Washington, D.C. - House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) praised the second House passage of H.R. 777, the bipartisan Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2019, which passed by a vote of 402 to 1. The Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2019 reauthorizes the Debbie Smith Act and the Debbie Smith Backlog Grant program for an additional five years, through FY 2024. The bill ensures that grantee states and localities prioritize DNA analysis of crime scene samples from rape kits, other sexual assault evidence, and cases without an identified suspect. The bill also ensures that Debbie Smith grantees prioritize the analysis of samples from homicides and sexual assaults.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) issued the following statement praising its passage and calling on the Senate to do its part:
“The Debbie Smith Act is critical legislation to help fund rape kit processing and end the rape kit backlog across the nation. I helped author the original bill passed in 2004. I applaud my dear friend Rep. Carolyn Maloney who has worked diligently to pass this legislation. Earlier this year, the House passed the Debbie Smith Reauthorization as part of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization, but it has languished in the Senate for six months. Once again, the House is doing its part by passing a separate reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act. It’s past time for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to put country over party and work with Democrats in the House to get these two bills signed into law as soon as possible.”
Today, the House will vote on H.R. 777, the bipartisan Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2019. Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Ann Wagner (R-MO) introduced the original version of H.R. 777 on January 24, 2019. The legislation on the House floor today is an updated version of the bill.
Earlier this year, on April 4, 2019, the House passed the Debbie Smith Reauthorization as part of H.R. 1585, the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. Six months later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has still not taken up and passed the critically important legislation, adding it to the Senate’s graveyard of House bills waiting to be passed and signed into law.
Democrats strongly support the passage, once again, of the Debbie Smith Act and will continue to insist that the Senate pass the full bipartisan VAWA Reauthorization. The authorization of VAWA expired on September 30, 2018 when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and the White House.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) spoke on the House floor in support of the Debbie Smith Act. Below is an excerpt from his remarks on the House floor:
“It is critical that we do all that we can to prevent sexual assault and that we ensure survivors receive the essential services they need, which is why we passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act earlier this year. We continue to urge the Senate to do the right thing and pass that bill. And we will also—again—pass provisions to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act by advancing this bill today…I urge my colleagues to support this bill – and to continue to fight to support the more comprehensive measures in the Violence Against Women Act.”
Chairman Nadler’s floor statement is available here.
Fact: The Debbie Smith Act helps to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and other unanalyzed DNA evidence.
The Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2019 reauthorizes the Debbie Smith Act and the Debbie Smith Backlog Grant program for an additional five years, through FY 2024.
The bill ensures that grantee states and localities prioritize DNA analysis of crime scene samples from: rape kits, other sexual assault evidence, and also, cases without an identified suspect.
The bill also conditions eligibility for the Debbie Smith Backlog Grant program on the assurances that the DNA section of the laboratory to be used to conduct DNA analyses has a written policy that prioritizes the analysis of samples from homicides and sexual assaults.
Law enforcement has increasingly recognized that the backlog of DNA evidence awaiting entry in state databases can prevent law enforcement officials from solving many heinous crimes – which has made the Debbie Smith Act recognized as such a crucial program.
Fact: The Violence Against Women Act, enacted in 1994, is landmark legislation responding to our nation’s crisis of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
VAWA enhances judicial and law enforcement tools to combat violence against women.
The bill improves services for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
The legislation provides services, protection, and justice for young victims of violence.
VAWA strengthens the healthcare system’s response to domestic violence, dating violence & sexual assault and provides safe homes for victims.
The legislation helps provide economic security for victims of violence and preserves programs for communities of color & enhances protections for native American women.
VAWA fact sheet is available here.
Here’s what the groups are saying:
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence: "Survivors of sexual assault need comprehensive policy responses, and the Debbie Smith Act is one important tool in the criminal justice response to sexual assault. We applaud the House for passing the Debbie Smith Act not just once but twice as part of the Violence Against Women Act that passed the House last April. We hope the Senate will soon follow suit so that in addition to addressing the rape kit backlog, survivors have access to comprehensive services and our communities have resources to invest in prevention." Terri Poore, Policy Director, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence
Thank you all for attending this incredible Conference on Crimes Against Women.
Many thanks are owed to Jan Langbein, Becky Park, and all the staff of Genesis Women’s Shelter and Support, thank you for your incredible efforts in hosting this annual conference. Your tireless work to strengthen the systemic responses to crimes against women is inspiring.
Thank you also to the Dallas Police Department for co-hosting this year’s conference, and to Dallas City Mayor Mike Rawlings and Dallas Police Chief Reneé Hall for their support of this important event and their welcoming remarks this morning.
It is an honor to be with you all here today. As you know, successfully combatting violence against women requires that we come together with a coordinated community response. Prosecutors, law enforcement, courts, nurses, advocates, service providers, and everyone here today – you play a crucial part in ending violence against women.
Improving the criminal justice response to domestic violence and sexual violence is the backbone of the Violence Against Women Act. Collaborative work is essential to improving the response to crimes against women. I want to highlight one innovative type of collaboration that I have seen recently.
I am pleased to share that US Attorneys’ offices throughout the country are creating collaborative projects through the Department of Justice’s Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) initiative. The goal of these projects is to reduce violent crime in our communities and the success of these programs are firmly built on their local partnerships. The U.S. Attorneys’ offices are working hand in hand with local law enforcement, the local District Attorney’s office, and some are even partnering with their local Family Justice Center.
An incredible example of this is happening right here in Dallas. The U.S. Attorney for Northern Texas, Erin Nealy Cox, is fighting domestic violence using federal firearms laws through their PSN initiative. Working in tandem with state and local law enforcement partners, U.S. Attorney Nealy Cox has pledged to prosecute domestic violence offenders discovered with guns. As U.S. Attorney Cox recently said in her announcement of this new initiative: “With so many domestic disputes escalating from bruises to bullets and bloodshed, we can and should play a part in ending this senseless violence. We’re hopeful that highlighting this focus will send a message to convicted abusers: Not only can the Justice Department prosecute you for firearm possession, but in the Northern District of Texas, we will.”
If you are not already working with your local Project Safe Neighborhood site and your U.S. Attorney, I urge you to reach out to them to explore ways you can partner to reduce violent crimes in your community.
I also want to highlight the work being done for Native women at this conference. We know that violence against Native American and Alaskan Native women is an urgent problem in the United States. While crimes against women affect every community, tragically, Native American women face higher rates of domestic violence, sexual assault, and domestic violence homicide than almost any other group. A 2016 National Institute for Justice study concluded that more than half of all Native women have experienced sexual violence and physical violence by an intimate partner, and 84 percent have experienced some form of violence in their lifetimes.
In response to these troubling crimes, President Trump has appropriated historic amounts of funds into tribal country to assist Native women. The Department of Justice has also doubled the amount of grant funding devoted to public-safety and victim services in Native American communities.
Furthermore, the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) has funded several Tribal Special U.S. Attorneys (Tribal SAUSAs) to address one of the primary challenges to attaining justice for Native women: a lack of prosecutors to hold perpetrators accountable. These tribal prosecutors are able to bring cases in both tribal and federal court to ensure that cases do not fall through the cracks. Tribal SAUSAs will be on the frontline of Attorney General Barr’s strategy to reduce violent crime in all American communities.
In our pilot project, Tribal SAUSAs reported a wide range of successes, including bringing to court cases that otherwise would not have been prosecuted, increasing trust and bettering relationships between tribal law enforcement, victim services, victims, and the participating U.S. Attorney’s Office, and strengthening accountability for violence against women-related crimes in Indian country. Tribal SAUSAs have been able to advocate for their tribe’s views and needs, which helps the tribe have even more input into prosecutions.
I am often asked about my priorities for the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). My first priority is to support the agenda of Attorney General Barr and President Trump. Their priorities, such as reducing violent crime and combatting human trafficking, perfectly coincide with the priorities of the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). My other priorities for the office are to include substance abuse professionals in coordinated community responses to VAWA crimes and to increase efforts to combat the crime of stalking.
I am so encouraged to see a specific track at this conference dedicated to the crime of stalking. The seriousness of stalking cases, and the element of stalking in other violent crimes, is often overlooked. Behaviors that might seem harmless are frequently revealed to be part of a pattern of stalking. We all know how tedious yet important it is that we take the time to look for the signs of coercion and control. It is critical that we recognize the often over-looked crime of stalking and bring the stalking case to court to prevent it from becoming a domestic violence, sexual assault, or homicide case.
Lastly, I want to bring your attention to the horrific crime of female genital mutilation and cutting (FGM/C). FGM/C is a horrific crime of violence against women and girls. This crime can cause extreme and long-term physical and psychological effects on its victims. A CDC study from 2012 estimates that at least 513,000 women and girls in the United States have suffered or are at risk of becoming victims of FGM/C.
At OVW, we are working hard to raise awareness about this violent crime and the danger it presents to girls in our local communities. We must work hard to prevent and stop this crime and to support the survivors. OVW funds nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to do this work in a sensitive, culturally appropriate way as part of their work on domestic violence and sexual assault. I am glad to see a workshop at this conference on FGM/C and I encourage you all to become more informed about this horrific crime.
The work you all are doing on the frontlines in combatting crimes against women every day is making a difference. As I reflect on my 17 years working in the criminal justice system, I see how far our country has come in improving the criminal justice response to violence against women by the work of law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, victim advocates, and other dedicated professionals all represented here today.
Thank you for all you do. You are in our hearts and thoughts always.
U.S. Representative Cedric Richmond is the first elected official to state "Termination of Parental Rights" into the congressional record of Judiciary.
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which officially expired on September 30, 2018, but was briefly extended in continuing resolutions before expiring in December 2018. The hearing will examine the broad range of issues related to the harms inflicted upon women, men, and children in America through domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, dating violence, and stalking, as well as Congress’ role in addressing these issues. The hearing will also explore the potentially devastating effect of not reauthorizing VAWA, and the tremendous impact a prolonged lack of funding could have on millions of survivors across the country.
Ratcliffe spoke in defense of Faith Based organizations being left out of the reauthorization of VAWA. He raised the political partisanship in passing the extension.
No mention of CPS, foster care or adoption, but Julie Beck spoke about the Lesbian Powers of the LBQRSTUV Community in gender identity laws without broaching anything DNA database related.
She spoke about child sexual abuse.
Unfortunately, there was no one to properly expound upon the gender identity laws under chattel law, more intuitively known in the legal world as Ecclesiastical Law, which is being pushed through Public Private Partnerships in the rebranding of parental rights and the children's trust funds.
Fathers have been victims of VAWA in the layers of fraudulent billing in child support and child welfare programs, where there have been instances where a man identified as an aggressor strictly for the purposes of a mother obtaining services.
Yes, you have to check the box in order to access help.
Yes, the VAWA programs are crap, riddled with fraud, which brings a judicial determination to turn on the federal funding spigot for Targeted Case Management, Medicaid fraud.
Ramona Gonzales did speak of children being removed, without saying foster care, if there is a domestic violence situation which is why the national data of child abuse and neglect are corrupt.
Sarah Deer spoke of Native Tribes inability of prosecuting non tribal members or even crimes of child abuse and against women.
Odd how she never mentioned the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) or its history of how the tribal constitutions developed, who was behind it, and the tribal exile based upon the blood quantum rule, as opposed to the one-drop rule.
It is time to address, in formal hearings, ICWA and all the covert "military" operations, including drug, child trafficking and money laundering on the reservations.
Gohmert got raw by asking the LBQRSTUV Lesbian why women must have "women only spaces" by loosely comparing it to "blacks only spaces". She responded by saying, "if women could experience these women only spaces, they will see how wonderful it is." I would suggest she spend time in a women's only prison or go help mothers who have had their children legally kidnapped get them back.
Richmond spoke on Termination of Parental Rights, as one of his first cases out of law school. No one has ever spoken upon this before. He also mentioned CASA. He made history.
Lieu spoke upon lack of resources for domestic violence survivors, homelessness, poverty, etc. On a side note, your children can and will be removed, placed in foster care, under VAWA if you hail from "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).
How to stop discrimination and increase to access to domestic violence services for LBQRSTUV individuals: report fraud!
Yes, many Faith Based private contractors will not only turn their noses up at a LBQRSTUV individual seeking help, they will advocate termination of parental rights if there is a child involved. Take for instance any christian child placing agency, perhaps, I shall use Bethany Christian Services, which is notorious for ignoring its foster children who are gay and ask for help from being raped.
Perhaps, we can go as far back as St. Vincent Sarah Fisher Residential Institution who never wanted to do anything when it came to little boys being raped by bigger boys, or men, because, homosexuality is frowned upon in self reporting to DHHS, which is why the typical form of help is to drug the pain away with Medicaid cost reimbursed services and testing second generation antipsychotropic human subject lab rats for corporate sponsorship.
Heck, Faith Based child placing agencies will not even allow LBQRSTUV to adopt.
Grand Rapids does not allow LBQRSTUV youth into its homeless shelters, but I digress.
VAWA has turned into a Social Impact Bond experimental social services program and not a reparative response to the residuals of the peculiar institution, its original intent, a step to end human trafficking of women.
It seems Jolly Jerry of Judiciary forgot the Truth in Testimony, the bios, and legacy of VAWA, but then again, he was probably more focused on his impeachment proceedings because not everyone is allowed due process of the law, right?
Washington, D.C. --Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, released the following statement on the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee leadership:
“Representative Sheila Jackson Lee has built a strong legacy of service on the Judiciary Committee and in Congress. I fully support her decision to voluntarily and temporarily step back from the Crime Subcommittee Chair position to ensure the Subcommittee’s important work continues. This decision does not suggest any culpability by Representative Jackson Lee.
“I am also pleased that Rep. Karen Bass has agreed to serve as interim Chair of the Crime Subcommittee until the matter is resolved and Representative Jackson Lee can resume the role of Chair.
“As we move forward, one of the first priorities of the House Judiciary Committee will be to reauthorize and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Collectively, I as Chairman, Representative Jackson Lee, and Representative Bass will continue working together to strengthen VAWA and to reform our criminal justice system.” She should resign, just like John Conyers, Jr.
Washington, D.C. –Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, released a fact sheet detailing the impact of the Trump Shutdown on immigration and border security, federal law enforcement, courts, as well as public health and safety.
The report states, “The Trump Shutdown has significantly impacted the federal government’s ability to enforce the law, provide civil justice, and promote public health and safety. The shutdown burdens federal law enforcement officers working at the border, the very people responsible for handling the so-called ‘crisis’ underpinning President Trump’s demand for an expensive, ineffective border wall. It has also impacted many other federal law enforcement agencies, undermining federal law enforcement efforts across the board, and making Americans less safe. The shutdown has also begun to affect the federal judiciary’s ability to provide civil redress, impaired federal enforcement of civil rights laws, and stymied the federal rulemaking process responsible for writing and implementing public health and safety protections.”
The full report is below.
Immigration and Border Security
·Immigration Judges: The shutdown has caused the Department of Justice (DOJ) to furlough the majority of immigration judges, which is causing massive disruptions to the removal docket. Our immigration courts are already facing a daunting backlog of more than 800,000 pending cases. As judges remain furloughed, their cases are being rescheduled several years into the future, which negatively impacts both removal efforts and the ability for some immigrants to obtain relief.
·E-Verify: The online system for verifying the employment eligibility of employees is suspended for the duration of the shutdown. This complicates the hiring process for many employers that use the system, and in some cases could lead to unauthorized employment. Further, while the system is not mandatory nationwide, it is required for certain employers in many states, and it is unclear how such employers can comply with state laws while the E-verify system remains unavailable.
·Impact on DHS Personnel: During the shutdown, approximately 88 percent of Department of Homeland Security employees—including 53,000 TSA employees, 54,000 ICE officers, and 42,000 Coast Guard active duty members—are working without pay. This includes the principal officers that are tasked with dealing with President Trump’s supposed “crisis.”
oCustoms and Border Protection: Essential CBP officers continue to work without pay, including those in the Office of Field Operations, which operates and guards ports of entry across the country, and those in the Border Patrol, which protects our land borders between the ports of entry.
oImmigration and Customs Enforcement: Essential ICE officers also continue to work without pay, including those who engage in critical enforcement operations, those who operate detention centers, and those who conduct homeland security-related investigations.
oTransportation and Safety Administration: The shutdown has caused airport security lines to grow as TSA agents have grown tired of working without pay and begun to call in sick. The longer the shutdown continues, the more that air travel is made vulnerable to attack and affected by delays.
Federal Law Enforcement
·Impact on Federal Law Enforcement Personnel: Nearly 5,000 FBI employees, including some special agents, intelligence analysts, and support staff, have been furloughed. The President of the FBI Agents Association warns that “operations are being hindered” and “This situation is not sustainable.” The Trump shutdown has also jeopardized funding support for active investigations, such as payments to informants and evidence testing. Additionally, many law enforcement officers with the U.S. Marshals Service, the Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives are working without pay and without many of their support personnel.
·Federal Support for State and Local Governments: If the Trump shutdown continues, it will soon interrupt the DOJ’s administration and payment of funds for many public safety grants that provide assistance to many state and local governments. These grant programs provide critical assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other justice-related initiatives that require federal funding to operate. For example:
oDomestic Violence Prevention: Under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the DOJ funds programs that help prevent and respond to instances of domestic violence. Some grant recipients have been notified by the Office on Violence Against Women that grant payments will be in jeopardy after January 18. This possibility has already begun to threaten the operation of domestic violence shelters, many of which rely on federal funds on a monthly basis to pay their expenses and keep their doors open.
·Federal Prison System: The shutdown has severely undermined the operations of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the agency responsible for the administration of federal prisons.
oPrison Safety: Corrections officers—many of whom face daily the possibility of injury—are currently working without pay, and despite being deemed “essential” many are not showing up for work by calling in sick. As a result of staffing shortfalls, many remaining corrections officers are working double shifts, and other prison employees—such as secretaries, janitors, and teachers are providing security, even though it is not normally their primary responsibility.
oPrisoner Rehabilitation: The shutdown has interrupted implementation of various programs that benefit prisoners, and which ultimately enhance public safety. It may also delay BOP’s implementation of the FIRST STEP Act, a major bipartisan legislative achievement enacted in December that would help to reduce recidivism by prisoners returning to their communities.
Courts and Administration of Justice
·Federal Courts Face Possible Disruption Due to Funding Shortfalls After Jan. 25, 2019: According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), the Judicial Branch continues to operate by using court fee balances and other “no year” funds, but may only be able to so through Jan. 25, 2019. The AO has asked courts to delay or defer non-critical expenses, such as new hires and non-case related travel in order to stretch available funds. If the funds are exhausted, courts could begin to furlough workers as each determines which staff must continue to work unpaid “to support its mission critical work.”
·The Efficient Administration of Justice Could Become Arbitrary and Depend on Where a Civil Case is Filed: If the AO runs out of funds, it will be up to each court to determine how to schedule and prioritize matters it must be involved in—such as hearings and trials—based on the availability of limited resources and unpaid staff. Depending upon case load and the general nature of their docket, some courts could be more affected than others. For example, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit—–which handles many cases involving the federal government—–is already warning the public, that if funds are exhausted on Jan. 25, “the federal courts face serious disruption.”
·Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: While the chance of serious disruption to the federal courts will only grow as the shutdown continues, it is already impeding the effective and timely administration of civil justice at the federal level. For instance:
oEmployment Discrimination Claims: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—the agency responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws barring discrimination in private and government employment based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity—is currently shutdown. This has a significant impact on victims of employment discrimination. All mediations scheduled to occur during the shutdown have been cancelled. And the EEOC has also sought to suspend all currently pending litigation.
·Federal Defender Services: AO operations includes the federal public defender offices responsible for providing a legal defense to indigent defendants. Federal defenders, many of whom already face daunting caseloads, now face the prospect of being furloughed or continuing to work without pay after Jan. 25, 2019, which may undermine indigent defendants’ Six Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
Public Health and Safety
·Federal Laws and Regulations Protecting the Public May Go Unimplemented and Unenforced: Thousands of federal workers have been furloughed across multiple federal agencies responsible for writing and implementing regulations designed to protect public health, safety, consumer rights, and the environment.
·Disruptions to the Federal Rulemaking Process: The Trump shutdown has affected operations at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)—which plays a pivotal role in the federal rulemaking process reviewing draft regulations before they are released to the public. OIRA has only issued vague statements regarding which ongoing reviews of regulatory action have been affected by the shutdown, contributing to public confusion.
oPublic Notice and Comment: The three main websites providing for online public participation in rulemaking—federalregister.gov, regulations.gov, and reginfo.gov—are impaired. The Trump Administration has yet to clearly announce whether agency officials are accepting or considering requests for agency action or public comment during the shutdown.
Once again, respecting the economy of your time, I have brought to you,in the spirit of fuchsia, my color commentary on the Senate Judiciary Confirmation Hearing of Bill Barr.
Please take notice that Chuck Grassley was looking quite dapper because he was letting the world know about his legacy as an old school civil rights dog, in his work on the False Claims Act, addressing Medicaid fraud in child welfare, in this hearing.
Grassley started slamming Bill Barr on the False Claims Act because it is his legacy, he introduced.
He grilled Barr on supporting the whistleblower cases, with specific reference to this case. It made me all warm and fuzzy because, basically, if Barr is confirmed as the U.S. Attorney General and dismisses the case, well, that would mean he lied to congress breaching the trust of this sworn office, which means I would just have to file up a quo warranto.
You can catch the historic FCA love starting @1:11:00
Lee is asking about the Ashcroft-Sessions policy of "most readily provable offense" policy of DOJ.
Barr is talking about sentencing guidelines, going back to what Grassley was talking about his previous position of support of the Crime Bill. Barr said he would defer to the Districts on prosecution decisions.
PART 2
Barr was asked about voting identification laws. He was good in his responses because this stuff is pending in lower courts, so he could not interject with specificity.
Sass is asking about child sex trafficking and the Jeffery Epstein no prosecution agreement without addressing his foundation research.
They asked him about 2016 election fraud investigation and releasing the documents after the committee reviews, redacts everything.
That sounds like they want to see if their name is in it so they can do a white out and not be prosecuted.
Immigration and undocumented individuals were raised but not one peep on SCOTUS DACA DAPA, well, because it is in the court and this is a congressional senate hearing
Not one word on foster care and adoption in the child trafficking on the southern border.
Detroit has a southern border, too.
Barr had to clarify that only congress makes law not policy.
Not one word on child welfare fraud but they did bring up Enron.
BB said he got 900 convictions on the Enron case, but nothing on the bigger scandals that went down. From there they went into the mortgage fraud and the creation of the toxic asset program without saying TARP, but asked if there was going to be prosecution on SEC fraud on the fake mortgages, bundling, you know, the stuff the Detroit Land Bank Authority did, but Barr did well in not commenting on pending grand jury actions in Detroit and Arkansas, and I mind as well throw in the Grand Rapids, Kent County Land Bank, and the Michigan Land Bank Fast Track Authority.
Barr said he would resign is he found out someone in stopped an investigation based on fraud which is honorable, or not, because he could function as a whistleblower.
Then there was border wall political blah, blah, blah that had no place to be put forth in this hearing.
They covered VAWA and it falling under jurisdiction of DOJ.
Then they went after Trump of what he knows and does based on media reports asking Barr to speculate on what Trump actually knows without seeing the documents.
He did say people who are accused, based upon public information like what Trump knows or is covering up, deserves due process.
He talked alot about due process.
Cory Booker asked about gay hate based on judicial morality but said nothing about chattel law because that is what all the labeling is about. I do not like Booker. He is a clown. He partnered with Betsy DeVos in privatized education enterprises. He kept talking about civil rights but has no idea that he was behind taking out the civil rights leader from congress. Yes, I said that. All that gay protection stuff is about pumping through more child welfare fraud programs layered with layers of administrations to steal more money and nothing about equal justice in holding these NGOs who push through divisive speech through law to keep people under their classification schemes for that crappy predictive modeling just to make money off the people they claim to help. Not impressed.
Watching parts of this hearing reminds me of each senator being assigned a specific area they will champion to keep their crap under cover in case Barr is appointed and decides to prosecute them.
Where is the substantive questioning?
Harris threw out the race card talking about voting rights but conveniently failed to mention anything about the DOJ election integrity investigations on the 2016 and 2018 elections because she is going to have some issues when it comes to her participation in violating the voting rights act.
Barr had to explain again that only congress makes law.
Hirono brought up election fraud and argued that there is no voter fraud going on, even in the absentee ballots, and asked if he would waste resources going after voter fraud that does not exist. Too bad she does not know about thee voter fraud in the absentee ballots like what they did in Detroit.
Blumenthal brought up Uranium One.
Barr called it pay for play and that it was put in
Huber's file to review. Interesting. He did say it was not handled properly.
Then Blumenthal brought up the Clinton Foundation.
Barr said he did not think he said the foundation should be criminally investigated and said it should be civilly investigated for tax fraud.
Blumenthal pulled up the emoluments case again, after Feinstein did earlier on anti-corruption.
Barr said, again, he has not looked into emoluments, which is Blumenthal's filing.
No one asked him about 911.
To honor the work of Grassley on his elimination of the government knowledge bar in the False Claims Act work in 1986, just in case the history is wiped because that seems to be a trend right now, I would like to introduce to you his advocacy for whistleblowers in Medicaid fraud.
Have no fear!
I found a way around that "government knowledge bar" by uncloaking the Meanies were mean to my Sweetie.
I also found out that Justice Clarence Thomas has a few issues that have never been addressed when it comes to Medicaid fraud in child welfare.
Have no fear, he will soon come to love me, just like John Roberts.
Can you say "constitutional crisis"?
I can.
Prepared Senate Floor Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman,
Senate Judiciary Committee
Interpreting the False Claims Act
February 13, 2018
Today I want to talk about some troubling developments in the courts’ interpretation of the False Claims Act. To understand these developments, we need to review a little history.
In 1943, Congress gutted the Lincoln-era law known as the False Claims Act. At the time, the Department of Justice said that it needed no help from whistleblowers to fight fraud. The Department said that if the government already knows about the fraud, no court should even hear a whistleblower’s case. So, Congress amended the False Claims Act to bar any whistleblower from bringing a claim if the government knows about the fraud.
That was a mistake.
The bar led to absurd results that only hurt the taxpayer. It basically meant that all whistleblower cases were blocked, even cases where the government only knew about the fraud because of the whistleblower.
In 1984 the Seventh Circuit barred the State of Wisconsin from a whistleblower action against Medicaid fraud. Wisconsin had already told the federal government about the fraud—because it was required to under federal law. So, because of the so-called “government knowledge bar,” whistleblower cases went nowhere and neither did prosecution of wrongdoers.
In 1986 I worked with my colleagues to make it possible for whistleblowers to be heard again. That included eliminating this so-called “government knowledge” bar. Since then, what the government knows about a fraud has still been used by defendants in False Claims Act cases, as a defense against their own state of mind.
Courts have found that what the government knows about fraud can undercut allegations that defendants knowingly submitted false claims.
The theory goes something like this: If the government knows about the defendant’s bad behavior, and the defendant knows the government knows, then the defendant did not knowingly commit fraud. Once you wrap your head around that logic puzzle, I’ve got another one for you.
In 2016, the question of what the government knows about fraud in False Claims Act cases began to take center stage once again. In Escobar, the Supreme Court rightly affirmed that a contractor can be liable under the “implied false certification” theory. That just means a contractor can be in trouble when it doesn’t make good on its bargain. And it doesn’t matter whether the contractor outright lies. A misleading omission of its failures is enough.
Unfortunately parts of the Court’s ruling are getting some defendants, and judges, tied in knots.
Justice Thomas wrote that the false or misleading aspect of the claim has to be material to the government’s decision whether to pay it. Thomas said that one of several ways you can tell whether something misleading is also material is if the government knows what the contractor is up to and pays the claim anyway.
At first glance, I suppose that makes sense. If someone gives you something substantially different in value or quality than what you asked for, why would you pay for it? But if the difference really isn’t that important, you might still accept it.
Even if that is true, the problem here is that courts are reacting the way they always have. They are trying to outdo each other in applying Thomas’ analysis inappropriately or as strictly as possible – to the point of absurdity. In doing so, they are starting to resurrect elements of that old “government knowledge” bar I worked so hard to get rid of.
This is what the Justice actually wrote:
“[I]f the Government pays a particular claim in full despite its actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, that is very strong evidence that those requirements are not material. Or, if the Government regularly pays a particular type of claim in full despite actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, and has signaled no change in position, that is strong evidence that the requirements are not material.”
He did not say that in every case, if the government pays a claim despite the fact that someone, somewhere in the bowels of the bureaucracy might have heard about allegations that the contractor may have done something wrong, the contractor is automatically off the hook.
Think about it. Why should the taxpayer pay the price for bureaucrats who fail to expose fraud against the government?
That’s why the False Claims Act exists, to protect taxpayers by rewarding whistleblowers for exposing fraud.
Justice Thomas said that the government’s actions when it has actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated are evidence of whether those requirements are material—or not.
What does it mean for the government to have actual knowledge? Would it include one bureaucrat who suspected a violation but looked the other way? Would that prove the requirement was material?
Courts need to be careful here.
First, this statement about government knowledge is not the standard for materiality. The standard for materiality is actually the same as it has always been. The Court did not change it in Escobar.
Materiality means “having a natural tendency to influence, or being capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or property.”
The question of the government’s behavior in response to fraud is one of multiple factors for courts to weigh in applying the standard.
Second, courts and defendants should be mindful that Justice Thomas limited the relevance here to actual knowledge of things that actually happened. There are all sorts of situations where the government could have doubts—but no actual knowledge of fraud.
Maybe the government has only heard vague allegations, but has no facts. Maybe the rumors are about something that may be happening in an industry, but nothing about particular false claims by a particular defendant. Maybe an agency has started an inquiry, but still has a long way to go before it’s finished. Maybe someone with real agency authority or responsibility hasn’t learned of it yet.
There are a lot of situations where the government might not have actual knowledge of the fraud.
Third, even if the government does pay a false claim, that is not the end of the matter. Courts have long recognized there are a lot of reasons why the government might not intervene in a whistleblower case.
And, there are a lot of reasons why the government might still pay a false claim. Maybe declining to pay the claim would leave patients without prescriptions or life-saving medical care.
Paying the claims in that case does not mean the fraud is unimportant. It means that, in that moment, the government wants to ensure access to critical care. That payment cannot, and does not, deprive the government of the right to recover the payment obtained through fraud.
Can you imagine if that were the rule, though? Can you imagine if providers could avoid all accountability because the government decided not to let someone suffer? Then fraudsters could hold the government hostage.
They could submit bogus claims all the time with no consequences because they know the government is not going to deny treatment to the sick and vulnerable.
That is just not what the False Claims Act says. Courts should not read such a ridiculous rule into the statute.
Fourth, courts should take care in reading into the Act a requirement for the government to immediately stop paying claims or first pursue some other remedy. There could be many important reasons to pay a claim that have nothing to do with whether the fraud is material.
Further, there is no exhaustion requirement. The False Claims Act does not require the government to jump through administrative hoops or give up its rights. And that would be an unreasonable burden on the government in any event.
We have decades of data showing that the government cannot stop fraud by itself. I also know from many years of oversight that purely administrative remedies are very time consuming and often toothless.
The government should be able to decide how best to protect the taxpayers from fraud. The FCA is the most effective tool the government has. The government should be able to use it, without the courts piling on bogus restrictions that are just not in the law.
Melanie Sloan, champion of due process
for whistleblowers
The Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed has been summoned.
Let us bow our heads in a moment of silence for what is about to happen, in the course of justice by preserving of our institutions, in the spirit of fuchsia...
It’s hard to publicly allege misconduct by a powerful man. No woman wants to be known primarily as a victim of harassment or, worse, assault. It’s humiliating. We — women who have gone public — are so much more than accusers or victims. Yet, once the news breaks, we are reduced in the eyes of the world to the role of accuser. The fact that we had a career, too — whether as a college professor, lawyer, actress, journalist, writer or waitress — gets lost.
It is even harder when a child screams for dear life in hopes that one person in Congress will go public to stop the drugging, rape and torture in child welfare, whether as a victim of trafficking tiny humans or in death. Yet, the fact that these children were born of innocence ~ when the news breaks of what goes on in foster care and adoption ~ gets lost. Priorities, but I also know your pain of being rejected, losing everything, over and over again, each time I stood up and filed formal grievances.
Christine Blasey Ford had excellent reasons to want to remain anonymous in her allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh. It could hardly have been lost on her that — forevermore — rather than being known for her academic work, she would become infamous as a woman who alleged attempted rape by a Supreme Court nominee.
We can also call Kavanaugh into the trial to assist Melanie in healing from her daunting consequences of accusing Conyers of such an horrific sexual attack, considering the fact that Brett was the one who argued on behalf of the United States in strippingattorney-client during Whitewater.
The Independent Counsel (Kavanaugh) argues that the attorney-client privilege should not prevent disclosure of confidential communications where the client has died and the information is relevant to a criminal proceeding.
This would also be a proper opportunity to allow Monica Lewinsky to tell her story and preserve the annals of history by allowing her civil rights to finally be honored. Monica Lewinsky was never allowed to tell her story in the public record, or even tell the public about her work in Whitewater, but now, with the advocacy of Melanie going public, demanding for a full execution of civil rights for all the women who have been maligned in the reporting of non-violent sexual assaults, even the ones who were fortunate enough to have received financial compensation in Non-Disclosure Agreements. What glory she shall achieve in the history of civil rights by finally addressing in the proper venue of a congressional hearing, the validity of NDAs in similar light to stripping attorney-client privilege in the execution of such heinous sexual acts, as Melanie has accused Conyers. Her glory would be even sweeter to suckle in a federal court setting of a Special Prosecutor.
Last fall, when a reporter called me to ask about my employment with then-Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the first words out of my mouth were “off the record.” Because I wanted to corroborate what other women had alleged about sexual harassment by Conyers (which he has denied) and bolster their credibility, I agreed to share some of my own experiences with the caveat that the reporter not attribute them to me, but rather to a “former staffer.” I spent a day struggling over whether I, too, should publicly come forward. I knew that it would be much harder to dismiss allegations made by a named person. I knew that only when women come forward publicly will we ever consign the culture of secrecy surrounding male misconduct to the dustbin.
Have no fear, my lady, for I, too, shall be here to encourage you share your tales of collusion with Marion Brown and all the other women who have chosen to remain anonymous, through your leadership of corroboration, by enjoining in your demand for due process for John Conyers in formal hearings, whether congressional or judicial.
In the end, I decided to attach my name to my statements. But the consequences for coming forward are daunting. In at least some quarters, you are ridiculed, dismissed and labeled a liar, a lunatic — or both. Even some friends, family and colleagues are not supportive and instead question why you needed to stick your head out at all.
These ridiculing appellations, which have been detailed in the allegations of the lawsuit, below,questioning the ethics of your leadership at CREW, shall also be elevated to the national agenda, for you have been accused of possible treasonous activities, and, as such, should enjoin this case in the pending congressional and judicial hearings. No one should be forced to live under a cloak of deception when there exists the powers of subpoena to illuminate lack of support from society when a man, woman or child comes forward as a whistleblower. How was it that you came to secure a position at CREW? I shall demand the presence of Nancy Pelosi and Sheila Jackson Lee.
If the harassment or assault left you emotionally damaged and your career suffered, or caused you to leave your chosen field, you are unstable and not credible. If you overcame the harassment or assault and went on to career success, whatever happened must not have been as bad as you claimed, and you are not credible.
Are you unstable, Melanie? You should seek out help, and help for all the other victims who have anonymously spoken out against the sexual harassment by Conyers. I am quite sure it will be legally possible to have the attending physicians and psychiatrists testify, under oath, to the veracity of the medical records entered into the record to support these claims and clear the names of the anonymous whistleblowers. As a matter of fact, we shall also call forth the work histories of all the former congressional staffers of Conyers. I am quite sure there are dollies and moving vans to ensure a secure transfer of the boxes upon boxes of documents to support the data transfer to court.
If you work in politics and reveal misconduct by someone on your side of the aisle, some of your compatriots may call you disloyal (at least behind your back); your political opponents will applaud you as a hero — even if some of them demonized you in the past when you took positions with which they disagreed.
Even while praising your courage, potential employers wonder if you are a troublemaker and may pass you over, preferring a candidate with less obvious baggage.
Even though the statute of limitations has expired on your claim of sexual harassment by Conyers, as a former federal prosecutor, I know you still possess that passionate litigious fire for due process, and therefore, will embrace me in the call for the unredacted release of the DOJ OIG Horowitz report, which is to address all of the Ethics Committee referrals to the Special Prosecutor surrounding the decades of debauchery within Conyers' Congressional Office and all the Members' Offices of the House Judiciary Committee. Did you file a House Ethics Complaint, too? Filing grievances makes due process much less a concept of "obvious baggage" as it registers one's work history in the public record, a basic civil right, for all whistleblowers.
And unless you go on to even greater infamy — thanks to our appetite for scandal and the algorithms that feed us — this will be the very first thing discovered about you in any Google search, probably for the rest of your life. Monica Lewinsky’s impressive anti-bullying campaign, for example, still turns up well after her involvement in the Clinton impeachment scandal. Anita Hill has spent decades as a law professor, yet the first thing to pop up is her testimony during Justice Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearing.
So the downsides of walking into the klieg lights are substantial. But there also are benefits: On a personal level, the upside may be hope for long-delayed validation that what happened to you was, in fact, wrong and not your fault, and you might even obtain some sort of rough justice. But most importantly — at least for me — was understanding that if I did not come forward, I could not expect anyone else to do so either. And if none of us publicly shares our stories, forcing men — and not just the women they’ve hurt — to suffer real consequences, then how can we expect change?
Twenty-six years after Hill endured a grueling hearing in which senator after senator attempted to undermine her credibility, another woman is nevertheless courageously considering whether to brave a similar grilling by another group of entirely male Republican senators. Maybe in the wake of the myriad women disclosing their own #MeToo stories, men will come to terms with exactly how unacceptable harassment and assault are. Maybe we won’t have to watch the same narrative unfold yet again.
No two narratives are the same. That is statistically improbable, unless it is a transposable model, but hey, what do I know? I know Perkins Coie Sucks. Thank you, Melanie, for your brilliance in creating the #MeToo movement. I strongly believe that this shall be your deigning crown which you will proudly parade as we go forth and demand due process for all whistleblowers, even Conyers.
