JUDICIARY: The Administration of Bail by State and Federal Courts: A Call for Reform - Watch The Cluelessness When It Comes To The Child Welfare System

Karen Bass needs to be called to bear witness because she was a co-founder of the Congressional Foster Care Caucus, which has done absolutely nothing except for putting on fun little photo op campaigns to cover up the trafficking of tiny humans.

https://fosteryouthcaucus-karenbass.house.gov/

She knows what goes on in Foster Care because she is the spokestoken for the Foster Care Committee and, for a hot second, lead the charge of the Congressional Black Caucus, which runs the system by championing the chattel ranching property ownership labels of "black & brown", or rather what the latest segregationists like to call targeted populations.

Not once has she ever reached out to me, which is an automatic indicator of a willing participant of stealin' the children, land and votes.

And, if she has the audacity to make a public disclaimer that she does not know who I am, well, then I believe we have validation that she is one of the "Elected Ones".

I will allow Karen to respond to my statement.

Of course, I make no bones in displaying my disdain for the dumb ass gentlelady, for she is only one of the "Elected Ones".

The Caucus has a server, you know.

It is absolutely amazing how Shelton McElroy states that his mother was 14 when her rights were terminated and the only reaction was the "Legal Genius" (trademark pending) giving a proverbial thumbs up to the credibility of their distracting from the child welfare system.

Cicillini wants a judicial rubrik for judgement, yet, has no clue of the child welfare system, with the committee making no comment on the juvenile system, the criminalization of children or the predictive modeling crap that goes along with the dumb pretrial detention programs.

The commercial bail system is chattel ranching where chick touted how her family survived taking in foster kids

Another no money no justice moment where if you cannot afford bail you cannot afford an attorney and if you can mustard the money for representation, it will not be adequate, with absolutely no mention of Guardians ad Litem, who are not licensed attorneys, nor CASA volunteers, who are not even sworn civilian officers of the courts.

Not one mention of Child Protective Services.

What happens when the parents go to jail for an inability to secure a bail bond?

The kids go to foster care, but the Committee did not seem to find that to be a subject of interest.

What was of interest to me was that Mary Smith, who has a family bail bonds business, started out as foster parents.

You can do the math by calculating the number of foster children times the monthly foster care payments, and possible adoption tax incentives, but hey, what do I know?

I know the committee addressed nothing about trafficking tiny humans, but for this particular hearing, it is juvenile justice and the billions to be made in the private sector of chattel law.

Witnesses

Mr. Brandon Buskey
Deputy Director for Smart Justice Litigation, American Civil Liberties Union Criminal Law Reform Project

• Witness Statement
• Witness Truth in Testimony
• Witness Biography

Mr. Shelton McElroy 
National Director of Strategic Partnership, The Bail Project

• Witness Statement
• Witness Truth in Testimony
• Witness Biography

Ms. Alison Siegler 
Director, Federal Criminal Justice Clinic, University of Chicago Law School

• Witness Statement
• Witness Truth in Testimony
• Witness Biography

Ms. Mary Smith 
President, Ohio Professional Bail Agents Association

• Witness Statement
• Witness Truth in Testimony
• Witness Biography

Ms. Sakira Cook
Director, Justice Reform Program, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

• Witness Statement
• Witness Truth in Testimony
• Witness Biography

Documents

• Notice of Hearing
• Witness List

116th Congress

DEBTORS’ PRISON FOR KIDS? T... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 3: The Role of Data and Privacy in Competition - Bioethics In Modern Day Human Trafficking

Iceland has a generational genetic repository.

Penn State University seems to run the bioethics portion of modern day human trafficking in support of Iceland's commercialization of really, really, tiny humans, like genomes for genomic predictive modeling crap.

Wayne State University has the blood bank.

University of Michigan has the library system of predictive modeling crap.

Michigan State University looks to be the keyman for all the human lab rat experiments.

WHO definitions of genetics and genomics
 Genetics is the study of heredity.1 Genomics is defined as the study of genes and their functions, and related techniques. 1,2 The main difference between genomics and genetics is that genetics scrutinizes the functioning and composition of the single gene where as genomics addresses all genes and their inter relationships in order to identify their combined influence on the growth and development of the organism.

Bioethics is just another reengineered component when it comes to the residuals of the peculiar institution, which is what shall eventually aid in the obviation of policy and law, specifically in the areas of procurement for inurement.

https://www.decode.com/

https://cofs.lara.state.mi.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSummary.aspx?ID=801050160&SEARCH_TYPE=3

Michigan

It all started in Detroit.

Iceland Inc on the Ethics of Commercial Population Genomics by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: NADLER & CICILLINE STATEMENT ON DOJ ANTITRUST INVESTIGATION INTO AUTOMAKERS WHO STRUCK VEHICLE EMISSIONS DEAL WITH CA

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law Chairman David N. Cicilline (D-RI) released the following statement on reports that the Department of Justice opened an antitrust investigation into automakers who reached an agreement with California regarding state emissions standards:

“President Trump has repeatedly misused his office to punish perceived adversaries—in this case companies who cooperate with state government pursuing strong environmental protection policies. The Department’s antitrust investigation into the four major automakers who reached an emissions control agreement with California is only the latest in a profoundly troubling pattern of abuse of power that has flourished under the Trump presidency.

“As a policy matter, California’s agreement with the four major automakers to reduce emissions will safeguard the public and the environment while providing the industry with regulatory certainty.  The President sees that as a threat to his assault on the environment. So, it is no surprise that his Administration is again threatening to wield federal antitrust laws in response. There is virtually no antitrust theory that the Justice Department can use to prove that this agreement will unreasonably restrain trade or otherwise violate the antitrust laws.

“The House Judiciary Committee is examining allegations of obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by the President. Using the Department of Justice to investigate or attack perceived political enemies—whether they are individuals, states, or major corporations—is another example of this President’s disregard for the rule of law.  The Committee will broaden its investigation into the President’s unprecedented criminality, corruption, and cover-up to include these latest revelations and will take further investigative steps regarding this decision by the Department, including scheduling hearings and requesting documents from the Department and the White House. We look forward to hearing what rationale, if any, the Justice Department has for its latest attempt to score political points at the expense of the American people.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Hearing on Exploring the Effects of Consolidation and Anticompetitive Conduct in Health Care Markets

Hearing on Diagnosing the Problem: Exploring the Effects of Consolidation and Anticompetitive Conduct in Health Care Markets

The reason why health care costs are rising is due to the fact that Medicaid, Medicare, TRICARE fraud was never mentioned.

There was no mention of the practice of hospitals and their foreign UCC children's trust funds that are in the hundreds of billions of Medicaid dollars and solicitations, in foreign banks, not averting taxes.

Now, you do not have to watch the hearing.

No Truth in Testimony Statements, again.

Witnesses

Dr. Fiona Scott Morton 
Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics, Yale School of Management

• HHRG-116-JU05-TTF-MortonF-20190307.pdf
• CV

Dr. Martin Gaynor 
E.J. Barone Professor of Economics and Health Policy, Carnegie Mellon University

• HHRG-116-JU05-TTF-GaynorM-20190307.pdf
• CV

Mr. Michael Kades 

Director of Markets and Competition Policy, Washington Center for Equitable Growth

• HHRG-116-JU05-TTF-KadesM-20190307.pdf
• CV​

Dr. Craig Garthwaite 
Herman R. Smith Research Professor, Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University

• HHRG-116-JU05-TTF-GarthwaiteC-20190307.pdf
• CV

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Energy & Commerce and Judiciary Committee Leaders Announce Joint Hearing on T-Mobile & Sprint Merger

 

Hearing With Executives Expected Wednesday, February 13^th

Washington, D.C. – Today, Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chairman Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law Chairman David N. Cicilline (D-RI) announced a joint hearing on the T-Mobile and Sprint merger on Wednesday, February 13.  The joint Subcommittee hearing will examine the merger’s potential impacts on consumers, workers and the wireless industry. 

While the complete list of hearing participants is still being confirmed, T-Mobile CEO John Legere and Sprint Executive Chairman Marcelo Claure have both agreed to testify.  

This will be the first merger review hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee in more than eight years—the last time Democrats held the majority in the House of Representatives.

“A merger between T-Mobile and Sprint would combine two of the four largest wireless carriers and the carriers with the largest numbers of low-income customers.  As the Committees with oversight of the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice, we must hold this hearing to examine the effects on important issues like jobs, costs to consumers, innovation and competition,” said Pallone, Nadler, Doyle and Cicilline.  “We look forward to examining this merger from the perspective of what is in the best interest of consumers and hardworking people.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: AHEAD OF REPUBLICANS’ DIVISIVE JUDICIARY HEARING TO CONNECT THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC TO ANTI-IMMIGRANT POLICIES & RHETORIC, JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS CALL FOR REAL HEARINGS TO ADDRESS OPIOID CRISIS

Washington, D.C. – Ahead of House Judiciary Republicans’ politically divisive Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee hearing entitled “The Effect of Sanctuary City Policies on the Ability to Combat the Opioid Epidemic,” House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Vice Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and eight other House Judiciary Democrats sent a letter to Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), urging him to hold a real hearing to appropriately examine the ongoing opioid epidemic in America.

In their letter, the Members wrote, “We write to request a hearing to comprehensively examine the ongoing opioid epidemic.  In 2016, more than 42,000 people died of opioid overdoses, which equates to 115 people dying every day of preventable causes.  On October 26, 2017, President Trump declared the opioid epidemic a Nationwide Public Health Emergency.  At the time, you stated that ‘the House Judiciary Committee will continue to review our nation’s laws to determine if more resources are needed to address this crisis.’  Shortly thereafter, on November 1, 2017, the President’s Commission on Combatting Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis released its final report setting forth 56 specific recommendations to address the ongoing epidemic.  It is long past due that the Committee held a hearing to examine these issues and how we can work in bipartisan manner to consider comprehensive measures to combat the opioid epidemic.”

Nadler and Raskin compared the Judiciary Committee’s inaction on this issue with the productivity of other committees, writing, “On October 26, 2017, the Energy and Commerce Committee held a full committee hearing, ‘Federal Efforts to combat the Opioid Crisis: A Status Update on CARA and Other Initiatives,’ at which Members pressed the Drug Enforcement Agency regarding ongoing investigations into ‘pill dumping’ in West Virginia, which include investigating the shipments of over 20 million hydrocodone and oxycodone pills to two pharmacies in a West Virginia town of 3,000 people.  On December 5, 2017, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing, ‘Examining Concerns of Patient Brokering and Addiction Treatment Fraud;’ and, on January 20, 2018, Chairman Greg Walden announced a series of hearings to continue oversight and consider legislation to combat the opioid epidemic. Like these committees, we should explore the opportunities for bipartisan action on these issues instead of focusing on divisive anti-immigrant politics.”

The letter was signed by Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), David Cicilline (D-RI), Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).

Democratic Judiciary Letter to Goodlatte Regarding Opioid Epidemic in America 2.14.2018 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Top Dems Request Docs on DOJ Lawsuit to Block AT&T and Time-Warner Merger After AG Refuses to Answer Questions

Washington, D.C. (Feb. 8, 2018)—Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. David N. Cicilline, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Regualtory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, and Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, sent a letter, below to Attorney Gerneral Jeff Sessions requesting documents relating to the decision by the Department of Justice to file a lawsuit to block the merger between AT&T and Time-Warner—in light of the President’s public animus against Time-Warner’s news organization, CNN.

“Although we take no position on the legality of the transaction or the merits of the lawsuit itself, we are deeply concerned by reports of inappropriate interference by the White House and, in particular, your refusal during your testimony on November 14, 2017 to answer questions relating to your communications with the White House regarding this matter,” the Democrats wrote.

President Trump made clear on the campaign trail that he would never allow this merger to go through because of his hatred of CNN.

Over the course of the past year, there have been numerous reports of meetings directly with Trump, his son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner, and various Justice Department officials, raising serious concerns about whether the Department’s independence has been compromised as a result of political pressure.

“This conduct is, in our opinion, an overt and unprecedented threat to interfere inappropriately with the deliberations of career officials at the Department of Justice,” the Members wrote. “Their mission is to enforce the laws of this nation independently and in a non-partisan manner—not to use them as a weapon to attack press outlets that serve their constitutional functions and express criticism of the President.”

At a hearing in November before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Ranking Member Cicilline asked Attorney General Sessions whether he discussed the merger with anyone at the White House, but he refused to answer. Sessions did not assert executive privilege—or any other valid privilege—but claimed:  “I am not able to comment on conversations or communications that Department of Justice top people have with top people at the White House.” 

Under President George W. Bush, well-established Department guidelines expressly limited communications with the White House on “pending criminal or civil-enforcement matters” unless a communication “is important for the performance of the President’s duties and where appropriate from a law enforcement perspective.”  These guidelines included matters pertaining to the civil enforcement of the antitrust laws, such as the Department’s review of mergers and acquisitions.

The Democrats requested all documents and communications related to the decision to sue AT&T, DirectTV Group Holdings LLC, and Time Warner Inc. and all documents and communications identifying any contact between any employee of the White House or any official or unofficial adviser to the President with any Department of Justice employee regarding the merger.

U.S. House Judiciary Democrats Letter to AG Sessions Regarding CNN, AT&T Antitrust Lawsuit by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS RELEASE STATEMENT AGAINST HPSCI PROPOSED SECTION 702 REAUTHORIZATION BILL

Washington, D.C. - Today, led by Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), House Judiciary Committee Democratic Representatives Shelia Jackson Lee (D-TX), Ted Deutch (D-FL), David Cicilline (D-RI), Ted Lieu (D-CA), and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) released the following joint statement expressing their strong opposition to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) proposed Section 702 legislation:

“Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an incredibly powerful surveillance authority and a critical tool for the intelligence community.  We believe that the responsible thing to do is to reauthorize Section 702 before it expires at the end of the year—provided that we also reform the statute to address our core concerns about privacy and due process.

“Late last night, the House Intelligence Committee released a bill, below, that purports to ‘protect American’s privacy rights while retaining the program’s effectiveness in combatting terrorism.’  That characterization is clearly mistaken.

“The HPSCI bill is a dangerous expansion of the government’s ability to spy on United States citizens.  It does little to prevent the FBI from using Section 702 against us in court.  It does even less to prevent the NSA from engaging in so-called ‘about’ collection—a practice that the FISA court has twice found unconstitutional.  Perhaps most frightening, the bill makes a subtle change that would, for the first time, allow the government to aim these surveillance programs directly at Americans.  Nobody should find these ‘reforms’ acceptable.  Nobody should consider this bill ‘reform’ at all.

“Earlier this month, the House Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 3989, the USA Liberty Act, with a bipartisan vote of 27-8.  Although far from perfect, our legislation stands apart from the HPSCI bill in two key aspects: it makes meaningful reforms to Section 702, and it actually stands a chance of passage in the House.  HPSCI should abandon its effort to undo key protections and work with the House Judiciary Committee to pass legislation that reflects the consensus view of the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Fisa Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 Bill Text by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Another lesson from Equifax - We must end the predatory consumer practice of forced arbitration

By John Conyres, Jr., Hank Johnson, David Cicilline, & Don Beyer

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

The recent Equifax data breach jeopardized the economic security of nearly half of all Americans because of the credit rating company’s failure to safeguard our most sensitive information, which could now be in the hands of criminals. To make matters worse, many of those affected by this massive security breach are unsure whether they even have legal recourse because of the company’s use of forced arbitration clauses.

Americans are right to be outraged and frustrated and should be especially concerned about the use of forced arbitration by credit rating agencies like Equifax. Forced arbitration clauses are a predatory consumer practice written into the fine print of contracts. Signers unknowingly waive their right to sue and are forced into arbitration if a dispute arises. Americans should have a right to choose whether to sue or to seek arbitration. Preemptively eliminating our access to the justice system is a violation of every American’s right as a consumer. The justice system is one of the few tools that average citizens have to fight deceitful and harmful business practices, vindicate their rights, and pursue justice.

Equifax partially revised its forced arbitration policy in response to public outcry, but a limited change is not sufficient given the systemic nature of this problem and the scope of the lives affected. In recognition of the importance of Americans’ access to justice, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) finalized a rule to eliminate forced arbitration from consumer financial product contracts.

This protection restores the rights of Americans to seek their day in court, and the transparency that comes with it, if their rights are violated by unscrupulous financial services and products. This protection is vital for the economic security of the American people and our country’s commitment to the rule of law. But rather than support this commonsense protection, credit rating agencies, like Equifax, reportedly campaigned against it and spent millions in political contributions to undermine both the CFPB rule and the CFPB itself.

The Equifax data breach shook public confidence in the entire credit rating industry. Companies such as Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian should take this moment to demonstrate their respect for the rights of customers, not undermine them. This is why we wrote to ask the three credit rating agencies to revise their terms of service and eliminate their use of forced arbitration and class action waivers on all the products they offer. Furthermore, we asked that they end their opposition to the CFPB arbitration rule to restore consumers’ day in court.

Forced arbitration clauses are a bald and predatory attempt to shield corporations from liability for their misconduct through the fine print of contracts. The credit rating agencies who we trust with our most sensitive data should not be actively working to undermine consumer rights. They should support the CFPB and the rule against forced arbitration.

Congress must also step forward to protect consumer’s rights. We have led the push in the House to pass the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would eliminate forced arbitration. It deserves a vote. Unfortunately House and Senate Republicans sought a different path. A Republican measure to repeal the CFPB rule, supported by all three credit rating agencies, passed the House of Representatives in July on a nearly-straight party-line vote. It is currently pending in the Senate. We cannot afford to let it pass. The right of your and every other American’s access to the justice system is at stake.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: House Democrats to Trump Administration: Florida Nursing Home Tragedy Is a Wake-Up Call to Protect the Fundamental Rights of Residents Against Abuse

WASHINGTON – In the wake of disturbing reports of the neglect of nursing home residents in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, 46 members of Congress called on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma to maintain current protections for elder Americans against abuse in nursing homes.

In Florida, 12 residents died and more than 100 were hospitalized after a long-term care facility failed to evacuate residents after losing air conditioning in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma. In Texas, similar abuse occurred at a facility that refused to evacuate despite severe flooding. The letter is led by Representatives David N. Cicilline (RI-01), John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13), Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (GA-04), Jerrold Nadler (NY-10), Linda Sánchez (CA-38), and Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01).

They wrote: “The horrific reports of abuse at facilities in Florida and Texas in the wake of Hurricanes Irma and Harvey underscore the need for your agency to reconsider upending the legal protections of those who have worked and saved for their entire lives to retire with dignity. This is a time when we should be protecting our nation’s seniors, not rolling back their fundamental right to hold wrongdoers accountable for neglect and abuse.”

Last year under the Obama Administration, CMS finalized a strong rule that prohibited the use of pre-dispute, mandatory (“forced”) arbitration clauses in nursing home admission agreements.

Nursing-home residents stand to lose virtually every cause of action against unscrupulous caregivers unless these current protections against forced arbitration in nursing-home admission contracts are preserved.

As the letter notes, following an extensive notice-and-comment rulemaking process, CMS determined that forced arbitration undermines the ability of health investigators to prevent and remedy abuse in nursing homes.

But under the Trump Administration, CMS has already begun the process to end this protection.

The letter follows a letter from House Democrats—including Representatives Johnson, Cicilline, Conyers, Nadler, and Sanchez—in 2015 that called on CMS to adopt these protections.

The group of House Democrats denounced plans by CMS Administrator Verma to roll back existing protections, writing “Americans in nursing homes deserve better. It is vital that residents and their families are able to enforce their rights and hold nursing home operators accountable for dangerous facility conditions and the inhumane treatment of residents. We strongly urge CMS to protect the health and safety of nursing home residents, particularly in light of recent events, by maintaining the current prohibition of forced arbitration clauses in nursing home admission contracts.”

Congressional Letter To CMS On Nursing Home Protections 10032017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Leads Members Of Congress In Filing Amicus Brief Opposing Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Motion To Vacate His Conviction Following Trump's Pardon

Washington, D.C. - Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY ), Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice Ranking Member Steve Cohen (D-TN), Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Ranking Member David Cicilline (D-RI), Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA), and other Members of Congress, filed an amicus brief opposing Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s motion to vacate his conviction for criminal contempt of court on the ground that President Donald Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Arpaio was unconstitutional.

In 2011, a Federal court found that Sheriff Arpaio's police department routinely engaged in racial profiling of Latinos.  The court ordered the department to cease its unconstitutional practices immediately, but Sheriff Arpaio and the department flouted the court's order, and continued to direct their staff to deprive thousands of people of their constitutional rights.  This past July, Sheriff Arpaio was held in criminal contempt of court for repeatedly and blatantly ignoring the court’s injunction against him.  Just three weeks later, however, President Trump pardoned his contempt conviction.

The Members released the following statement:

“The President's pardon of Sheriff Arpaio was not just disgraceful, but also represented what we believe to be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.  As our brief argues, it is essential to the independence of the judiciary that courts be able to enforce compliance with their orders through the contempt power, especially those orders that protect the constitutional rights of private parties.  By pardoning Sheriff Arpaio, the President threatened this fundamental judicial power.  Furthermore, if the President’s pardon is allowed to stand, this case could have severe implications for Congress’s ability to compel compliance with its own investigations and orders.

“President Trump’s pardon was not intended to remedy an unduly harsh criminal punishment, or to correct a mistake in the enforcement of the criminal law—the intended purpose of the power—but to usurp the power of the judiciary to vindicate the authority of the courts and to uphold the rule of law.  Despite common misconceptions, the pardon power is not absolute.  As Laurence Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, explained, ‘when the Constitution says that the president ‘shall have power,’ that does not mean unlimited power.  It means power that is not inconsistent with other parts of the Constitution.’  In this case, the pardon power was used to upset the careful balance of power among the branches of government, and to undermine the rule of law.

“We agree with Professor Tribe and with numerous other scholars and commentators that the President’s pardon of Sheriff Arpaio was unconstitutional and, therefore, ask the court to deny Sheriff Arpaio’s motion to vacate his conviction.”

U.S. House Judiciary Democrats Proposed Memorandum of Amici Curiae In Opposition To Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Mo... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Top Democrats Ask Equifax, TransUnion, & Experian: Will Restore Consumers Rights In The Wake Of The Equifax Data Breach?

September 21, 2017 (Washington, DC) – Following the Equifax data breach of 143 million Americans’ personal information, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-RI), and Representatives Don Beyer (D-VA) and Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (D-GA), wrote to the three main credit rating agencies—Equifax,TransUnion, and Experian—to hear whether these companies will continue to include forced arbitration clauses in their terms of service or end their campaign against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule to restore consumers’ day in court.

They wrote:

“The economic security of nearly half of all Americans has been jeopardized because Equifax’s failure to safeguard our most sensitive information, which is now in the hands of criminals. Making matters worse, many of those affected by this massive security breach are unsure whether they even have legal recourse because of your company’s use of forced arbitration clauses. Although Equifax has revised its policy in response to public outcry, this limited change is simply not enough given the systemic nature of this problem and the scope of the lives affected. We therefore request information concerning your plans to revise your terms of service and stance on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) arbitration rule to restore consumers’ day in court.”

The CFPB arbitration rule includes important safeguards for consumers against forced arbitration, a practice that routinely allows corporate entities to avoid class-action lawsuits by burying legal language in the fine print of contracts that require consumers to waive their right to court.

A Republican measure to repeal that rule, supported by all three credit rating agencies, passed in the House of Representatives in July on a nearly-straight party-line vote. It is currently pending in the Senate.

The House Democrats denounced the three credit agencies for their opposition to the forced arbitration rule, writing, “Rather than support this commonsense protection, your company and others like it have reportedly campaigned against it, spending millions in campaign contributions and other efforts to undermine both the rule and the CFPB. Now is the time to demonstrate your respect for the rights of your customers, not undermine them.”

U.S. House Judiciary Democrats Letter To Equifax Regarding Consumer Protection In Wake of Data Breach by Beverly Tran on Scribd

U.S. House Judiciary Democrats Letter To TransUnion On Consumer Protection In Wake of Equifax Data Breach by Beverly Tran on Scribd

U,S, House Judiciary Democrats letter To Equifax on Consumer Protection In Wake of Experian Data Breach by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: House Judiciary Committee Democrats Walk Out On Markup Sabotage Of Comey Firing Inquiry

House Judiciary Committee Republicans doubled down on their neglect of conducting oversight of the Trump Administration by sabotaging a markup of Representatives David Cicilline (RI-01) and Pramila Jayapal’s (WA-07) resolution of inquiry that requested the Trump Administration to release information pertaining to the firing of FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Sessions’ involvement in that decision.

 Early into the debate, Chairman Bob Goodlatte “called the previous question” — a procedural move that shut down debate in its entirety and denied Democrats an opportunity to discuss the bill further. In protest, Democrats walked out of the committee room and took to Facebook Live to share their thoughts.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: House Judiciary Republicans Double Down On Refusal To Conduct Trump Oversight; Silence Dem Voices During Markup Before Dems Walk Out

Washington, D.C. – September 7, 2017, House Judiciary Committee Republicans doubled down on their neglect of conducting oversight of the Trump Administration by sabotaging a markup of Representatives David Cicilline (RI-01) and Pramila Jayapal’s (WA-07)  resolution of inquiry, below, that requested the Trump Administration to release information pertaining to the firing of FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Sessions’ involvement in that decision.

Early into the debate, Chairman Bob Goodlatte “called the previous question” – a procedural move that shut down debate in its entirety and denied Democrats an opportunity to discuss the bill further.

In protest, Democrats walked out of the committee room and took to Facebook Live to share their thoughts.

When the original version of the resolution was considered in July, Judiciary Republicans hijacked the markup using a similar tactic by replacing the content of the bill with Hillary Clinton conspiracies sourced from a pro-Trump forum hosted by Reddit.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today released the following statement:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Today, the Majority denied us one of the most fundamental rights—not only of the Minority, but of democracy itself—the right to debate. Just as we had begun our consideration of H. Res. 488, the Cicilline-Jayapal resolution of inquiry, the Majority took the draconian step of calling the previous question—blocking discussion of amendments we had planned to offer, and cutting off all further debate.

“This is not how our Committee has operated in the past.  This is not how our Committee should operate ever. A resolution of inquiry is one of the few avenues available to the Minority to attempt to obtain information from this Administration.  We have only turned to these resolutions out of necessity. 

“Since President Trump took office, my colleagues and I have written to the Administration more than 20 times.  To date, we have not received a single meaningful response.  We have written to Chairman Goodlatte six times, asking for oversight hearings with Administration personnel.  We have not received a response to these requests either.  The Committee has not yet held a single substantive oversight hearing of the Trump Administration.

“The resolution before us today asked for information related to the firing of James Comey, the scope and application of the Attorney General’s recusal, and a meeting at Trump Tower between Russian officials and senior campaign personnel, among other pressing matters within our immediate jurisdiction.  We require this information to do our jobs, plain and simple.

“Today was a sad day for our Committee and a sad day for democracy—but we will not surrender to these heavy-handed tactics.  We have a responsibility to continue to ask questions and conduct oversight, whether or not the Majority will join us in that effort. In short, until the Trump Administration answers our questions, and until the Majority calls them here to do so, my colleagues and I will continue to do everything in our power to hold both the Administration and the Majority accountable.”

BACKGROUND:   House Judiciary Committee Democrats have long been calling for House Judiciary Republicans to provide proper oversight of Trump and his Administration. Democrats have written to Chairman Goodlatte six times to request hearings and have also sent several letters to Speaker Paul Ryan, the Department of Justice and the White House requesting related information. These letters have gone unanswered and House Judiciary Republicans have so far blocked Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s (D-NY) resolution of inquiry, Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Ted Lieu’s (D-CA) resolution of inquiry, and the original Jayapal/Cicilline resolution, from reaching the House floor.  Instead, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee continue to do Trump’s bidding. Committee Republican Rep. Ron Desantis (R-FL) has even introduced an amendment to end Robert Mueller’s investigation.

A resolution of inquiry is a legislative tool that has privileged parliamentary status, meaning it can be brought to the floor if the relevant committee hasn’t reported it within 14 legislative days, even if the Majority leadership has not scheduled it for a vote.

House Resolution 488, On Firing of FBI Director James Comey, 115th Congress by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & House Judiciary Dems Urge Goodlatte To Take Up Trump's Pardon Of Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Committee Dems Send 5^th Request to Chairman for Oversight of Trump Administration

Washington, D.C. – Today, all House Judiciary Committee Democrats, led by Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), wrote to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (D-VA) to ask that he investigate Trump’s pardon of controversial sheriff Joe Arpaio and related events.

The letter is below.

In July, Joe Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt after years of racially profiling and arresting individuals based on their perceived immigration status. In today’s letter to Goodlatte, the members wrote, “Sheriff Arpaio was convicted for criminal contempt of court because he ignored orders from a federal judge to stop engaging in racial profiling.  The pardon not only disregards the rule of law, it directly flouts the courts themselves by signaling that it is acceptable for parties to ignore court orders.”

The letter notes that for “125 years, presidents have worked through the Pardon Attorney to ensure that the power of clemency is fairly applied.  President Trump chose to work around this mechanism and ignore DOJ policy calling for a waiting period of five years or more before considering a pardon application and the expression of regret or remorse by the applicant.” It further details that “before resorting to a full pardon, President Trump asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to simply drop the criminal case against Sheriff Arpaio,” pointing out that the House Judiciary Committee  “has long defended the view that presidents should avoid involvement in specific criminal cases in order to avoid even the perception of politicizing the administration of justice.”

The Members continued, “It is also our Committee’s unique and pressing responsibility to conduct oversight of the President’s use of executive power—particularly when that power is expressed as a pardon that only serves to endorse the transgressions committed by the offender.  If we do not examine this use of the pardon power, we fear that the Committee will be seen by our constituents—and by future generations—as also having endorsed the Sheriff’s conduct.” 

Today’s letter was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which includes: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Brad Schneider (D-IL). 

Conyers & Judiciary Democrats Letter To Bob Goodlatte to Address Pardon of Joe Arpaio by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©