Will UNICEF Continue To Suck Now That Caryl Stern Is Gone Or Are We Going For War Crimes For Stealin' The Children's Trust Fund?

Will UNICEF continue to suck dry the national treasuries of the world's children's trusts or will the United States be facing an action of war crimes in the international courts?

I just keep thinking about that JASTA.

First, they steal the children, then the land, and finally the votes.

Oh, the possibilities... a gal can dream, too, ya know.

UNICEF USA chief to step down after 13 years

 Caryl Stern
Finally, former UNICEF Chief Systemsuck

After more than a decade as president and CEO of UNICEF USA, Caryl Stern will be leaving her post next June, the nonprofit announced Wednesday.

Stern has been in her role since 2007. According to the organization, which is headquartered downtown, Stern has helped double its fundraising intake to $600 million during her 13 years at the helm. She said she was able to do so by restructuring and building up its management teams.

In addition, "we made a decision about 10 years ago that we would get louder and prouder," she said. The nonprofit went out into the community and conducted research about who donates. It then found ways for its "hundreds of thousands of $10 donors" to "do more than write a check," Stern said, such as writing letters to politicians.

UNICEF counts American Airlines, the Gates Foundation, Gucci and UPS among its corporate partners.

"Our board is deeply grateful to Caryl for her exemplary leadership, fearless commitment to delivering aid around the world and steadfast championing of children's rights," said Peter Lamm, chairman of UNICEF's board, in a statement announcing Stern's departure. "Caryl has done a terrific job and will be sorely missed."

Stern has given input about who should serve on the search committee for the next president and about the job description, but she does not plan to play a major role in the hiring process. She is still exploring her next steps.

"I keep referencing this as my Seinfeld moment," Stern told Crain's. "I wanted to go out while the show was still popular.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

If The U.S. Government Is Corrupt, Do We Go To The International Court Of Justice?

Internatinoal Court of Justice, The Hague

As we have witnessed history unfold in massive levels of public corruption, so deeply embeded in local, state, and federal governments, where does the U.S. turn to for justice?

The International Court of Justice, of course!

So, what exactly is the ICJ?

It is the tribunal for war crimes under the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

Some may better recognize ICJ as The Hague, the jurisdiction where Nuremberg Trials of WWII Nazi war crimes were held,

Interestingly enough, the United States does not have history of filing with the ICJ as it has always handled its ethical conflicts, internally.

So, as we see abberant fraud and public corruption running through the history of the U.S. government and its States for decades, perhaps it is time to find justice in an untainted venue.

Now, that the U.S. Congress overwhemlingly passed JASTA into law, the doors are now open for the people of the world, including U.S. citizens, to sue the United States.

Public officials, staffers, even former staffers, are subject to the ICJ where lying into the public record, whether through bribes or personal inurement of public office, is a crime of war.

Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

I believe the U.S. has filed, under seal, a writ of frauds.

Stay tuned.

US CODE Title18 Par tI Chapter 118 Section 2441 - War Crimes by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Head of Congressional Ethics Office Sued for Abusing Position, Accused of Assaulting Women

Omar Ashmawy, staff director at the Office of Congressional Ethics

A key official involved in House investigations faces a federal lawsuit alleging misconduct.

Atop congressional ethics official who oversees investigations into misconduct by lawmakers is accused in a federal lawsuit of verbally abusing and physically assaulting women and using his federal position to influence local law enforcement, according to a complaint filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania last month.

The ongoing lawsuit against Omar Ashmawy, staff director and chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics, stems from his involvement in a late-night brawl in 2015 in Milford, Pennsylvania, and includes a range of allegations relating to his behavior that evening and in the following two-and-half years.

Ashmawy’s office conducts the preliminary investigations into allegations of misconduct in the House of Representatives, deciding which cases to pursue or refer to the Committee on Ethics. He is named in congressional documents as the official who presented one of the investigations into John Conyers, the Democratic lawmaker from Michigan accused of sexual harassment, to the ethics committee for further action,

Among other allegations, Ashmawy is accused in the lawsuit of “threatening to use his position as staff director and chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics to induce a criminal proceeding to be brought against Plaintiff and/or others,” according to the federal lawsuit filed against him.

In court filings and in statements to Foreign Policy, Ashmawy denied the allegations laid out in the lawsuit.

“To be clear, I did not harass anyone that evening, physically or verbally,” he wrote in a statement to FP. “To the contrary, I was the victim of a wholly unprovoked assault for which those responsible were investigated, arrested and charged. Any allegation to the contrary is unequivocally false.”

The lawsuit, previously unreported, stems from Feb. 14, 2015 — Valentine’s Day. The evening appeared to start off well for Ashmawy: a nearly $400 dinner with his girlfriend at an upscale restaurant in Milford, followed by late-night drinks at a local bar.

It ended, however, with him bruised and bloody in the back of a police car.

Two months later, three men were arrested for assaulting Ashmawy. One of those men, Greg Martucci, is now suing Ashmawy in federal court in Pennsylvania in connection to the events of that night.

What exactly led to the physical altercation is in dispute, but in police statements reviewed by FP, three women at the bar that night, including the bartender, accuse Ashmawy of harassing and physically assaulting them.

A former Air Force officer who prosecuted two of the early post-9/11 military tribunal cases, Ashmawy has been a rising star on Capitol Hill in recent years. He was profiled in the Washington Post, which described his job overseeing “the first independent office in history charged with overseeing the ethics of the House of Representatives.” He was also featured earlier this year in Politico’s “birthday of the day,” where he describes his job as helping the “House of Representatives uphold ethical standards by investigating allegations of misconduct by members, staff or officers of the House.”

Ashmawy’s office sits at the center of multiple ongoing, high-profile congressional investigations. Its recent work includes a probe into California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes’s midnight trip to the White House in March. The investigation led to Nunes stepping down from the committee investigating Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election, according to Office of Congressional Ethics website and news reports. (Earlier this month, the full ethics committee cleared Nunes of misconduct.)

According to the website of the Office of Congressional Ethics, it has pursued investigations into Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) and Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), whose cases, like that of Conyers, began under Ashmawy and were referred to the ethics committee for further investigation. The New York Times this week reported that Republicans are citing a 2015 decision by the Office of Congressional Ethics clearing Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), who has also been accused of sexual harassment.

Ashmawy has also, according to travel disclosures, visited Ukraine, Kosovo, and Georgia to assist governments there in setting up their own ethics and government oversight bodies. He gives talks overseas and in the United States on investigating lawmaker misconduct and on the importance of ethical behavior in and after government service.

Yet the complaint filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Ashmawy, as well as documents related to the case and police and witness statements, raise questions about Ashmawy’s conduct.

According to the complaint, Martucci on the night of Feb. 14, 2015, witnessed “an extremely violent and belligerent” Ashmawy become verbally abusive toward two women at Milford’s Dimmick Inn, Dawn Jorgenson — the wife of John Jorgenson, the owner of the bar — and Joey Lynn Smith, a bartender there.

Martucci also said he saw Ashmawy physically assaulting Dawn Jorgenson and Christina Floyd, another woman at the bar, a claim echoed in police statements given by the women and reviewed by FP.

According to a three-page statement dated March 12, 2015, Dawn Jorgenson said she witnessed Ashmawy “clearly sexually harassing” the bartender throughout the course of the evening and saw his behavior spiral toward physical violence. “You’ll give me drinks, but you won’t fuck me,” Ashmawy allegedly said to the bartender, according to Dawn Jorgenson’s written statement.

She said she then saw Ashmawy block the bartender with his body and curse at her, and grab her by the wrists. Dawn Jorgenson said when she tried to intervene, Ashmawy turned against her. “He’s holding my wrist so tightly that he falls down to the ground landing to the left of me,” she wrote in her statement.

She said her husband, John Jorgenson, came over to help and pulled Ashmawy away, taking him outside.

In statements given to police, the third woman, Christina Floyd, provided a similar account. “I watched each time Omar would come down and verbally sexually harass the bartender as he ordered drinks,” Floyd wrote in her statement, describing an increasingly angry Ashmawy confronting the bartender.

“I am a 5 foot 3 woman who never knew this man. I was very scared of him and was afraid he’d come back around for weeks after,” Floyd wrote of Ashmawy in her statement to police dated March 14, 2015. “I have never had a man physically harm me or scare me in that matter. He was sexually harassing, abusing and I feared for my life.”

According to Floyd, Ashmawy was “sexually harassing and verbally abusive” to the bartender. She also said Ashmawy was “very intoxicated,” an allegation that is backed up by the police report.

The two other women described abuse at the hands of Ashmawy that same night, providing similar details. Ashmawy did not respond to FP’s follow-up email with additional questions, including if he was intoxicated that evening.

Two other people at the bar that night, however, said they saw only the men drag out Ashmawy—and did not witness his alleged attacks on the women.

One of those witnesses is referenced in Ashmawy’s Dec. 6 brief in support of his motion to dismiss. The brief says the witness “called 911 after witnessing Defendant Ashmawy be attacked by three men and then one of the men involved in the attack dragging him outside” and it “seemed like the men set up Defendant Ashmawy ‘to get jumped.’” (A police report reviewed by FP confirms that the witness who called police was concerned “it wasn’t a fair fight.”)

What all sides appeared to agree on is that, at the end of the evening, Ashmawy was injured.

Months after the incident, three men were charged with assaulting Ashmawy, including Martucci. Ashmawy was never arrested or charged with a crime (a police report from the evening says Ashmawy was the only one at the scene with visible injuries).

Martucci is now suing Ashmawy in a Pennsylvania federal court, accusing him of a range of unethical and possibly criminal conduct tied to the 2015 bar fight and subsequent legal proceedings. Also named in the suit is Milford’s police chief and the borough of Milford.

In his lawsuit, Martucci accuses Ashmawy of using his political power and position with the Office of Congressional Ethics to pressure the police and the district attorney into not arresting him for assaulting the women. Martucci also alleges that Ashmawy threatened federal investigation of local government and police if they did not press charges against those accusing him of assault.

An email reviewed by FP from Ashmawy, using his congressional affiliation, to the police chief and officials at the district attorney’s office accuses them of not handling the case properly.

“As of today it has been over five weeks since I was assaulted. To date, the police department’s investigation is not complete and charges have not been filed. I am deeply concerned,” he wrote in the email, which is signed with his congressional title and work mail address.

Ashmawy cites his injuries, which he said included a facial fracture and a “bruised and bloodied” eye.

In the same email, Ashmawy references his own work conducting investigations, and indicates that if charges aren’t filed the case might attract high-level attention in the capital.

“There is no hiding what happened to me from the people I interact with on a day to day basis,” he wrote. “As result, there are a growing number of individuals in the Washington, DC community who have taken an interest in this matter and are concerned that one of the reasons this matter has languished is because I’m not a resident of Milford, PA. I’ve assured them that isn’t true. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that my ethnicity, as an Arab-American and Muslim, might also be a factor in the delayed investigation and the charging of the individuals responsible. I’ve explained that is unlikely.”

An attorney representing the town and police chief in the lawsuit declined to comment on why charges weren’t filed against Ashmawy in light of the women’s statements to police.

“Please be advised that the official response on behalf of Milford Borough and Chief DaSilva is ‘No comment during the course of pending litigation,’” Sheryl L. Brown, an attorney with the firm Siana Bellwoar, wrote FP in response to queries.

She noted that a motion to dismiss the case was pending with the court, and then threatened legal action against FP. “We reserve the right to subpoena unprivileged portions of your files considering you assert you are in possession of ‘police statements from witnesses…,’” she wrote.

Ashmawy’s version of events from that evening is markedly different. In his statement to police that night, Ashmawy wrote there was a conflict with women at the bar, but it stemmed from “a previous altercation” between his girlfriend and the bartender.

The bartender “spoke fighting words to me,” he wrote, adding that the two other women “abruptly came up to me.”

 At that point, Ashmawy said, three men assaulted him, choked him, and threw him to the ground. “My handwriting is affected by the fact that I have only the sight of one eye and I’m bleeding from multiple wounds to include my eye and my lip,” he wrote in his statement to police.

“This matter was fully investigated. I was the victim, and the men responsible were arrested and charged,” he wrote in a statement to FP. “The three assailants attacked me without any provocation whatsoever, and any suggestion to contrary is nothing but an exercise in slander.”

The three men eventually charged in the assault were John Jorgenson, the bar owner, Tim Reilly, and Martucci. Each was charged with three counts relating to the alleged assault. The first two pled guilty to one misdemeanor charge, but the prosecutors eventually dropped the charges against Martucci, a federal air marshal, and the case against him was expunged in October 2016.

While the case proceeded, however, Martucci was suspended from his federal air marshal job without pay and then later fired. In response to a request for comment about Martucci, the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees the Federal Air Marshal Service, said that Martucci was no longer employed with the agency and refused to answer questions about the incident or internal investigation,

Martucci filed the lawsuit against Ashmawy in September.

On Dec. 6, Ashmawy filed a brief in support of his earlier motion to dismiss, saying he was acting as an “individual who was a victim of an assault and pursued his legal remedies to their established conclusion.”

The police chief and borough of Milford have filed similar motions to dismiss. A case management conference with all parties’ attorneys before the presiding judge is scheduled for Jan. 5, 2018,

“These criminal charges, which Mr. Martucci successfully had dismissed, derailed my client’s career and affected his livelihood,” Martucci’s lawyer, Ryan Lockman, told FP. “Mr. Martucci eagerly awaits the opportunity to proceed with his claims.” Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Day 66 - Where is Eric Braverman?

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, for the Markup of H.R. 1669, the “Judgment Fund Transparency Act of 2016,”by the Committee on the Judiciary

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

While the purpose of H.R. 1669, the “Judgment Fund Transparency Act of 2016,” is ostensibly to promote greater transparency in government, I fear that its real purpose is to once again attack the Obama Administration’s integrity.

The bill would require the Treasury Department to publicly disclose via the Internet various details about payments it makes on claims paid out of the Judgment Fund, most of which is already available on the Department’s website. 

I question the impetus for this bill, which seems to be assertions by some that the Obama Administration’s payment of money to Iran to settle longstanding pre-revolutionary legal claims was somehow illegitimate.  

If that is the case, I reject such a premise.

To begin with, no one can dispute that the Administration’s use of the Judgment Fund to settle Iranian claims against the U.S. earlier this year was perfectly legal.

The State Department negotiated a $1.7 billion deal to settle claims between the U.S. and pre-revolutionary Iran, which included $1.3 billion in interest paid out of the Judgment Fund.

A 1989 Justice Department opinion makes clear that the State Department may seek payment from the Judgment Fund to pay claims or settlements stemming from matters before the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal, as was the case here.

Indeed, Professor Paul Figley, the Majority’s own witness, acknowledged that “the Obama Administration had the authority under the Judgment Fund statute to pay and settle the Iranian claim with interest.”

In addition to being perfectly legal, the Obama Administration’s action actually saved American taxpayers billions of dollars.

I know that $1.3 billion sounds like a large sum for interest payments.

The U.S., however, could have owed Iran billions more for over 30 years’ worth of interest on the principal owed to Iran if we had not settled those claims.

The Iran payments demonstrate that the Obama Administration acted prudentially to protect American taxpayers.  

Finally, contrary to what critics claim, the Administration has been fully transparent.

The Iran payments were disclosed to the public at the time they were made.

The Obama Administration announced the Iran payments when they were made in January 2016, and there is no doubt that the Administration made no effort to hide them.

And there is no support for characterizing these payments as “ransom.”

While the Obama Administration has acknowledged that it withheld payments to ensure the Iranians followed through on the release of 4 American prisoners, these negotiations were carried out by separate teams and were unrelated. 

In short, the Obama Administration’s actions regarding the Iran payments, by themselves, do not justify additional scrutiny of the Judgment Fund. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Can State Contractors Lie With Consitutional Immunity?

Well, of course, my darlings!

This is an interesting case coming out of Washington.

"I was just doing what I
was hired to do."

In a nutshell, the question before the Court of Appeals is whether a state contracted agency, which knew its social workers were generating false reports to the courts, recommending extended lengths of stay in foster care and/or termination of parental rights in child welfare cases, mainly due to poverty, is a grant, wait, get this, "constitutional guarantee" of immunity.

Seriously.

See, under the good ol' 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, States are granted soverign immunity and the only way to strip immunity is to demonstrate a breach of good faith, a malafide scienter.

So, the arguments are going the route of the principal-agent way, saying that they were just lil ol' state actors, just doing their jobs of maximizing revenue for the state.

In Michigan, there is law, already on the books, called the "Cotton Rule" which is applied to the decisions of the Superintendent of the Michigan Children's Institute.

In short, the rule states that you can challenge the decision of the Superintendent to grant consent or withhold consent to adoption, not on the grounds if the decision is right or wrong (whether he lied or was just incompetent, for which I support the latter), but if the decision was arbitrary and capricious, meaning, one must prove the decision was "whimsical".

Seriously.

"Can social workers lie in court to take away children and have immunity.? This is a clip from the 9th Federal Court district...Washington State social worker standards will be guided by the outcome of this decision. This is a nail biter." said Kathlee Arthur

For me, this case just got a bit more interesting under the recent veto override of JASTA which, in essence, stripped sovereign immunity.

Will JASTA have more fallout implications by opening doors for the people to sue The States in child welfare actions such as human trafficking and/or fraudulent termination of parental rights?

When a kid is Legally Kidnapped, it is considered, to the entire family, an act of terror.

Stay tuned.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

"Fat Meat Is Greasy": What POTUS And The Dean Really Meant To Say To Congress On JASTA

What POTUS and the Dean really meant to say to the 114th Congress

When Congress Came Back From Its JASTA Acid Trip it had no idea how quickly the veto override would become the newest addiction of the world.

Yes, that is correct, the international lawsuits are coming in because we started it and Congress would not listen to POTUS or the Dean.

I guess you can say that Congress does not believe, as the expression goes, that "fat meat is greasy".

The concept of equal justice applies to everyone, like "I can sue you the same way you can sue me,"

And, "I no longer have to tell you anything because you might sue me or my neighbors" because no one likes a snitch.

I wonder where Congress is going to get all this money to defend and settle these lawsuits?

More lawsuits to come.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

When Congress Came Back From Its JASTA Acid Trip

Every so often, I come across an act, of such utter asshattery, I am forced to take immediate pause,

The 114th U.S. Congress just now
realizing what JASTA really is.

and allow myself a moment, to embrace the artistic elegance of breathakingly crass arrogance, while stolidly demonstrating a significant deterioration in cognitive functioning.

I almost pissed my pants, laughing,

First they ignore letters and public statements from the White House, anything reported in social media, C-SPAN, and the local rag clanging around the establishments of D.C. where many congressional staffers hang out and eat, or the cacophony warnings within the legal community.

They even go so far as to ignore a U.S. House Floor Statement to sustain the veto before the vote.

Then, when they realize our own corporations, elected officials, military and country can, also be sued, then turn around and blame the White House, anything reported in social media, C-SPAN, and the local rag clanging around the establishments of D.C. where many congressional staffers hang out and eat, or the cacophony warnings within the legal community, for not warning them beforehand, you can only justify this behavior as a congress coming down from its JASTA acid trip.

Stay away from the JASTA.

This is your Congress.  Enjoy it, because, you know I am.

Senators Blame Obama For Not Helping Them Understand Their Own Bill

Last Friday, President Barack Obama vetoed a bill called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, better known as JASTA. The bill, which enjoyed broad bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, would, among other things, have allowed plaintiffs to sue countries known to have sponsored terrorist acts for compensatory damages. Many of the bill’s supporters had pitched JASTA as a “sue Saudi Arabia” bill, based on their insistent belief that Saudi Arabia was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. The bill’s supporters in Congress frequently cited the 9/11 attacks as their motivation for passing the bill in the first place.

Obama vetoed JASTA, but the story didn’t end there. Earlier this week, Congress handed Obama the first veto override of his presidential tenure. JASTA was law, baby! All that’s left is the high-fiving!

But there always has to be a morning after. And many members of Congress, after they’d come down a bit from their veto override high, evidently started to wonder about what they’d done, exactly. That’s when they found that the bill they supported through a veto override maaaaaybe needed a tweak or two. Per Jordain Carney at The Hill:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senators-jasta-override-durrrrrrr_us_57ee7303e4b024a52d2e725c?

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Floor Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Veto Override Vote on “S. 2040, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act”

>

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

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States constituted the deadliest foreign attack on American soil in our Nation’s history.

Their impact has been immeasurable as evidenced by the fact that we are still grappling with their cultural and policy implications.

And, 15 years later, their powerful emotional effect on Americans remains as strong as ever.

Those who lost loved ones or were injured as a result of this horrific attack deserve our deepest sympathy and our help.

And, it is in this vein that we consider whether to override the President’s veto of S. 2040, the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act,” which, among other things, amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 to create a new exception to the Act’s general grant of foreign sovereign immunity. 

The bill’s supporters present compelling and sympathetic arguments in favor of insuring that the 9/11 families have access to a well-deserved “day in court.”

In his veto message, however, the President raised a number of serious substantive concerns about the potential unintended consequences of this legislation.

First, the President stated that S. 2040 could undermine the effectiveness of our Nation’s national security and counter-terrorism efforts. 

For instance, other nations may become more reluctant to share sensitive intelligence in light of the greater risk that such information may be revealed in litigation.

Moreover, the President raised the concern that this legislation would effectively allow non-expert private litigants and courts, rather than national security and foreign policy experts, to determine key foreign and national security policy questions like which states are sponsors of terrorism.

Second, the President asserted that enactment of S. 2040 may lead to retaliation by other countries against the United States given the breadth of our interests and the expansive reach of our global activities.

While it seems likely at this juncture that S. 2040 will be enacted over the President’s veto, I remain hopeful that we can continue to work toward the enactment of subsequent legislation to address the President’s concerns.

I understand the moral imperative of enacting legislation in this matter, but I am sensitive to the seriousness of the concerns that the President raised.

I had expressed the hope during the Floor debate on this bill that Congress and the President could work together to find a better balance that would still enable 9/11 victims to seek justice while tempering the President’s concerns.

There is no doubt as to the passion that the bill’s supporters bring to advocating for the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks, a passion that I share.

As legislators, however, we must be driven not only by understandable emotions, but by thoughtful consideration of the long-term interests of our country.  For this reason, the expected outcome of today’s vote should not be the end of this matter.

For the forgoing reasons, and those stated by the President, national security experts, international law scholars, and others, however, I must vote to sustain the President’s veto.

I reserve the balance of my time.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©