SCOTUS U.S. v. Department Of Commerce - Privatization Of Citizenship Question On Census For Violations Of Voting Rights Act & Administrative Procedures Act

In short, the U.S. is petitioning to take the issue of putting the citizenship question on the next 2020 Census as a mandamus to stop violations of the Voting Rights Act & Administrative Procedures Act.

It seems, Steve Bannon may have assisted Kris Kobach and Wilbur Ross, under the financial direction of private political interests, through propaganda, to have citizenship on the census, for the purposes of securing electioneering data and, dare I say, the implementation of a national absentee voting ballots scheme. involving real estate.

But hey, what do I know?

I know there are many more SCOTUS Petitions for Certiorari in the pipeline and they are all legally symbiotic.

I also know to put the citizenship question on the census is an act of privatization because policymakers, the Executive Branch, cannot make law, only the Congress makes law.

Happy National Adoption Month: SCOTUS - DHS v. States Children's Trust Funds On Trafficking Tiny Humans - DACA, DAPA Privatization Policies Of Fraud

Happy National Adoption Month: TRUMP v. NAACP Petition For Certiorari To SCOTUS On Trafficking Tiny Humans - DACA, DAPA

And, I also know Willis Hartman, Kansas oil industry, dropped more than 50% of campaign funding into Kobach's failed 2018 Kansas gubernatorial campaign, which comes to about $1,000,000.

This is about predictive modeling crap.

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials —when there is not a strong threshold showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.

SERRANO: Should political parties and campaign politics ever factor into what is asked of every household in the country on the census? 

ROSS: No political party has asked us to do anything on the census. We have had a request, as everyone is aware, from the Department of Justice, to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. 

SERRANO: * * * I was very disappointed to see yesterday that the Republican Party campaign to reelect the president put out an appalling e-mail specifically noting that the president wants a new citizenship question added to the census * * * . Do you disavow this campaign e-mail? * * *

ROSS: I’m not familiar with the e-mail. I’m not part of the Republican campaign committee. So, I have not seen it. I have heard about it, this morning. We are responding solely to the Department of Justice’s request, not to any campaign request, not to any other political party request. We are listening to stakeholders. Many have written to us. Some have come in to talk with me.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ET ... by on Scribd

Besides, what the heck is a third party administrator going to do with all that data?

I thought it only fair to report what Tom Perez, DNC Chair is up to when it comes to his activities of securing voter data profiles, strictly for the purposes of monetization, of course.

Hey, at least Tom was open and obvious in the DNC's intentions of selling voter data profiles to private, foreign, third parties.

DNC Chair Tom Perez goes to war with state parties

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez launched an attack on his own party’s state organizations Saturday with a long and angry email over the future of the party’s most valuable asset — its voter data file.

Just days before an important Tuesday meeting in D.C. on the future of the data operation, Perez sharply criticized a new proposal from state party leaders and singled out prominent state officials by name.

“For some inexplicable reason, this proposal would tear down just about everything about our current data structure, reversing so much of the progress we made over the past decade,” Perez wrote.

The national chairman, describing his own reaction to the state proposal as “disappointed” and “dumbfounded,” accused the president of the Association of State Democratic Committees, Minnesota’s Ken Martin, of undermining the DNC by not keeping other state party officials “in the loop,” prompting withering criticism of Perez from state party leaders.

It‘s the latest fight in a quickly escalating war over the trove of Democratic voter information — a conflict that broke into the open at a gathering of the state parties and the DNC in Puerto Rico late last month. The party’s data are largely owned by the state parties, but a considerable amount of other data being collected by outside groups like labor unions and super PACs could be leveraged to benefit Democratic candidates and the eventual 2020 nominee.

COUNTDOWN TO 2020

The race for 2020 starts now. Stay in the know. Follow our presidential election coverage.

The DNC wants to gather all the data points on voters into a new, massive for-profit database but needs to convince state parties on the idea. The state parties have been wary, accusing the DNC of conducting a power grab that could financially benefit a few elite party figures.

In response to the DNC plan, Martin on Friday circulated a counterproposal designed to better integrate data from outside groups within the existing infrastructure. It was this proposal that prompted Perez’s email.

Perez’s email — with the seemingly innocuous subject line “UPDATE on data” — immediately triggered an uproar Saturday among state party leaders, who held conference calls and communicated with a flurry of emails and texts. The DNC chairman was referred to in a call as “a bull in a china shop,” according to one state party official. Another state party official called him “petulant,” via text message.

The backlash threatens to splinter the state parties and the national committee — technically separate entities — just as Democratic contenders are preparing to launch presidential campaigns.

Perez argued in his Saturday email that “Ken’s new entity...amounts to having State Parties effectively going alone on technology and data.” He threatened to cut off access to campaign tech tools like VoteBuilder, an online organizing platform, if state parties go forward with their plan.

“You would have to find a replacement for VoteBuilder — either building or buying — as the DNC has sole rights to the platform,” he wrote.

“The reality is the state parties own the voter file. At the end of the day, we hope to move forward with the DNC, but if the DNC continues down this path, we’re just not interested in that,” Martin told POLITICO. “It’s clear that the DNC is not interested in any other proposals or in negotiating.”

Of the email, Martin said that “it’s highly disappointing that Tom would make it so personal.”

Party chairs in the early 2020 presidential primary states also criticized Perez for personalizing the dispute.

“I was very disappointed, and I felt we could have continued to have conversations at a better level than the tone of that email, and I find it very unfortunate,” said Ray Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. “I think that’s how negotiations are, and for [Perez] to be surprised that there would be alternative suggestions is disappointing.”

Trav Robertson, the South Carolina Democratic Party chairman, said Saturday’s email prompted him to “spit out my sweet tea.”

“His email was wholly inappropriate and wholly in the wrong spirit of our conversation,” he said. “For them to say that Ken Martin and Brad Martin [president of the state party executive directors group] have misled us and have not operated in good faith is just not true. In fact, it’s a lie.”

The fight is likely to deepen the intraparty gridlock on how best to prepare a data operation for the eventual 2020 nominee — a goal both sides share but over which they are in deep disagreement on the means.

Ken Martin added that Perez’s email could imperil future negotiations: “I don’t know how you put the genie back in the bottle at this point after Tom’s email.”

DNC officials see a chance to update their tech and pool their data quickly with cash from liberal donors and Silicon Valley tycoons. Republicans have this capability already — although in practice the Koch brothers-backed outside groups and the Republican National Committee have feuded over sharing their data — which has many Democratic leaders worried about being at a competitive disadvantage in 2020.

“It is also time to take critical steps to modernize our data infrastructure. The other side has already done this, so time is of the essence,” Perez wrote to the state parties. With several state parties staunchly opposed, DNC officials have discussed potentially integrating just some states at first, with the hope of eventually persuading all of them to sign on.

The counterproposal offered by Martin and additional state party officials — most state parties received copies on Friday, with a briefing scheduled for Monday — would largely build on the existing infrastructure utilized by the state parties and data vendor TargetSmart. Proponents argue that the goal of integrating all the progressive world’s data is achievable without creating an entirely new organization.

“TargetSmart has provided key data services to the DNC for more than a decade,” Tom Bonier, TargetSmart’s CEO, told POLITICO. “The fact is that there are no shortcuts in this work. Handing over our data to an outside entity could hurt our candidates in 2020 and put our party at a disadvantage for years to come.”

Although most state parties hadn’t publicly weighed in on the new state party-centric proposal by Saturday morning — many hadn’t even read it yet — Perez’s email caused officials to rally behind Martin, the veteran Minnesota chairman.

The executive director of the Alaska Democratic Party, Jay Parmley, emailed a response directly to Perez telling him he was being “petty.”

“To insinuate that that these individuals haven’t been completely transparent and open with the ASDC membership simply because much of the ASDC membership doesn’t trust what the DNC is ‘peddling’ when it comes to a Data Trust is just wrong,” he wrote in an email obtained by POLITICO.

Parmley, who has served in state party leadership in numerous states, confirmed he authored the email.

“I like Tom, but I think this was really poor judgment. It read like a letter from an 8th grader,” Parmley told POLITICO.

Other state party chairs also supported Martin.

“I think Ken’s doing a good job,” said Troy Price, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. “It’s disappointing for a fight like this to become so public. Obviously, our [2020 presidential] caucus is coming up here in 14 months, and that data conversation is very important.” 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & BLUMENTHAL Lay Out The Constitutional Case For Compelling President Trump To Obey Anti-Corruption Foreign Emoluments Clause

In the week since nearly 200 Members of Congress filed a lawsuit to compel President Trump to comply with the Constitution, public reporting has revealed new evidence of foreign benefits

#TrumpForSale

[WASHINGTON, DC] – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) held a press conference at 12:30 PM in the Capitol Visitors Center (SVC-215) to outline the Constitutional case for compelling President Trump to obtain the consent of Congress before accepting payments, benefits, or gifts from foreign states. 

Last week, nearly 200 Members of Congress filed a complaint, below, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against President Trump, whose ongoing failure to disclose his foreign business dealings violates one of the Constitution’s critical anti-corruption provisions: the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

In the week since the lawsuit was filed, public reporting has revealed that President Trump has received additional foreign benefits – including new trademarks in China– and is brokering business deals in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf while regional tensions escalate.

“We are joining in this action to prevent Donald Trump from thumbing his nose at the Constitution and the American people. The Constitution clearly states that no elected official - including the President - may receive gifts, payments, or benefits from foreign governments without disclosing them to Congress and seeking our consent,” Senator Blumenthal said. “The immense magnitude of President Trump's vast business empire is no excuse for his disregard of the Constitution and disrespect for the American people.”

“For generations,” Representative Conyers said, “presidents of both parties have complied with the Foreign Emoluments Clause by either divesting their business and financial holdings, or coming to Congress to seek approval prior to receiving any foreign government payment or other benefits. Our current President has done neither. This course of conduct is keeping Americans in the dark – leaving us to speculate if he’s acting on behalf of the American people or for his own financial benefit. Today’s legal action is designed to help lift our Nation out of this morass of conflicts and restore faith in our government, just as the founders intended.”

Because President Trump has refused to disclose his business dealings abroad, the full scope of his potential Constitutional violations is unknown. Independent reporting has shown that President Trump has received the following foreign emoluments during his presidency among others:

• Payments from foreign governments housing their officials in rooms or hosting events at Trump’s Washington, D.C. hotel after Inauguration Day;
• Entities owned by foreign states paying rent at Trump World Tower in New York City; and
• The Chinese government granting thirty-nine trademarks to the Trump Organization.

U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and U.S. Representatives Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Katherine Clark (D-MA) and Steve Cohen (D-TN) will also attend Tuesday’s press conference. They will be joined by Elizabeth Wydra, President of the Constitutional Accountability Center, the public interest organization whose attorneys are representing Members of Congress.

U.S. Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI)
U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal, (D-CT)
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM)
U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
U.S. Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY)
U.S. Representative Katherine Clark (D-MA)
U.S. Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Elizabeth Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability Center

Congress v. Donald Trump Lawsuit in Violation of the Constitution’s anti-corruption Foreign Emoluments Clau... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Trump, Donald J 2017 Financial Disclosure Report by Neetzan on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, LEAHY & LOFGREN Send Letter To Kushner Companies Asking About EB-5 VISAs And Conflicts Of Interest

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

WASHINGTON (June 1, 2017) – Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), and Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) on Thursday pressed the president of Kushner Companies for answers on the company’s use of EB-5 visas and its continued ties to Jared Kushner, President Trump’s top advisor and son-in-law.  At a time when Mr. Kushner is facing scrutiny over his contacts with Russian officials and his former company reportedly is facing financial trouble at its company headquarters and marquee building, there are mounting questions about Kushner Companies’ reliance on and recruitment of foreign investment through the EB-5 Immigrant Investor program.  Leahy has worked for years to reform the flawed EB-5 program, and he was joined by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.) and House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who have worked for years to reform the EB-5 program in the House of Representatives.

The EB-5 program has recently been under scrutiny due to documented cases of fraud and concerns that it is not serving the disadvantaged communities that it was originally intended to benefit.  In the letter, Leahy, Conyers, and Lofgren ask about Kushner Companies’ lobbying efforts and about whether Kushner Companies’ practices, and those of its U.S. and Chinese partners, comply with EB-5 program rules and U.S. securities laws.  They also demand answers about Kushner Companies’ use of its relationship to the White House to recruit foreign investors.

Conyer, Leahy & Lofgren Letter To Kushner About EB-5 VISAS & Conflicts of Interest by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, GOODLATTE, LEAHY, GRASSLEY Remain Committed to Good-Faith Talks to Reform Investor Visa Program Ahead of Expiration

EB-5 reforms needed to curb fraud, abuse, national security risks 

Washington, D.C. - Bipartisan, bicameral Judiciary Committee leaders today reaffirmed their commitment to reform the troubled EB-5 investor visa program ahead of its scheduled expiration on April 28, or to let the flawed program expire if reforms are not possible.  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Patrick Leahy, along with House Judiciary Ranking Member JohnConyers, Jr. and Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte reiterated requirements of any meaningful negotiation as they continue to search for a compromise on EB-5 reform.  The program has longstanding, well-documented fraud, abuse and national security concerns, and has drifted away from Congress’ original intent: spurring job creation in rural and economically depressed areas.

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

“Despite the well-documented and rampant abuse of the EB-5 Regional Center Program that we have exposed in recent years, we remain committed to working in good faith with our colleagues and industry stakeholders to bring about much needed reforms to this troubled program. However, as we have made clear time and time again, any reforms must contain genuine and sincere changes to allow rural and distressed urban areas, the very communities this program is supposed to benefit, to compete for investment dollars. In addition, any reforms must address the many national security and fraud concerns by containing – without loopholes – compliance measures, background checks, and transparency provisions,” the lawmakers said.

“Just a few weeks ago, we were encouraged by a reasonable proposal offered by IIUSA, the nation’s largest EB-5 industry trade association, containing significant reforms to the program. The proposal was a good faith effort to address our concerns and provide long-term stability to the program, and could have served as a basis for reform negotiations.

“As we have in the past, we remain willing to work with our colleagues and industry groups to produce meaningful reform. This must include strong transparency and anti-fraud measures, meaningful investment differentials, adjustments of the investment amounts to appropriately account for inflation, adequate set asides for both rural and urban distressed areas, and an end to the program’s abusive gerrymandering practices.” 

In a recent letter, below, to congressional leadership, the lawmakers, along with Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, stated that the program should expire absent these reforms.

U.S. House and Senate Judiciary Letter To Leadership On Reform Investor Visa Program 4-6-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement for the Hearing on, “The Department of Homeland Security’s Proposed Regulations Reforming the Investor Visa Program”

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

Thank you Chairman Goodlatte. Last Congress, I had the honor of working with you, Chairman Grassley, and Senator Leahy in an effort to reform the EB-5 Investor Visa Program. While the proposed DHS regulations would go a long way toward addressing many of our longstanding and serious concerns with the program, there is no substitute to a meaningful legislative solution.

I remain confident that we can accomplish these important legislative reforms this Congress and I look forward to continuing to work with you.

I have taken a particular interest in the EB-5 Investor Visa program because I believe it has drifted far from the program initially envisioned by Congress.  As a result the communities that need investment the most – specifically, rural and distressed urban areas – struggle to benefit from the program and are unfairly placed in direct competition with developed, affluent areas.

When Congress established the EB-5 investor visa program in 1990, the intention was to create jobs for American citizens and to bring new investment capital to the United States.  To help encourage investment and job creation in rural or high unemployment areas, the EB-5 Program offered a reduced investment level of $500,000 for projects in designated Targeted Employment Areas (TEAs).

However, as reported by the GAO, academics, The Wall Street Journal, and many other news sources, the vast majority of EB-5 investment funds are going to projects in some of America’s wealthiest corridors.  They qualify as TEAs, or economically distressed, only by aggregating census tracts across many miles, and often across natural boundaries such as rivers.

This practice has been criticized by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, noting that “the EB-5 Regional Center Program has dramatically deviated from its original purpose – to spur job creation and development in rural and high unemployment areas.”  Steering investments to projects in our cities’ well-to-do neighborhoods comes at the expense of EB-5 funds for urban and rural communities. 

According to the Center for American Progress, the Congressional District that I represent, for instance, is the second-most impoverished district in the United States.  I am pleased to say that under the Obama Administration our economic environment began to improve.  It is slow, and we have a long way to go.  But for those Americans living in my city of Detroit, and in many other cities across the country, manipulation of Targeted Employment Areas has diverted a potential source of jobs and neighborhood improvement away from those it was intended to help.

The Department of Homeland Security’s proposed rules make a number of important reforms:

First, the rules would raise the higher investment level to adjust for inflation from 1 million to 1.8 million and would raise the lower investment amount from $500,000 to $1.35 million.

Second, the rules would reduce the difference between the statutory and Targeted Employment Area investment levels and would allow for conforming adjustments based on inflation beginning five years from the effective date.

Third, the rules would significantly reign in manipulation of targeted employment areas.

I am encouraged by this development from the Department of Homeland Security and consider the proposed rulemakings as movement in the right direction. However, I must reiterate, to achieve the necessary reforms to the EB-5 program there is no substitute to a meaningful legislative solution. And, absent significant reform – either regulatory or legislative – I will not be able to support continued authorization of the program.

In closing, I want to thank the witnesses for their willingness to appear before our Committee and I look forward to an open and honest debate about the proposed regulations and the future of the EB-5 Program.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: We need an Independent, Non-Partisan Commission To Investigate Trump and Russia Ties

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

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that he would recuse himself from Trump Campaign related investigations. However, his recusal should not be limited to only investigations involving the Trump Campaign. Under 28 CFR § 45.2, the Attorney General is required to recuse himself from a criminal investigation when he has a “personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution,” and must also recuse himself from any investigation where his participation would “create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.”

Serious allegations of misconduct involving President Trump and his associates occurred subsequent to the presidential election—including but not limited to communications between General Flynn and the Russian government, potentially improper contact between White House aides and officials within the Justice Department, and misstatements by the Attorney General himself.

Just as importantly, we need to ensure that any investigation involving issues which overlap between the campaign and the Administration are fully and fairly investigated, including what influence the Russian government, Russian intelligence and Russian financial interests may have with regard to Mr. Trump and his Administration, and whether there have been any efforts to cover-up the same.

As such, the Attorney General must recuse himself from any and all investigations involving the campaign, the transition, and the Trump Administration. He must obviously step aside from any investigation in which he himself may be a target.

I am not persuaded by the Attorney General’s effort to explain his misstatements to the Senate Judiciary Committee, in response to questions asked verbally by Senator Franken and in writing by Senator Leahy, and it is not at all clear that an after-the-fact clarification to the Committee will resolve this matter. As every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee wrote, the question of whether or not the Attorney General’s statement constitutes perjury should be reviewed by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

I am troubled by President Trump’s statement that he does not think Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself from any Russia-related investigations. It was wholly inappropriate for the President to discourage the Attorney General or anyone else from recusing themselves from any ongoing criminal investigation—let alone an investigation in which he and members of his Administration are potential suspects. Such statements fly in the face of applicable DOJ guidelines. They also smack of an attempted cover-up.

These events and statements also make abundantly clear, as I and many other Members of Congress have stated previously, that we need an independent, non-partisan commission to review the entire matter.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

EMMETT TILL UNSOLVED CIVIL RIGHTS CRIMES REAUTHORIZATION ACT PASSED BY CONGRESS

                                                                           

Washington, DC—During its final session of the 114th Congress, the Senate passed the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Reauthorization Act of 2016 (S.2854/H.R.5067).  In the Senate, the bill was led by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO).  In the House, original sponsors were Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI). The bill now heads to the President to be signed into law.

BACKGROUND

Before the passage of major civil rights legislation in the 1960s, hundreds of racially suspicious crimes were committed in this country, and few attempts to prosecute them were ever pursued.  Tuskegee Institute once kept a record of verified lynchings in the United States from 1877 to 1950.  The institute documented that nearly 4000 mainly unprosecuted civil rights crimes occurred during that period.  Many American families continue to pass down stories of loss and disappearance even today without knowing the truth about what actually happened to their loved ones. 

PRIMARY GOALS OF THE BILL

The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Reauthorization Act represents a critical opportunity to right these wrongs committed, primarily against African Americans, but also against people of diverse backgrounds.  In some cases, individuals still remain who were witnesses to these crimes or who can help provide evidence regarding these incidents.  This bill reauthorizes and updates the original legislation that was signed into law in 2008.  It seeks to respond to the concerns of victims' family members and strengthen collaboration between the Justice Department, the FBI, State and local law enforcement, and advocates to pursue these cold cases.  There is a collective goal to seek the truth about this long-standing tragedies and hold the perpetrators and orchestrators of these atrocities accountable.   This reauthorization also seeks to respond to the concerns of advocates regarding the implementation of the original legislation. 

BI-PARTISAN and BI-CAMERAL STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT

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

"As we work to address current questions about racial violence and civil rights, we should be mindful of our history and why so many in the African-American community raise the issue of whether black lives matter.  Passage of the original Emmett Till Act represented a commitment to resolving the unanswered questions from one of the darkest periods in modern American history.  This bipartisan reauthorization represents further investment in our history and will allow the Department of Justice to resolve remaining issues."  Rep. John Conyers, Jr.  - MI

"When this bill was signed into law, family members, academics, historians, lawyers, advocates began working to develop a full accounting for these long-standing, gross human and civil rights atrocities.  The reauthorization passed by Congress is a response to their appeals to make the law a better tool in their quest for justice. We also worked across the aisle and across the Dome to develop a bill that fulfills our promise to remain committed to the pursuit of truth on behalf of victims and their families.  I am very pleased that Congress has passed this legislation and I look forward to the signature of President Barack Obama."  Rep. John Lewis - GA

“I am pleased that this bill is now finally heading to the President’s desk. Investigators can now work to discover the truth and to seek justice under our legal system for the families of these victims. Every American is worthy of the protection of our laws. I want to thank the Till family, Alvin Sykes, Congressman John Lewis, and all of the civil rights activists who helped make this law a reality. Today’s victory is theirs.”  Sen. Richard Burr - NC

 “Too many families suffer from the unsolved murders of their loved ones during the civil rights era without receiving justice.  The way to best serve these families is to provide our Federal government with the tools it needs to investigate these unsolved crimes, and to hopefully, bring some sense of closure for these families.  I thank Congressman Lewis for his tireless work on behalf of the families of these victims of unsolved murders from the civil rights era and I am proud to stand with him on this effort.”   Sen. Patrick Leahy - VT

“This legislation brings justice and closure to the families and communities affected by the heinous acts of violence and hatred that are a stain on our nation’s history. The bill will help us continue the critical work of better investigating and solving these crimes, no matter how long ago they occurred, and I’m thrilled we’ve finally been able to carry it across the finish line.” Sen. Claire McCaskill - MO

“The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Reauthorization Act sets out to investigate racially-motivated murders. Sadly, there is still more work to be done and it’s important that we reauthorize this bill so that the FBI and DOJ can continue investigating unsolved crimes.”    Sen. Roy Blunt - MO

“As an original cosponsor of the Emmett Till Reauthorization Act, I’m pleased to see my colleagues came together and supported this important bill. This bipartisan legislation will provide for a sustained, well-coordinated effort to investigate and prosecute unsolved civil rights-era crimes. There are hundreds of cold cases from the civil rights era that have never been solved and it is my hope that we are able to bring justice to the victims’ families.”  Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner - WI

MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE LEGISLATION

·         This bill requires the Department of Justice and FBI to consult with civil rights organizations, universities, and other entities that have also been gathering evidence in these cold cases;

·         Provides clearer direction and improved coordination between federal, state, and local law enforcement and the activists, advocates, and academics working on these issues;

·         Strengthens the Department of Justice’s reporting requirements;

·         Expands the time span of cases to be considered by ten years, to include all cases that occurred not later than December 31, 1979;

·         Eliminates the sunset provision in the original bill;

·         Encourages the Department of Justice to review specific closed cases that warrant further investigation;

·         Maintains the previous investigation structure and funding levels; and

·         Clarifies the law’s intent.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Bipartisan Coalition Presses DOJ About Government Hacking

The United States Congress

Lawmakers Seek Answers About How Government Would Use New Hacking Authority, One Month Before Rule 41 Amendments Would Take Effect

Washington, D.C. –A bipartisan coalition of Senate and House lawmakers today asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to provide Congress with more information about a proposed expansion of government hacking and surveillance powers.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Judiciary Committee member Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., with House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Rep. John Conyers, Jr., D-Mich., and senior Judiciary Committee member Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, led a bipartisan group of 23 lawmakers asking for more information about the proposal, formally known as amendments to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Unless Congress acts, these new amendments are scheduled to go into effect on December 1.

“We are concerned about the full scope of the new authority that would be provided to the Department of Justice,” the lawmakers wrote. “We believe that Congress -- and the American public -- must better understand the Department’s need for the proposed amendments, how the Department intends to use its proposed new powers, and the potential consequences to our digital security before these rules go into effect.”

 The lawmakers ask DOJ a number of questions about how Rule 41 will be used, including:

• The letter was also signed by: Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. and Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah., Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

Bipartisan Coalition Presses DOJ About Government Hacking on Rule 41 Letter 10.27.16 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

The Art Of War On Fraud

One of my favorite books is the Art of War.

When one is on a mission, strategic plans and loyal supporters come together for a common cause...to end child welfare fraud.

Funk star’s visit kicks off campaign for artists’ rights

By Ian Perrotta

On a recent Saturday night, Kelly’s Bar was taken over by George – George Clinton, that is.

Well, he didn’t really take it over, but even without his trademark dreadlocks his presence was obvious among the usual suspects that make up the Saturday night blues crowd.

Clinton was at the bar attending the monthly meeting of the Detroit Blues Society, which was holding its awards ceremony for lifetime achievement in the industry. He was there to bring awareness to the important issue of recording artists’ royalty rights.

Over the last several decades, Clinton – who rose to fame with the Parliament-Funkadelic music collective in the 70s – has recorded countless songs and albums through a number of projects with various other artists. However, because the recording companies have retained the copyrights to the music, Clinton is now broke and faces homelessness.

It’s an issue that faces thousands of musical artists and their families, and one that is especially inherent in Detroit, where many recording artists were signed to unfair contracts that excluded them from money that was rightfully theirs.

In his pursuit to recapture his copyrights, Clinton has retained legal counsel and brought forth civil claims. But during the course of arbitration his attorney met with record company producers – without notifying Clinton – and after advising him not to attend that meeting, subsequently removed himself from the case two days before court.

Additionally, the attorney has placed liens on Clinton’s accounts, properties and all future settlements. Now being sued for his own music, he has turned into an advocate for music rights. He is currently working in conjunction with Congressman John Conyers and local resident Beverly Tran to bring the issue to the forefront of the national agenda, particularly through House Resolution 848, which is designed to provide parity in radio performance rights.

Though Clinton did not speak at Saturday’s meeting, he did perform an impromptu song. Being a spokesman is still something he’s getting used to, and his presence signaled the beginning of a new era of recording in which artists are not only appreciated for the work they do, but adequately compensated as well.

And while copyright issues will become more important in the coming future, Tran says that the past matters just as much.

“The immediacy of the matter demands attention as individuals are rewriting the history of the world through the methodical annihilation of national treasures which have left legendary black musical artists and their families destitute by claiming royalties without authorization or notification,” says Tran. “The removal of original names of legendary Detroit musical artists and their heirs from the record through the presentation of false documents is corrupting the recorded history of the civil rights movement.

This is my journey through the political process in the United States to end 

Medicaid fraud in child welfare.

Qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur.