bust in History appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced it will be filing suit against the city of Ferguson, Missouri, after the city went back on a negotiated deal that would help reform the criminal justice system in the beleaguered St. Louis suburb.

This is the latest move in Ferguson in the 18 months since Michael Brown was shot and killed by a white police officer, Darren Wilson. After the nationwide protests that followed, Ferguson was investigated by the DOJ. That investigation yielded a revelation about civil rights abuses at practically every level of Ferguson’s criminal justice system, including the consistent use of excessive force by police officers against the city’s Black residents, and that the courts inappropriately focused on “making money” rather than ensuring citizens’ safety.

After the release of that report, the DOJ sat down with Ferguson officials in an attempt to hammer out a deal that would reform the city’s criminal justice system. It was announced last month that deal was reached, and just this week city officials voted for it, but with seven pretty serious amendments, citing serious concerns about costs to a city that is struggling financially as is. Ferguson Mayor James Knowles explained the decision to back away from the agreement, according to CBS News:

Knowles said the seven amendments were formulated after the analysis showed the deal was so expensive it could lead to dissolution of Ferguson. The analysis suggested that the first-year cost of the agreement would be $2.2 million to $3.7 million, with second- and third-year costs between $1.8 million and $3 million in each year.

However, Attorney General Loretta Lynch fought back against the changes, stating that, “their decision leaves us no further choice.” As a result, the DOJ is filing a civil rights lawsuit against Ferguson. This doesn’t come as a surprise–Lynch has previously threatened to file suit if Ferguson didn’t comply with the DOJ’s requests.

Ferguson’s decision to fight a lawsuit rather than spend the money to make necessary changes to its criminal justice system may seem counterintuitive, but the city seems to think paying those legal fees will be cheaper than actually making real reform. It’s a calculated gamble, however, given that the Justice Department doesn’t seem willing to let go over reforming the city’s broken criminal justice system without a tough fight.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Sues Ferguson, Missouri Over Police Reform appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government has officially filed a civil suit against Volkswagen for violating the Clean Air Act; the latest step in a saga that has taken several months to unravel and appears to look worse for the car manufacturer at each turn.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), acting on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has made allegations against the German automaker that mostly stem from the discovery that some of Volkswagen’s cars had “defeat devices” installed. Essentially a defeat device would kick in during an emissions test, to make it appear as though the cars were running at standards that were in accordance with the Clean Air Act. However, when the cars were out on the road, their emissions were significantly higher–in some cases up to 40 times greater than the federal standards allow. The DOJ is alleging that about 500,000 of those were sold in the United States. Volkswagen admitted in September that it was aware of the implications of these devices, and is currently negotiating with American regulators on how to conduct a recall of the affected cars.

The federal civil suit against Volkswagen doesn’t preclude the DOJ from filing criminal charges against the company as well. But given the higher burden of proof needed to prosecute a criminal case, it makes some sense that the civil suit has come first.

Assistant Attorney General John Cruden of the environment and natural resources division at the Justice Department explained the motivations for the lawsuit in a statement released by the DOJ:

Car manufacturers that fail to properly certify their cars and that defeat emission control systems breach the public trust, endanger public health and disadvantage competitors. The United States will pursue all appropriate remedies against Volkswagen to redress the violations of our nation’s clean air laws alleged in the complaint.

The DOJ also outlined the public health danger that could come from Volkswagen’s deception, warning that it could cause nitrogen pollution, and stating:

NOx pollution contributes to harmful ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. These pollutants are linked with asthma and other serious respiratory illnesses. Exposure to ozone and particulate matter is also associated with premature death due to respiratory-related or cardiovascular-related effects. Children, the elderly and people with pre-existing respiratory disease are particularly at risk of health effects from exposure to these pollutants.

Volkswagen will have a hard road ahead when it comes to fighting off this civil suit. Given that it could end with the company paying billions in fines, it’s certainly one to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Government Sues Volkswagen For Clean Air Act Violations appeared first on Law Street.

After a lot of speculation and scrutiny, the Comcast/Time Warner Cable deal is officially dead in the water. The proposed acquisition deal, which would have brought 30 million customers into the folds of a single company, had raised concerns for many about the potential of a monopoly. Now, however, those concerns are no longer relevant, as both companies have announced that they won’t be moving forward with the $45.2 billion deal.

The companies appear to have been scared off after moves by the Justice Department (DOJ) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Rumors indicated that DOJ wasn’t too happy with the proposed merger–Attorney General Eric Holder was allowing a lawsuit to move forward that could block the merger. The FCC was also leaning toward holding a hearing on it. Usually FCC hearings aren’t a great sign when it comes to these kinds of deals, after all, it was viewed as the proverbial nail in the coffin to the proposed AT&T and T-Mobile merger a few years ago.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler spoke after the companies announced their intentions to abandon the deal, saying:

Today, an online video market is emerging that offers new business models and greater consumer choice. The proposed merger would have posed an unacceptable risk to competition and innovation, including to the ability of online video providers to reach and serve consumers.

Holder also applauded the decision the companies had made not to move forward.

Individuals and advocacy groups alike argued against the merger, claiming that it would hurt consumers. Advocacy group Common Cause’s President Miles Rapoport stated about the end to the merger:

As we saw in February when the FCC adopted strong rules to protect the free flow of information online, citizen voices can still make a difference in our government’s decision making. More than 800,000 Americans told the FCC that the Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger would be bad for competition and innovation; their arguments were well-founded and have now carried the day. This is their victory.

So what’s next for the cable industry? Those in the know have speculated that Time Warner Cable may seek a merger with Charter Communications instead, under the assumption that two smaller companies combining would set off fewer red flags. That seems like a relatively likely outcome. John Malone who heads up the group that owns Charter Communications said last November, “Hell, yes” he’d buy Time Warner Cable if the Comcast deal fell through. If those two were to combine, Charter would become the second largest cable company in the United States–Comcast would still hold the number one seat. Conversely, others are speculating that Time Warner Cable will acquire a smaller company itself. Regardless of whether or not this particular deal has fallen through, we should probably still expect to see mergers between big cable and internet companies.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comcast, Time Warner Cable Merger is Off appeared first on Law Street.

When our country’s highest regarded forensic technicians testify that they’ve found incriminating forensic DNA matches, that testimony is usually considered courtroom gold. However, a new investigation into a history of potentially flawed testimony given by the FBI has revealed incredibly damning evidence that could cripple the agency’s reputation for years to come.

The Justice Department and the FBI have officially acknowledged that an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials where it offered evidence against a criminal defendant. The evidence dates back to before 2000, and is being called one of the country’s largest forensic scandals to date.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project teamed up to assist the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence. Their findings were startling. According to the Washington Post, the FBI has admitted that 26 out of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far.

Overall, the FBI identified for review approximately 2,500 cases in which the FBI Lab reported a hair match. Current findings found flawed testimony was given in 257 of 268 trials. Of those, 342 defendants’ cases have been completed, and include 32 defendants sentenced to death. Fourteen defendants have been executed or died in prison. There are now about 1,200 cases awaiting review.

According to the Washington Post, defendants and federal and state prosecutors in 46 states and the District are being notified to determine whether this new information offers opportunities for appeal. But the defendants shouldn’t necessarily expect to be exonerated. The FBI’s erroneous testimony may not have been the only evidentiary factor contributing to their guilty verdicts.

Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, commented on the investigation into the FBI to the Post saying,

The FBI’s three-decade use of microscopic hair analysis to incriminate defendants was a complete disaster…We need an exhaustive investigation that looks at how the FBI, state governments that relied on examiners trained by the FBI and the courts allowed this to happen and why it wasn’t stopped much sooner.

Part of the problem plaguing the FBI’s forensic unit is the ability for a hair sample to appear to be a “near certain” match, when in actuality its authenticity cannot be confirmed. The Washington Post writes,

The review confirmed that FBI experts systematically testified to the near-certainty of ‘matches’ of crime-scene hairs to defendants, backing their claims by citing incomplete or misleading statistics drawn from their case work.

In reality, there is no accepted research on how often hair from different people may appear the same. Since 2000, the lab has used visual hair comparison to rule out someone as a possible source of hair or in combination with more accurate DNA testing

This sheer percentage of these cases linked to flawed testimony is frightening and calls into question the actual level of “justice” our justice system has provided for these defendants. The government taking responsibility for over three decades of mistakes was a good first step, but we’re still waiting to see how the state authorities and the courts respond to these findings.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Scandal: Agency Admits to Flawed Forensic Testimony appeared first on Law Street.

Sexual assault on college campuses has been one of the hottest topics for a couple years now. Many universities are being investigated by the Department of Education for Title IX violations. The recent Rolling Stone article about rape on the campus of the University of Virginia that was partially retracted and has landed the publication in hot water over concerns about its journalistic ethics has seriously reignited the discussion. There are a lot of moving parts to the debate about sexual assault on college campuses, and I think that one of the many, many reasons that the conversation gets so easily muddied is that we don’t all agree on definitions, or statistics.

While this is obviously an extreme example, watch this video of “Princeton Mom” Susan Patton who I’m still a little bit sure must be running the world’s longest satirical performance. She begins the video by talking about how rape is no longer just defined as a woman being held at gunpoint and assaulted, and then spends the next ten minutes pretty much going on about what a shame that is. She also thinks that rape is often women falsely accusing men after “regrettable sex.” Then she talks about how it’s women’s responsibility to protect themselves from rape by not drinking, making good decisions, and choosing better friends. It’s a charming exercise in a game I like to subject myself to called “Holy Shit, People Actually Think This Way.”

Now the Department of Justice (DOJ) has weighed in with statistics from a study it conducted, and it’s probably going to all get even more confusing.

The new DOJ report dealt with not just college students, but college-aged females more generally. The DOJ report included the statistic that six of every 1,000 college females are sexually assaulted, and now everyone who thinks like Patton is using it to prove that sexual assault on college campuses isn’t a thing we should be worried about, and that this talk of “rape-culture” is overblown.

First, what we need to do is remember that anytime this sort of study is undertaken–one that relies on people’s word, memories, and stories, rather than say, hard facts in a laboratory–is that it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

There have been other studies that indicate that the rate of college sexual assault is much higher than what the DOJ reports. A survey at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded that 17 percent of female students and 5 percent of young men were sexually assaulted as students. Then there’s the Campus Sexual Assault Study from 2007 that gave us the now-infamous and oft-cited “one in five” statistic.

There are a few reasons why two studies can have such radically different numbers, and they’re excellently detailed here, by the Marshall Project. The main takeaway is this though: neither is necessarily right and neither is necessarily wrong. They asked different questions, they talked to different people, and at the end of the day, it’s really very much an inexact science. We’re not sure how many students are sexually assaulted; more studies to come might help us pinpoint that number, but probably not.

But we do know that at least some are. Furthermore, the same DOJ report stated that eighty percent of students sexually assaulted don’t report it. And 80 percent were assaulted by someone they know. Both of those statistics are deeply troubling.

No matter how many people are being assaulted on our college campuses–whether it’s one percent, twenty percent, or somewhere in between–it’s too many.

But that “less than one” percent is probably going to get thrown around for a while. Because, unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who, for whatever reason, don’t want to see change. They just got some ammunition, for now.

That’s why we need to keep having conversations about rape culture. Why we need to keep educating our young people, and for that matter, all our people, on consent. Why we need to stand up for rape victims when they’re accused of making up their stories. It doesn’t matter how many–any at all are too damn many.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Stats Show College Sexual Assault Remains Too Prevalent appeared first on Law Street.

The nation, and quite frankly the world, is reeling after the disclosure of an investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee into the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture practices following September 11, 2001. The report took a long time to come out–there was significant back-and-forth from the Senate, the White House, and the CIA. But now that it has, there’s no doubt–we regularly tortured people, and it didn’t work. The report is revealing, horrifying, and honestly, not entirely unexpected.

It’s an interesting time to be an American. We’re taught, from the youngest possible ages, that if you do something bad you pay the consequences. Our justice system is proof of that–we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. With freedom comes responsibility. Despite that, the CIA operatives, leaders, and anyone else in our government who were involved in this torture will probably never be punished. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black, except the kettle is someone who’s been thrown in jail for a few years for something like well, selling pot, and the pot brutally tortured approximately 100 prisoners.

There’s significant evidence to suggest that legal tracks were covered with regard to how we treated these prisoners. International Law, as grey and ineffectual a field as it is often considered, does exist. The Geneva Conventions dictate how nations behave in war and peace, and the particularly pertinent part is called Common Article 3, which forbids torture of prisoners. Essentially, it says that if someone is no longer an active participant in the conflict because of various reasons–including being detained–they must be treated humanely and the following cannot happen to them:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

In February of 2002, President George W. Bush signed an executive order proclaiming that Common Article 3 did not apply to Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners; however, it was ruled four years later by the Supreme Court that Common Article 3 does apply, in a separate case regarding Guantanamo prisoners. The ridiculousness of the fact that Bush decided part of International Law didn’t exist is kind of beyond the point–the Supreme Court has even acknowledged that Common Article 3 can be used in federal court for prisoners’ protection. As The New York Times put it:

Perhaps most significantly, in ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the Guantanamo detainees, the court rejected the administration’s view that the article does not cover followers of Al Qaeda. The decision potentially opened the door to challenges, by those held by the United States anywhere in the world, to treatment that could be regarded under the provision as inhumane.

Furthermore, the Justice Department has authorized at least some of the torture tactics used, although some of that was after the fact. The Justice Department began an inquiry in 2009, but no charges were ever brought against anyone. It has announced that it’s not going to revisit that decision.

Now, with the disclosure of this report, U.N. officials are demanding that the U.S. do something. As the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad al-Huseein, put it while calling for prosecutions:

In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable or commit torture recognized as a serious international crime they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency.

He also pointed out that the United States did ratify the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994. Other U.N. officials, as well as leading humans rights experts have come forward to condemn the U.S.’s actions and demand some sort of accountability. It would be great if there was that accountability, but at this point I would be shocked. Everything the U.S. has done–Bush and Obama administrations alike–indicate that’s not going to happen. Everything in American history indicates that’s not going to happen. We have consistently shied away from the prospect that we could be held internationally accountable for our crimes.

Now, international law is incredibly complicated; the ways in which it applies to American law even more so. No one has the exact answers about what should or could happen here. But what’s almost certainly not going to happen is any sort of American appearance in front of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Located in The Hague, the ICC has the ability to prosecute individuals for various violations of international law. The statute that governs that court–the Rome Statute–has never been ratified by the United States. And the United States has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, meaning we can’t be referred.

The torture report indicates a horrifyingly dark time in this country’s recent history. We have the opportunity to make it clear that we recognize that truth, and an obligation to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We have a chance to show that we screwed up and we’re willing to pay the price. A chance to be an example of all of those ideals–freedom, democracy, right and wrong–that we espouse to other nations. Too bad we’re almost certainly not going to take it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The CIA: How to Get Away With Torture appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Lately our lives have been beaten down by the constant news about terrorists. It seems like terrorism is everywhere we turn. What happened to the days when we all lived in the nice little American bubble where terrorism didn’t even seem to be a word we could rightly understand? Now it is a word that we use on a daily basis. 9/11 was the starting point of a scary reality for most of this generation and its connection to terrorism. Before that day we could get on a plane and not have to worry about if the person next to us had a bomb in their underwear or constantly wonder and worry about what might happen next. People are unpredictable and you never know what could happen. The security blanket of living in a nation considered a Super Power is no longer there; we walk around with a target on our backs.

Finally our government is getting it together and figuring out what to do to make our world a little bit safer. Even amid all things ISIS at least the government is finally trying to do something. Kudos to President Obama on the airstrikes the other night!

In an effort to deter people from becoming homegrown jihadists, our government has started a pilot program in three cities: Los Angeles, Boston, and Minneapolis. The administration is looking for new ways to intervene in the lives of people who may want to launch an attack on us, even American citizens. The ideas they have put together seem a bit strange and big brother-esque to me, but a necessary evil in terms of protecting the many from the few.

My biggest question though, is how do you know who to look for? How do you know who is thinking or planning anything?

I always think of the film Enemy of the State when it comes to trying to keep an eye on terrorism. What if some innocent person gets pulled into something they aren’t even aware of and the government ruins their entire lives? And once it figures out they aren’t “the guy” it just leaves them alone with a simple apology and they have to to pick the pieces of their life.

How much are we willing to give up to our government in order to be safe? This is something I struggle with all the time because I certainly do not believe in big government, but I do believe our citizens should be safe and protected from harm’s way. Unfortunately there is no right or wrong answer.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Federal Pilot Program Aims to Deter Homegrown Jihadists appeared first on Law Street.

Lynching, torture, and deliberately planned hate crimes bring to mind antiquated racist and religious extremist groups like the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Tragically, these groups are not things of the past. In fact, many of them remain at large in the United States. The radical religious ideologies of these groups drive their members to commit and justify heinous crimes. Most sources agree on a loose definition of religious extremism as people who commit, promote, or support purposely hurtful, violent, or destructive acts against others for what they deem to be religious reasons. A substantial number of these Christian, Islamic, and Jewish groups still operate via bases in the United States.

Recently, a Florida police department shockingly discovered a former officer’s connection to the notorious KKK. Though the number of Klan members has dwindled to about 500, they still exist in the form of smaller sects throughout the states.

Determining which of the modern Christian extremist groups contains the most members is almost unfeasible due to the shroud of secrecy under which they conduct their operations. For example, the activities of the Christian terrorist group, the Phineas Priesthood are often impossible to attribute to its members. Phineas Priests, who desire a North America that is entirely Christian and white, differ from other white supremacist groups in that they hold no meetings. To become a member, one must commit ‘Phineas acts,’ which are violent acts against non-whites.

Click here to see our infographic on religious extremist groups

Another extremist group identifying itself as Christian is the Sheriff’s Posse Comitatus. Specifically, this group targets employees of the IRS and FBI, claiming that they violate the rights of Americans. Posse members were much more active during the 70s and 80s than they are today. During those years, the group’s membership was estimated somewhere between 12 and 15 thousand. In the late 1980s, the popularity of the Posse’s ideology declined dramatically. One of its leaders, James Wickstrom, attempted to bring the Posse back to life in the 1990s, though he emphasized the racist aspects of the Posse’s ideology to the near-exclusion of the rest of the group’s principles.

Islamist extremist groups today receive arguably the most media attention. Many of these groups have bases in the Middle East as well as a myriad of countries around the globe. For example, both Al-Fuqra and Al-Qaeda operate in the United States as well as abroad. Al-Qaeda, possibly the most notorious terrorist group, devastated the world with its 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Recently, however, some argue that the newly formed ISIS in Iraq will usurp the position of most prominent religious extremist group, although it does not currently operate in the United States.

The Jewish extremist group the Jewish Defense League flourished until recently. Now, the only prominent Jewish terrorist group operating in the United States is Nation of Yaweh, though its activities diminished significantly following the death of its founder and leader in 2007.

Aum Shinrikyo, also known as Aleph, is a group primarily based in Japan that cannot be associated with one single religion. Members adhere to Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic ideals among others. Despite its presence in the United States, the group has performed no notable attacks in North America; however, members have committed multiple heinous acts in Japan, including the sarin attack of a Tokyo subway in 2005.

The United States and its allies are not standing idly by as the threat of extreme terrorism driven by religious ideologies grows, yet combating these groups can be difficult due to the important role of religious freedom in America. As stated by journalist Neil J. Kressel, “many political leaders, for example, have argued that religiously motivated evil always represents a corruption of true religion…We should…start with the assumption that ethical and reasonable people – whether religious, agnostic, or atheistic – will typically disdain and reject destructive violence and intolerance perpetrated in the name of religious faith or other ideologies.”

Various countries worldwide devote significant time and resources to CVE, or countering violent terrorism. CVE efforts began in the United States as a response to the growing threat on its turf of Muslim extremist groups. One of the main ways the U.S. tries to combat religious extremism is to reduce sympathy and support for its causes.

The FBI’s website extensively explains the core goal of the new U.S. strategy as outlined in a 2011 White House document, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” The goal of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies is “to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from inspiring, radicalizing, financing, or recruiting individuals or groups in the United States to commit acts of violence.” The document emphasizes the plans of the United States to focus on combating extremism in three areas. First, the government plans to provide support and education to local communities that may be targeted by violent extremists. It also plans to build up “government and law enforcement expertise for preventing violent extremism” and counter extremist propaganda.

With continued efforts from world leaders and citizens, perhaps someday the world can be free of these acts of extreme violence in the name of religion.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Ras67 via wikipedia.org]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence in the Name Of Religion appeared first on Law Street.

When New Orleans Superintendent of Police Ronal Serpas took office four years ago, he was faced with high crime rates, a depressingly low department approval rate, and a long history of police corruption and brutality. While lowering crime rates and rebuilding trust take time, his solution to corruption allegations and brutality has been relatively simple — require patrol officers to wear body cameras.

The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) has been through several scandals, but none as severe as the Danziger Bridge incident, in which police officers shot, killed, and maimed innocent, unarmed citizens then tried to cover it up. The incident took place just six days after Hurricane Katrina and took the lives of a mentally impaired man as well as a 19 year old. It also spurred a Department of Justice investigation that resulted in a long-awaited consent decree, which imposed sweeping reforms on the NOPD.

One product of the consent decree is the requirement of patrol officers to wear body cameras in an effort to regain trust and ensure transparency and accountability in the future. Hailing this as the next step in American policing, Serpas has high hopes that the cameras will be well worth the $1.45 million investment. He believes that they are the best way to eliminate the “he-said-she-said” problem once and for all.

The 420 cameras purchased by the NOPD are required to be used by patrol officers whenever they are attending a “business-related event,” including traffic stops and responding to calls. The officers are encouraged to consult their videos before preparing a report and must attend a three-hour training session to learn how to use the devices.

The New Orleans Police Department is not alone in its use of body cameras; more and more police departments across the nation are beginning to require officers to wear cameras on duty. Police Foundation Executive Fellow Chief Tony Farrar recently completed a year-long study evaluating the effect that body cameras have on police use-of-force. He found the cameras to be associated with “dramatic reductions in use-of-force and complaints against officers.”

These cameras are especially appealing to troubled police departments such as the NOPD, currently facing federal scrutiny. Although Superintendent Serpas claims the cameras are a “win-win” for all parties involved due to the creation of an irrefutable record of what happened, there is the fear that the videos may just be for the benefit for the police.

Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, cautions against the practice of letting officers watch their own videos before writing reports. He argues that if an officer is planning to lie, the videos serve as a “good guide” to what he can get away with.

Another issue is the matter of who gets to view the videos and whether or not they are a matter of public record. While Serpas told NPR that he will hire whatever additional staff is necessary to handle public requests for the videos, he concedes that public record laws have “exceptions to releasing information, and there are directions about which information to release.”

A police department monopoly of the videos does little to curb the problem of false or misleading reports. If the public does not have access to the videos then, short of legal action, they still have little more than blind faith to ensure that officers are being truthful when they state that something was or was not recorded on the tapes.

Conspiracy theories aside, the NOPD seems to genuinely want the public to be aware of the cameras, going as far as having officers demonstrate the technology to random citizens. The point behind installing the cameras is to foster public trust, something that the department can only do by proving to the community that they have turned a new leaf.

The cameras fit over the officers’ ears and therefore allow the viewer to see everything that the police officer sees. This is naturally meant to inspire trust by deterring officers from filing false reports – what is the point of lying if you know that what you have done is caught on film? – but ironically enough it seems that the cameras may be doing more to curb the behavior of the people being filmed rather than the officers themselves.

For example, Lt. Travis St. Pierre told NPR that “they always have this one individual that they would go on calls and service for that likes to be disruptive, curse at the police, fight with the police, and when they got out and turned the camera on and informed her she was being recorded, she immediately said, ‘Ah. OK,’ and was not a problem at all. We’re seeing a lot of that kind of stuff.”

More polite citizens aren’t necessarily a bad thing, but stifling complaints or disagreements is not necessarily good either. As the NOPD’s bleak track record has shown, the police are not always right and they do not always act with citizens’ best interests in mind. Being able to freely voice your opinions and complaints — no matter how disruptive they may be — is just as important as officers not falsifying reports. As the use of cameras continues to expand in New Orleans and several other jurisdictions, it will be interesting to see how effective it is, and who actually benefits from the tactic.

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Thomas Hawk via Flickr]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Orleans Police Attempt to Regain Public Trust by Wearing Patrol Cameras appeared first on Law Street.

Crimes against humanity such as those committed by the Nazis during the Holocaust should never go unpunished. That seems like a completely obvious statement, one that everyone can get behind. But what if the crime was committed 70 years ago by man who is now 89 years old? That’s the question at issue in the case of Johann Breyer.

Since the end of World War II, the world has been on the hunt for members of Hitler’s administration. If a suspected perpetrator was found, he was usually extradited to Germany and put on trial there. This practice has continued all the way into 2014. But should Breyer, an 89-year-old man with signs of dementia, face trial for crimes he is accused of committing at the Auschwitz Death Camp many decades ago?

Johann Breyer has lived in the United States since 1952 when he immigrated here from Czechoslovakia. His mother was born in the United States, which granted him American citizenship. He worked as a toolmaker in Philadelphia, got married and had kids. Then, in 1992, he was accused of having Nazi ties and the Justice Department attempted to deport him.

He was ultimately allowed to stay, as the Justice Department lacked evidence to prove he took an active role in the killings. Breyer claimed he was a guard in the prison section of the camp, and since he was a minor when he served, he could not be held responsible for his actions. Basically, his argument was he took no active role in the killings and was instead forced to be there. This whole debate had little actual impact on Breyer’s life, as his name stayed out of the public eye.

After its failed deportation effort, the Justice Department attempted to persuade the German government to extradite Breyer, but the Germans didn’t act until very recently. After examining camp rosters and newly disclosed documents, the German government now claims that Breyer was not part of the prison guards, but rather a member of the infamous SS battalion, “Death’s Head,” trained to be particularly brutal to prisoners. The German government has charged Breyer with 158 counts of aiding and abetting murder — one for each train that arrived at the Auschwitz Death Camp during the six months Breyer was present. To put that number in perspective, those trains carried approximately 216,000 Jews.

Breyer faced these charges and potential extradition to Germany on Wednesday morning. Though he seemed confused, he told the judge he understood the charges against him, and he is now being held without bail until his extradition hearing on August 21.

The DOJ has charged more than 130 Nazi suspects in the last 35 years, but none were as old as Breyer. This brings us back to my original question — should a man that old, suffering from the onset of dementia, face charges for the crimes he perpetrated more than half a century ago?

My gut reaction to the thought of a nearly 90-year-old man in jail is that no, he shouldn’t be tried at this point; however, it angers me that Breyer got to live a normal, fulfilling life. He is innocent until proven guilty, but if he is proven guilty he does not deserve to die a free man. If guilty, he was complicit in the deaths of more than 200,000 people, yet has gotten to live without consequences. I would imagine that a Holocaust survivor probably feels quite enraged when he hears that a Nazi responsible for such horrific crimes has gotten to live a free life. We owe it to those victims and their families to bring anyone involved in these crimes to justice, regardless of age. Its been 70 years since Breyer committed these crimes, but time hasn’t run out yet.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Greg Heywood via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Accused 89-Year-Old Nazi Facing Extradition to Germany appeared first on Law Street.

In a highly anticipated statement, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) pilloried claims by secure email provider, Lavabit LLC, that the FBI violated the law when it ordered the surveillance tool known as a pen/trap device to be placed on the latter’s servers.

Lavabit came under pressure in July of this year to hand over the keys to their security system after the FBI began investigating one of their customers; that customer was Edward Snowden.

When Lavabit refused, claiming that to do so would enable government agents to monitor the communication “metadata” of not just Snowden but all of their customers, the presiding District Court of Eastern Virginia served the company with a court order once again requiring the company to furnish the keys.

The company’s Texas-based founder, Ladar Levison, moved to quash the order. The court denied that motion.

From there, Levison only began to lose more footing. On Aug. 2nd, he finally delivered the keys to the FBI– the only problem being that the paper’s 4-point font rendered them illegible.

Levison was charged with civil contempt days later. The sanctions for the charge were $5,000 for each day he failed to deliver them. Then, in a move that garnered much media attention, Levison disobeyed a court gag-order and shut down his business. The message on the homepage url that is still live reads, “I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit.”

On Oct. 10th, he filed an appeal brief with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. The justice department’s latest brief is a reply to that appeal. In the brief,  they state that an electronic business, like other businesses, cannot defy lawful warrants by simply “locking its front gate.” Moreover, “marketing a business as “secure” does not give one license to ignore a district court of the United States.”

But if the Appeals Court should feel otherwise, the DOJ hedged their bets. Because Lavabit did not move to quash the initial grand jury subpoena, but only the court warrant. They argued that Lavabit has forfeited any arguments to contest the contempt charge.

In light of the global surveillance disclosures of 2013, the case mirrors what many today feel is a battle between privacy and the far reaches of the government.

The court has not yet set a date for oral argument.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr]

Jimmy Hoover

Jimmy Hoover is a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Jimmy at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ to Lavabit’s Levison: ‘Too Bad, So Sad’ appeared first on Law Street.

The DOJ has brought new charges against four former Blackwater Security contractors by the names of Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Nick Slatten, and Paul Slough. All four men were previously in various branches of the US military before joining Blackwater, a private military and security company founded in 1997.

These four former Blackwater employees are now being charged with multiple counts of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit manslaughter because of their involvement in the 2007 Nissor Square Massacre. On September 16, 2007, these four men shot at Iraqi civilians in Nissor square, leading to the 17 deaths and 20 injuries. The Blackwater contractors were in the Square to clear a way for American officials coming in a convoy. Exactly what happened that day is still somewhat unknown: Blackwater argues they were provoked, Iraqi police say they were not. A further FBI investigation determined that at least 14 of the deaths were unprovoked and classified the incident as an “unprovoked illegal attack on civilians.”

A year after the incident, the US charged the contractors who were present with various counts of manslaughter and weapons violations, but the charges were dismissed by a US Judge. The explanation given for the dismissal was that the testimony the case was based on was inadmissible. In 2011, three years later, an appeals court disagreed. Last week, four contractors were re-indicted —of the six involved in the incident, one has already pleaded guilty and another had charges against him dropped.

Last time the charges were brought, Heard, Liberty, Slatten, and Slough all pleaded not guilty and alleged that their actions in Nissor Square in 2007 were exclusively acts of self-defense. As of yet, there is no indication what they plan to plead for these new charges or when the case will actually begin. The indictment says that the four men, “unlawfully and intentionally, upon a sudden quarrel and heat of passion, did commit voluntary manslaughter.” The contractors on trial will need to prove that they did in fact act in self defense.

This opportunity to discuss Blackwater comes at a time when Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with their government, partly because of a lack of transparency. The history of Blackwater, which has now changed its name to Academi, sheds an interesting light on US military policies. Blackwater was originally founded in 1997, and was intended to supplement already existing military force. One of the founders, Erik Prince, stated , “We are trying to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did for the Postal Service.”

Blackwater mainly began by helping with training and providing protection services. It was one of a few different private firms hired in the Afghanistan and Iraq war. It is estimated that in 2006, there were 100,000 private contractors working for the Department of Defense. This is a huge departure from previous wars—estimates only place about 10,000 contractors in the Persian Gulf War. This farming-out of war to private militaries has the potential to grow even further in future conflicts. The DOJ is taking an admirable step in forcing accountability for these groups by the indictment of the four contractors involved in Nissor Square Massacre.

[Washington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [jamesdale10 via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Charges For Former Blackwater Contractors appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, republican Governor Pat McCrory signed a bill that requires voters to show ID, restricts early voting, and ends early registrations for individuals under the age of eighteen. Following the bill signing,  North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan sent a letter to the attorney general, asking the Justice Department to review her state’s newly signed voting bill that she claims could restrict citizens’ right to vote.

Additionally, ACLU and other civil rights groups immediately announced their plan to file  lawsuits over the bill claiming that it violates the Voting Rights Act. Before June, North Carolina would have been required to seek preclearance prior to implement such laws; however, after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act this is no longer the case.

[Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [SEIU via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina’s Senator and Governor at Odds Over Voter ID Law appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the attorney general, Eric Holder, stated “the war on drugs is now 30.. 40 years old. There have been a lot of unintended consequences. There’s been a decimation of certain communities, in particular communities of color.” Holder is spearheading sentencing reform and expects speak on the proposals in a speech to American Bar Association in San Francisco, next week.

Holder is not the only one calling for sentencing reform. Two senators Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin and Utah Republican Mike Lee, are promoting a bill called the Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013- a law to lower mandatory minimums for several drug crimes as well as reduce overcrowding in the prison system by 40 percent capacity. In addition, Republican Rand Paul and Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy are moving their own bill- the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013. Their bill differs by focusing on giving judges more power to impose lower sentences to all crimes, not solely drug crimes.

[JDJournal]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Kate Ter Haar via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Calls for Sentencing Reform in the War on Drugs appeared first on Law Street.

The Justice Department is gearing up to take aggressive legal action in a string of voting rights cases across the country. This is an attempt to soften the impact of the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling on Voting Rights that invalidated section five of the act, which protects minority voters by requiring certain states with a history of discrimination to be granted court approval before making voting law changes.

In the coming weeks, the Justice Department will use other sections of the Voting Rights Act to bring lawsuits preventing states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present identification in order to vote. The department will attempt to force some states to receive approval or preclearance before they change election laws. Their first step will support lawsuit a in Texas concerning the state’s redistricting plan. Additionally, Attorney General Eric Holder is asking a federal judge to require Texas to submit all voting law changes to the Justice Department for approval for a ten-year period because of its history of discrimination.

[The Washington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [SEIU via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Battle Royal: Justice Department Challenges States on Voting Rights Laws appeared first on Law Street.