OBAMAGATE: Leaked Calls - Obama, Biden & Poroshenko

First, the Obama call was leaked...

Then, the Biden call was leaked...

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: Former Senior Fincen Employee Pleads Guilty To Conspiring To Unlawfully Disclose Suspicious Activity Reports

For the history of the case, click here.

And here.

Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards Illegally Repeatedly Transmitted SARs and Other Sensitive Government Information To A Reporter Resulting In Approximately 12 News Articles Over 1-Year Period

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that NATALIE MAYFLOWER SOURS EDWARDS, a/k/a “Natalie Sours,” a/k/a “Natalie May Edwards,” a/k/a “May Edwards,” a former senior adviser at the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), pled guilty today to conspiring to unlawfully disclose Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”).  EDWARDS pled guilty before United States District Judge Gregory H. Woods.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As she has now admitted, Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a former senior-level FinCEN employee, abused her position of trust by agreeing to repeatedly disclose highly sensitive information contained in Suspicious Activity Reports.  Maintaining the confidentiality of SARs, which are filed by banks and other financial institutions to alert law enforcement to potentially illegal transactions, is essential to permit them to serve their statutory function, and the defendant’s conduct violated the integrity of that critical system and the law.”

According to the allegations contained in the Complaint, Information, publicly available information, court filings, and statements made during the plea proceeding:

The mission of FinCEN is to “safeguard the financial system from illicit use and combat money laundering and promote national security through the collection, analysis, and dissemination of financial intelligence and strategic use of financial authorities.”[1]  Among other things, FinCEN manages the collection and maintenance of SARs regarding potentially suspicious financial transactions, which, under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), U.S. financial institutions and other parties are required by law to generate and deliver to FinCEN.  Under the BSA and its implementing regulations, willful disclosure of a SAR or its contents by government employees or agents is a felony unless necessary to fulfill official duties.

Beginning in approximately October 2017, and lasting until her arrest in October 2018, EDWARDS agreed to and did unlawfully disclose numerous SARs to a reporter (“Reporter-1”), the substance of which were published over the course of approximately 12 articles by a news organization for which Reporter-1 worked (“News Organization-1”).  The illegally disclosed SARs pertained to, among other things, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates, the Russian Embassy, Mariia Butina, and Prevezon Alexander.  EDWARDS had access to each of the pertinent SARs and saved them – along with thousands of other files containing sensitive government information – to a flash drive provided to her by FinCEN.  She transmitted the SARs to Reporter-1 by means that included taking photographs or images of them and texting the photographs or images to Reporter-1 over an encrypted application.  In addition to disseminating SARs to Reporter-1, EDWARDS sent or described to Reporter-1 internal FinCEN emails or correspondence appearing to relate to SARs or other information protected by the BSA, and FinCEN nonpublic memoranda, including Investigative Memos and Intelligence Assessments published by the FinCEN Intelligence Division, which contained confidential personal information, business information, and/or security threat assessments.

At the time of EDWARDS’s arrest, she was in possession of a flash drive on which she saved the unlawfully disclosed SARs, and a cellphone containing numerous communications over an encrypted application in which she transmitted SARs and other sensitive government information to Reporter-1.

*                *                *

EDWARDS, 41, of Quinton, Virginia, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to make unauthorized disclosures of SARs, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.  EDWARDS is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Woods on Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 4:00 p.m.  The maximum potential sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as the sentence of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the Treasury Department’s Office of Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kimberly J. Ravener, Daniel C. Richenthal, and Maurene R. Comey are in charge of the prosecution.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Omar Awan Has Been Found In A Burnt Out Tesla

Here is Omar Awan.

If this is the same one in congress, this is going to be interesting, but hey, what do I know?

I know someone should ask Imran Awan.

Dad died in burning Tesla because its futuristic doors wouldn’t open, lawsuit claims

Slender Man victim breaks silence for the first time
Edward Snowden reveals he trawled the CIA database for proof aliens exist
Incredible moment cops revive toddler choking on a cracker
Cops use genealogy website to find man who raped and strangled girl
A Tesla driver burned to death after a crash because the “futuristic handles” on his car trapped him inside and rescuers couldn’t open the doors, it is claimed.

Dr. Omar Awan, 48, lost control of his car, skidded across a road and smashed straight into a palm tree in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in February.

Smoke and then flames engulfed his blue Model S Tesla shortly after the crash.

A police officer arrived almost immediately, and crowds gathered outside the vehicle, but no one was able to save the father of five because of the “inaccessible door handles,” a lawsuit claims.

The car’s retractable door handles are meant to “auto-present” or pop out when they detect a key fob nearby.

But it malfunctioned, stopping first responders from opening the doors and saving Awan, it is claimed.

His loved ones are now suing the electric car company for wrongful death, alleging the car’s lithium-ion battery caught fire.

Enlarge ImageDr. Omar Awan lost control of his Tesla, skidded across a road and smashed straight into a palm tree in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Dr. Omar Awan lost control of his Tesla, skidded across a road and smashed straight into a palm tree in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.Local 10
The smoke from this suffocated Awan and burned him from his feet upwards, it claimed.

The complaint said the car burned for hours, reigniting several times even after firefighters extinguished the flames and also when it was being towed away.

The lawsuit added: “After the Tesla hit the tree, he was alive. He had no internal injuries or broken bones.

Enlarge ImageDr. Omar Awan
Dr. Omar Awan
“He died from the smoke he inhaled as he sat locked inside the Tesla, despite that a police officer and others were there and ready to help, until flames forced them away.

“The fire engulfed the car and burned Dr. Awan beyond recognition — all because the Model S has inaccessible door handles, no other way to open the doors, and an unreasonably dangerous fire risk.”

The Sun has contacted Tesla for a statement.

The company’s lawyers have not yet responded in court.

Tesla, the maker of electric vehicles, claimed the Model S once achieved the “best safety rating of any car tested.”

Awan’s family lawyer Stuart Grossman described the victim as environmentally sensitive and safety conscious.

He insisted Awan could afford a Mercedes or another luxury vehicle but went with the 2016 Tesla because of its safety.

He added: “These things, they just love to burn. The car is so over-engineered.

“It’s so techy, it makes you want to buy a Chevy pickup truck.”

Enlarge ImageSmoke and flames engulfed his blue Model S Tesla shortly after the crash.
Smoke and flames engulfed his blue Model S Tesla shortly after the crash.Local 10
After the incident, Tesla said in a statement: “We understand that speed is being investigated as a factor in this crash, and know that high-speed collisions can result in a fire in any type of car, not just electric vehicles.”

His family is seeking more than $15,000 in damages.

The emergency guide says: “If the door handles do not function, open the door manually by reaching inside the window and using the interior door handle.”

It is not the first time Tesla has been blamed for a death.

In May 2018, Barrett Riley and his friend Edgar Monserratt, both 18, died when they lost control of Riley’s dad’s car at 116 mph.

Dad James Riley claimed Tesla is at fault for the speed, fire and the teens’ deaths.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

When Is A Whistleblower A Leaker?

Q: When is a whistleblower a leaker?

A: When the leaker subverts due process to enter false claims into the formal record to falsely advise, in this instance, the Department of Justice.

That is bearing false witness.

Right, Sue?

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: Attorney General Barr Speaks At Cyber Security Conference

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Trump v. Jimmy Carter - The Battle Of The Illegitimate v. Forgotten Presidents - Who Will #sayhisname First?

"Make Trump & Jimmy #sayhisname, now or I will
make Walter do it!"

Recently on Cocktails & Popcorn, Jimmy called Trump an "illegitimate president" saying something about quantitative stuff.

Then, Trump called Jimmy a "forgotten president" and made sure to run in his face that the Democratic National Committee treated him like dirt for being such a terrible president.

The best way to settle this spat is for Trump to just stop obstructing justice and pull that IG Report from his backpocket while Jimmy unmasks his super secret, undercover federal official leaker who told him the tale of how the *russian/israeli/ukrainians* interfered in the 2016 election.

I believe it is impeachment re-election 2020 campaign time!

They both can tell their tales in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, or perhaps, in the Districts court, or when the heavens fall.

Maybe, Trump will beat Jimmy and #sayhisname to kick off his 2020 re-election campaign.

Perhaps, Jimmy will preach more about ecclesiastic law and the history of trafficking tiny humans.

I bet Trump and Jimmy will come to learn that they have a mutual friend, but, hey, what do I know?

I know we should have them tell their tale of why Jimmy called Trump illegitimate and why Trump called Jimmy forgotten.

I know the Fourth of July is going to be spectacular in Detroit.

I also know that it would be crass to not invite Walter Mondale to tell us his tale.

Will Walter Mondale #sayhisname first, and take the spotlight from Trump and Jimmy?

I wonder what the Trump v. Mondale Battle is going to be rolled out.

Stay tuned because the Old School Civil Rights Legal Dogs have been summoned.

#NeedMoreChaos

Trump escalates spat with ‘forgotten president’ Jimmy Carter

The remarks came one day after Carter questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s election, saying the president likely won because of Russian interference.

OSAKA, Japan — Donald Trump on Saturday blasted Jimmy Carter as the “forgotten president,” one day after Carter questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s election, saying the president likely won because of Russian interference.

“He’s a nice man. He was a terrible president,” Trump said at a news conference after wrapping the G-20 summit in Japan. “He’s been trashed within his own party. He’s been trashed.”

Carter, who served between 1977 and 1981, made the allegation Friday while speaking in Leesburg, Va., saying a full investigation of Russian election interference would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election against Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Trump acknowledged that he had seen the comments but attributed them to Carter’s loyalty to the Democratic Party.'

“Everybody now understands that I won not because of Russia, not because of anyone but myself,” Trump said. “I went out and campaigned better, smarter, harder than Hillary Clinton.”

In his remarks, Carter called on Trump to condemn Russia for their interference in the election and said he should “admit that it happened.”

Trump insisted Saturday that he did raise the issue with Russian President Vladimir Putin during a private meeting the previous day. But publicly, Trump made light of Moscow’s election meddling, jokingly telling Putin, "Don't meddle in the election, president. Don't meddle in the election.”

Putin, after appearing to hear the translation, laughed while Trump grinned.

The exchange was just the latest instance of Trump dismissing concerns over the Kremlin’s attempts to tilt the 2016 election.

In 2018, after a meeting with Putin in Helsinki, Trump appeared to accept Putin’s election meddling denials over the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies, which have said the Russian president orchestrated the interference campaign. And two weeks ago, Trump said in an interview that he might be willing to accept information from a foreign source during the 2020 election, adding that he would not necessarily report the activity to the FBI. He later tried to walk the statement back.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Kremlin intermediaries, but his final report did outline how Moscow used hacking techniques and digital disinformation to try and boost Trump.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Trump Is Mad At Sessions - Let Us See Who Figures Out Why First

Dems' fightin' words!

Trump said Sessions was his biggest mistake.

I cannot wait to see who is the first one to come up with their evidence on how they accessed, obviously, classified intelligence.

This is going to be a hoot!

Trump admits his 'biggest mistake' was handing Jeff Sessions the attorney general job

President Trump said the "biggest mistake" of his presidency was appointing Jeff Sessions to be his attorney general.

“If you could have one do-over as president, what would it be?” Trump was asked by Chuck Todd in an interview with NBC's “Meet the Press” that aired Sunday.

"It would be personnel," Trump responded.

"I would say if I had one do-over, it would be, I would not have appointed Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. That would be my one ... that was the biggest mistake."

“In your mind, that’s your worst mistake?” Todd pressed.

“Yeah, that was the biggest mistake,” Trump said.

Trump fired Sessions in 2018 after the president spent a year publicly fuming about his former campaign adviser turned attorney general’s recusal from overseeing the Justice Department’s investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election. Sessions said he made a "pretty reasonable" decision, given a regulation that prohibits a Justice employee from investigating campaigns in which they are involved and asserted that he would "not be improperly influenced by political considerations."

Trump had repeatedly attacked his former attorney general on Twitter and in interviews after Sessions’s recusal decision, especially as the special counsel Robert Mueller investigation gained momentum when charges were brought against Russian intelligence agents who engaged in cyberattacks throughout the 2016 election and Trump associates were swept into the probe.

tweeted

 last June. “So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined.”

"I don't have an attorney general,” he said in an interview with Hill.TV months before Sessions handed in his letter of resignation. “It's very sad.”

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1002027245131661312

After Sessions was removed, the investigation, which Trump regularly decried as a “hoax” and “witch hunt,” was overseen by Matthew Whitaker and finally William Barr.

didn’t exonerate the president on obstruction of justice

.

DOJ: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Charged in 18-Count Superseding Indictment - DEFANGO

FUN FACT! I SENT WIKILEAKS DOCS ON MEDICAID FRAUD IN CHILD WELFARE WAY BACK.

Links: https://pastebin.com/Rczkh2nC

Charges Related to Illegally Obtaining, Receiving and Disclosing Classified Information

A federal grand jury returned an 18-count superseding indictment today charging Julian P. Assange, 47, the founder of WikiLeaks, with offenses that relate to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.  Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger for the Eastern District of Virginia, Assistant Director John Brown of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division and Acting Assistant Director in Charge Timothy Dunham of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.

The superseding indictment alleges that Assange was complicit with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, in unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to the national defense.  Specifically, the superseding indictment alleges that Assange  conspired with Manning;  obtained from Manning and aided and abetted her in obtaining classified information with reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation;  received and attempted to receive classified information having reason to believe that such materials would be obtained, taken, made, and disposed of by a person contrary to law; and  aided and abetted Manning in communicating classified documents to Assange. 

After agreeing to receive classified documents from Manning and aiding, abetting, and causing Manning to provide classified documents, the superseding indictment charges that Assange then published on WikiLeaks classified documents that contained the unredacted names of human sources who provided information to United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to U.S. State Department diplomats around the world.  These human sources included local Afghans and Iraqis, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents from repressive regimes.  According to the superseding indictment, Assange’s actions risked serious harm to United States national security to the benefit of our adversaries and put the unredacted named human sources at a grave and imminent risk of serious physical harm and/or arbitrary detention.

The superseding indictment alleges that beginning in late 2009, Assange and WikiLeaks actively solicited United States classified information, including by publishing a list of “Most Wanted Leaks” that sought, among other things, classified documents.  Manning responded to Assange’s solicitations by using access granted to her as an intelligence analyst to search for United States classified documents, and provided to Assange and WikiLeaks databases containing approximately 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables.

Many of these documents were classified at the Secret level, meaning that their unauthorized disclosure could cause serious damage to United States national security.  Manning also provided rules of engagement files for the Iraq war, most of which were also classified at the Secret level and which delineated the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces would initiate or conduct combat engagement with other forces.

The superseding indictment alleges that Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange.  The discussions also reflect that Assange actively encouraged Manning to provide more information and agreed to crack a password hash stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a United States government network used for classified documents and communications.  Assange is also charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to crack that password hash.

Assange is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on each count except for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, for which he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison.  Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties.  A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Doherty-McCormick, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kellen S. Dwyer, Thomas W. Traxler and Gordon D. Kromberg, and Trial Attorneys Matthew R. Walczewski and Nicholas O. Hunter of the Justice Department’s National Security Division are prosecuting the case.

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime.  Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.

Attachment(s): 

Download Assange Superseding Indictment

Download Remarks from the Briefing Announcing the Superseding Indictment of Julian Assange

Topic(s): 

National Security

Component(s): 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

National Security Division (NSD)

USAO - Virginia, Eastern

Press Release Number: 

19-575

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: May 17th, 2019. Live From Nellie Ohr OrgAnize Crime Task Force - Go Blue - Go Siemans

ICC you, Psychobaby.👀

Erum da dum dum, all full of rum....

https://new.siemens.com/us/en.html
Go Blue!

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: Fraud On The Taxpayer - Deputy Associate Attorney General Stephen Cox Delivers Remarks at the 2019 Advanced Forum on False Claims and Qui Tam Enforcement

New York, NY

 ~

Monday, January 28, 2019

Thank you for that introduction, and thank you to the American Conference Institute and all of its sponsors for hosting me here today. 

I serve in the Office of the Associate Attorney General at the Department of Justice.  Our office oversees five litigating divisions, including the Civil Division, and I spend most of my time working with the Consumer Protection Branch and the Commercial Litigation Branch on enforcement.  Relevant to this audience, I’ve had the privilege of working closely with the Civil Fraud Section within the Commercial Litigation Branch that is responsible for investigating and litigating violations of the False Claims Act. 

The new Administration is two years old this month.  My plan today is to offer some thoughts about this Administration’s commitment to enforcing the False Claims Act and then describe some of the Department’s enforcement principles, policies, and perspectives that guide us.

Fraud on the Taxpayer
(I prefer to just call it stealin')

Let me begin by describing the Department’s commitment to fighting fraud on the taxpayer—and specifically our duty to responsibly enforce the False Claims Act to recover loss to the taxpayer and deter misconduct. 

The Act was passed during the Civil War to fight fraud on the Union Army, and it is sometimes called “Lincoln’s Law.”  As Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt recently noted, there were crooked contractors defrauding the Union Army by selling sick mules, lame horses, sawdust instead of gunpowder, and rotted ships with fresh paint.  Lincoln’s Law was an answer to those problems one hundred and fifty years ago.

The Act fell into relative disuse over the years, but was revitalized in 1986 through amendments spearheaded by Senator Grassley.  For example, the 1986 amendments increased the incentives for whistleblowers to file lawsuits alleging false claims on behalf of the government.  Since the 1986 amendments, the False Claims Act has returned over $59 billion to the U.S. Treasury—over $42 billion of which came through qui tam actions filed by whistleblowers.

Today, we use the False Claims Act to fight not only contracting fraud, but also healthcare fraud, grant fraud, financial fraud, and many other types of fraud. 

Enforcing the False Claims Act is a top priority for the Department—not just for our office. 

Last month, we announced that the Department recovered approximately $2.8 billion this past fiscal year.  $2.5 billion involved the health care industry, including drug and medical device manufacturers, managed care providers, hospitals, pharmacies, hospice organizations, laboratories, and physicians.  This is the ninth consecutive year that the Department’s civil health care fraud settlements and judgments have exceeded $2 billion.

This year we settled a number of large and important cases.  We settled a case with Amerisource Bergen for $645 million involving improper repackaging and distribution of cancer drugs.  The Department’s position was that the company circumvented important safeguards designed to preserve the integrity of the nation’s drug supply.

We also settled a case with United Therapeutics Corporation for $210 million.  This case involved the use of a foundation as an illegal conduit to pay the co-pays of thousands of Medicare patients taking the company’s drugs.  We settled a similar case with Pfizer for $23.85 million to settle allegations that it was also improperly using a foundation to pay Medicare patient co-pays.  Co-pay requirements can serve as an important check on healthcare costs, including the cost of drugs, but these cases show how drug manufacturers can make an end-run around these requirements to facilitate increases in drug prices.

We settled a case with Toyobo for $66 million in a case involving the sale of defective Zylon fiber used in bullet proof vests that the United States purchased for federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies.  Defective Zylon can render bullet proof vests unfit for use and put our men and women in blue at unnecessary risk.

Another important case was the Deloitte & Touche settlement for $149.5 million.  Deloitte served as independent outside auditor for an originator engaged in a long-running mortgage fraud scheme involving loans insured by the Federal Housing Authority.  The allegations against Deloitte were that they knowing deviated from auditing standards and therefore failed to detect the fraud.

It is also worth highlighting cases where we pursued individuals because individual accountability remains a top priority for the Department.  The Department obtained $114 million in judgments against three individuals found to have paid kickbacks to doctors disguised as “handling fees” resulting in medically unnecessary tests that were billed to Medicare.

We also settled our case against Lance Armstrong for $5 million.  The allegations in that case were that his cycling team used performance enhancing drugs while making numerous false statements denying it and concealing the drug use during the U.S. Postal Service’s sponsorship of the team for the Tour de France.

I could tell you about many more cases, and you might hear about more throughout this conference.  But the point is that we just finished another big year demonstrating our commitment to False Claims Act enforcement.

Before I turn to certain principles we apply and reforms that we have brought about, I want to note that our work in the False Claims Act space not only protects the taxpayer, but it serves other important goals.  The taxpayer is not the only victim of fraud on the government.

When a company falsely certifies the quality of military equipment, it sends our brave men and women into harm’s way with less protection.  When medical providers submit false claims to Medicare, they often fail to provide adequate medical care to their patients.  Kick-back schemes not only defraud the government, they also drive up consumer costs, undermine competition, and may distort independent medical decision-making.   

By effectively enforcing the False Claims Act, we protect the taxpayer, we deter bad actors, we protect victims, and we level the playing field in the markets.

Now let me turn to some of the principles that guide the Department in False Claims Act enforcement.

Qui Tam Dismissals

Let me first start with an internal memo that has become known as the Granston Memo.  Last January, the Director of our Civil Fraud Section issued internal guidelines for our litigators in determining when it is appropriate in a qui tam case to exercise our dismissal authority under the False Claims Act. 

As I mentioned earlier, the success of the False Claims Act is due in large part to the qui tam provisions and the partnership between the federal government and whistleblowers.  Of the recoveries last year, more than $2 billion was recovered in qui tam cases.  

One of the reasons for this partnership is that whistleblowers are often uniquely situated to bring fraudulent practices to light—particularly in suits filed by corporate insiders, who have frequently disclosed complex corporate wrongdoing that the government would have been hard-pressed to understand and unearth without their assistance.  

Qui tam filings have been on the rise for many years.  The Department intervenes in only about 1 in 5 cases that are filed.  But even the other 4 in 5 cases consume Department time and resources – not only in investigating them initially, but also in terms of monitoring and participating in any ensuing litigation if the relator elects to proceed.

When relators litigate cases in which the Department declines to intervene, the relators essentially stand in the shoes of the Attorney General.  Because relators may not always have the same interests as the United States, we take very seriously our responsibility to monitor False Claims Act cases when we decline to intervene.  Indeed, the Department serves an important role as a gatekeeper. 

The Granston Memo is about our gatekeeping role.  Part of the reasoning behind the memo is that when qui tam cases are non-meritorious, abusive, or contrary to the interests of justice, they impose unnecessary costs on the Department, on the judiciary, and on the defendants.  Bad cases that result in bad case law inhibit our ability to enforce the False Claims Act in good and meritorious cases.  And from a resource perspective, when the Department’s resources are consumed for other things, we have less time to fulfill our priorities.  This is why we have instructed our lawyers to consider dismissing qui tamcases when they are not in our best interests.  This authority is an important tool to protect the integrity of the False Claims Act and the interests of the United States.

U.S. Attorney Sessions Proh... by on Scribd

The Granston Memo is not really a change in the Department’s historical position.  In fact, it reflects the factors that the Department has historically considered in deciding to dismiss a case.  But we did think it was important that all of our False Claims Act litigators had the benefit of understanding the Department’s practice so that the authority could be used more consistently.

It is true that this authority has been used sparingly.  In the past, in a given year, the Department might have dismissed a few cases—if it dismissed any at all—but since 2017, the Department has moved to dismiss about two dozen cases.  Our exercise of this authority will remain judicious, but we will use this tool more consistently to preserve our resources for cases that are in the United States’ interests.

Subregulatory Guidance

Second, I’ll address the Department’s reforms concerning the issue of rulemaking by guidance.  As you know, when an agency has statutory authority to issue regulations, it normally goes through the notice-and-comment process of rulemaking, which can be cumbersome and slow.  Sometimes agencies have instead taken a shortcut by issuing “guidance” in lieu of regulations, knowing that it will achieve a similar effect of changing behavior.

To be fair, subregulatory guidance documents can be helpful in educating the public about statutes, regulations, and legal developments.  But it is improper to try to use guidance to bind the public by imposing legal obligations beyond those already enshrined in existing statutes or properly promulgated regulatory provisions.  Put simply, agency guidance should educate, not regulate.  

Leaked Confidential DOJ Mem... by on Scribd

That is why, in November 2017, former Attorney General Sessions announced that the Department will no longer issue any kind of binding sub-regulatory guidance.  In other words, the Department will no longer issue guidance documents that effectively bind the public without undergoing the notice-and-comment rulemaking process.

We hoped to serve as an example for other agencies to follow, and shortly after the policy was announced, then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, sent a letter to the President praising the Attorney General’s policy and suggesting that other agencies follow its commonsense principles.

SENATE JUDICIARY: Confirmation Hearing Of Bill Barr - Honoring Grassley & His Legacy On Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare - The False Claims Act - My Color Commentary

Last January, in the affirmative civil litigation context (which includes the False Claims Act), then-Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand instructed Department attorneys not to use our affirmative civil enforcement authority to convert other agencies’ sub-regulatory guidance into rules that have the force or effect of law.  In other words, noncompliance with a nonbinding guidance document cannot be used to establish a violation of law.  This policy has been called the “Brand Memo.”  Its principles have been codified in the Justice Manual, and they apply not only in False Claims Act and civil enforcement cases, but also in criminal actions now.

Let me make a few points about how these principles might apply in False Claims Act cases.  As we have noted before, there are, of course, circumstances where it may be appropriate to rely on agency guidance, including to show the defendant’s awareness of an agency’s interpretation of a particular requirement or the agency’s views on the materiality of that requirement.  This is not to say that the guidance will carry the day—just because a company knows an agency’s nonbinding interpretation of the law does not mean it’s correct or that the company’s interpretation is unreasonable.

Some guidance documents may be relevant to professional standards that are incorporated into statutes.  For example, there are statutory and regulatory requirements that procedures billed to Medicare and Medicaid be medically “reasonable and necessary,” and there may be guidance documents discussing an agency’s non-binding views on what is medically reasonable and necessary.  The guidance document might be probative, even if it isn’t binding.  Of course, we must be careful not to run afoul of first principles.  Agency guidance cannot be dispositive on what a statute or regulation means—it is not a thumb on the scale—and it cannot create binding requirements.  But just like other statements of medical standards—such as professional standards from the medical industry or expert testimony—the guidance may have some probative value.  It’s not necessarily more probative than guidance from the industry, but it can have probative weight.

A particular guidance document may also be relevant if it is expressly incorporated into a contract or a certification.  For example, if a party and the government agree in a contract that compliance with some specified guidance document is required, the guidance document will be contractually binding on the party and noncompliance will be relevant under principles of contract law. 

Of course, all of these examples need to line up with the general principle that we’re not going to use “violations” of nonbinding guidance documents to establish a violation of law.  Guidance is not law.  It’s not binding.  And it shouldn’t be given the force or effect of law.

As I mentioned earlier, we hope that the Department’s policies on subregulatory guidance have been informative to other agencies, and we see evidence of that.  Last September, six of the banking regulators followed the Department’s lead and announced limits on the issuance and enforcement of sub-regulatory guidance.  In December, with similar principles in mind, the Department of Transportation issued an important memo clarifying and updating its procedures for guidance documents.   We hope other agencies follow suit.  These policies keep government restrained and promote the rule of law, fair notice, and due process. 

Piling On

Third, let me turn to a Department policy discouraging what we think of as “piling on.”  This policy was announced by the Deputy Attorney General last summer, and it applies across the board, including in False Claims Act cases. 

As you know, often the same conduct can violate multiple statutes.

When multiple law enforcement and regulatory agencies pursue a single entity for the same or substantially similar conduct, and then impose unwarranted and disproportionate penalties for that conduct, this is what we mean by “piling on.”  This can be seen as inconsistent with the concepts of fair play and the need for certainty and finality.

To avoid piling on, we are promoting coordination within the Department and with other agencies to apportion penalties and fines where appropriate. Under the same policy, we are also reminding our attorneys not to use our criminal enforcement authority for purposes unrelated to the investigation and prosecution of a possible crime. For example, we are not going to invoke the threat of criminal prosecution just to persuade a company to pay a larger settlement in a False Claims Act case or any other civil case.

That is why we have this thing called referrals to other law enforcement divisions outside DOJ, like SIGTARP and FinCEN.  Or, there is that special circumstances provision of the Act which allows the Attorney General to intervene if there are other ongoing investigations, not that I know anything, but just saying, considering the Detroit Land Bank Authority just got a bunch of new subpoenas sent to its contractors, that ended up going to its former attorney Rebecca Camargo, who just so happens to be the attorney for the contractors.

The most prominent example of this policy in action was a $680 million Foreign Corrupt Practices Act settlement in June with Société Générale, a global financial services institution based in Paris, for FCPA violations in Libya and for LIBOR manipulation.  This was handled by the Department’s Criminal Division, which is not supervised by our office, but the Department’s press release made clear that it credited $292 million that the firm paid to the French Authorities, an amount equal to 50% of the total criminal penalty otherwise payable to the United States.

But let me give you one example in the False Claims Act context:   In November, the Department announced a global resolution with three South Korea-based fuel companies for their involvement in a decade-long bid-rigging conspiracy that targeted contracts to supply fuel to U.S. military bases in South Korea.  This was a global resolution of criminal Sherman Act violations, civil claims under the Clayton Act, and civil claims under the False Claims Act.  I can tell you that the Antitrust Division’s criminal and civil sections and the Civil Division’s Fraud Section worked together effectively with the policy in mind so that they could reach coordinated global settlements that were equitable and proportionate to the defendants’ conduct, and they were careful not to impose fines, penalties, or damages that are unnecessarily duplicative of each other.

Cooperation Credit

Finally, let me turn to the issue of cooperation and policy initiatives of relevance to the False Claims Act. 

As the Deputy Attorney General has made clear in other contexts, and as senior officials from our office and the Civil Fraud Section have echoed in the False Claims Act context, the Department is committed to rewarding companies that invest in strong compliance programs and who cooperate with our investigations into wrongdoing. 

In November of 2017, the Department announced a corporate enforcement policy that takes voluntary disclosure, cooperation, and compliance into account in criminal cases.   This policy was, in a sense, a culmination of the FCPA Pilot that was announced in early 2016, but the corporate enforcement policy has been applied in criminal cases outside the FCPA space. 

In November of 2018, the Deputy Attorney General announced changes to Department’s policies on awarding cooperation credit based on, for example, whether a company identifies the individual wrongdoers.  Much ink has been spilled about the changes, and I won’t go into each and every one of them.  But for this audience I would like to focus on one change in particular relating to civil cases.

There is no longer an “all or nothing” approach to awarding credit for cooperation in civil cases.  You don’t have to boil the ocean in an effort to identify every employee who played any role in the conduct in order to receive any credit for cooperating.  If a corporation wants to earn maximum credit, it must identify every individual person who was substantially involved in or responsible for the misconduct. But when a company honestly does meaningfully assist the government’s investigation, our civil attorneys now have discretion to offer some credit even if the company does not qualify for maximum credit.

In announcing these changes, the Deputy Attorney General gave a False Claims Act example:  “A company might make a voluntary disclosure and provide valuable assistance that justifies some credit even if the company is either unwilling to stipulate about which non-managerial employees are culpable, or eager to resolve the case without conducting a costly investigation to identify every individual who might face civil liability in theory, but in reality would not be sued personally.”

In short, the policy changes return discretion to our civil lawyers to resolve each case consistent with relevant facts and circumstances.

That is if there is intervention.

Last June, then-Acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio made clear that False Claims Act investigations are no exception to the Department’s policy of incentivizing cooperation.  Corporate defendants can receive a more favorable resolution for cooperating with our False Claims Act investigations – from voluntary disclosure, which is the most valuable form of cooperation, to other efforts such as sharing information gleaned from an internal investigation and making witnesses available.    He also made clear that we will reward companies that invest in strong compliance measures.

As you know, strong compliance programs are good for business and fair competition, they raise awareness of legal obligations, they mitigate risk of legal jeopardy, and they promote reporting up.  When there’s been a case of overbilling Medicare or Medicaid, for example, we want you to know that having an effective and robust compliance program in place is something we will consider at the outset in determining whether it was a mistake or an anomaly or whether there was a knowing violation.  And that in turn will inform whether a False Claims Act case is merited, or whether pursuing another remedy is appropriate to make the government whole.   

We also want you to know that, if there’s a problem, the Department welcomes and will reward companies that make voluntary disclosures and provide meaningful, candid assistance in False Claims Act investigations.

The Department has significant discretion under the False Claims Act to resolve cases in a way that provides a material discount based on cooperation while still making the government whole.  Stay tuned on this front.

Oh, I shall be watching.

*        *        *

It is a privilege working at the Department of Justice on False Claims Act enforcement, and you should know that our lawyers are committed to exercising the Department’s enforcement discretion consistent with the rule of law. 

I hope that my remarks today have given you a better understanding of how we do our work, so that you can feel more confident that you know the rules of the road and the priorities of the Justice Department.

Thank you.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DEFANGO: Layer 2 Unlocked Live Dive - Thedarkoverlord Megaleak - LONG CUT - 911 Insurance Documents

The Twin Towers were overtly, heavily insured as a well orchestrated, legal operation to make money.

By, hey, what do I know?

I know Defango is going through the second layer of unlocked megaleaks from The Dark Overlord.

I also know a similar insurance payout matter is being asked to be addressed in SCOTUS.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: FinCEN, Buzzfeed, Mike Cernovich & Voting Rights

This is about Buzzfeed, Mike Cernovich and the propaganda they spew.

Senior FinCen Employee Arrested And Charged With Unlawfully Disclosing SARs

Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards Illegally Photographed SARs and Other Sensitive Government Information and Transmitted Them To Reporter In Connection With Approximately 12 News Articles Over 1-Year Period

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and Eric M. Thorson, Inspector General for the Department of Treasury, announced today the filing of a criminal complaint charging NATALIE MAYFLOWER SOURS EDWARDS, a/k/a “Natalie Sours,” a/k/a “Natalie May Edwards,” a/k/a “May Edwards,” who is a Senior Advisor at the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), with unlawfully disclosing Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”) and conspiracy to do the same.  EDWARDS was arrested yesterday and will be presented this afternoon in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a senior-level FinCEN employee, allegedly betrayed her position of trust by repeatedly disclosing highly sensitive information contained in Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) to an individual not authorized to receive them.  SARs, which are filed confidentially by banks and other financial institutions to alert law enforcement to potentially illegal transactions, are not public documents, and it is an independent federal crime to disclose them outside of one’s official duties.  We hope today’s charges remind those in positions of trust within government agencies that the unlawful sharing of sensitive documents will not be tolerated and will be met with swift justice by this Office.”

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “In her position, Edwards was entrusted with sensitive government information.  As we allege here today, Edwards violated that trust when she made several unauthorized disclosures to the media.  Today's action demonstrates that those who fail to protect the integrity of government information will be rightfully held accountable for their behavior.”

Treasury Department Inspector General Eric Thorson said:  “Our criminal investigators have been at the center of this investigation as a core part of our responsibility to detect and prevent threats to the integrity and efficiency of Treasury programs and operations.  We are committed to working with our law enforcement partners and with FinCEN and other Treasury officials, and appreciate their cooperation and support.”

Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker said:  “Protecting sensitive information is one of our most critical responsibilities, and it is a role that we take very seriously.  We have fully and proactively supported Treasury’s Office of Inspector General’s investigation of leaks of protected information, and thank them for their hard work with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to hold accountable those responsible.”

According to the Complaint filed today in Manhattan federal court:

The mission of FinCEN is to “safeguard the financial system from illicit use and combat money laundering and promote national security through the collection, analysis, and dissemination of financial intelligence and strategic use of financial authorities.”[2]  Among other things, FinCEN manages the collection and maintenance of SARs regarding potentially suspicious financial transactions, which, under the Bank Secrecy Act, U.S. financial institutions and other parties are required by law to generate and deliver to FinCEN.  Under the BSA and its implementing regulations, willful disclosure of a SAR or its contents by government employees or agents except as necessary to fulfill official duties is a felony.

Beginning in approximately October 2017, and lasting until the present, EDWARDS unlawfully disclosed numerous SARs to a reporter (“Reporter-1”), the substance of which were published over the course of approximately 12 articles by a news organization for which Reporter-1 wrote (“News Organization-1”).  The illegally disclosed SARs pertained to, among other things, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates, the Russian Embassy, Mariia Butina, and Prevezon Alexander.  EDWARDS had access to each of the pertinent SARs and saved them – along with thousands of other files containing sensitive government information – to a flash drive provided to her by FinCEN.  She transmitted the SARs to Reporter-1 by means that included taking photographs of them and texting the photographs to Reporter-1 over an encrypted application.  In addition to disseminating SARs to Reporter-1, EDWARDS sent Reporter-1 internal FinCEN emails appearing to relate to SARs or other information protected by the BSA, and FinCEN non-public memoranda, including Investigative Memos and Intelligence Assessments published by the FinCEN Intelligence Division, which contained confidential personal, business, and/or security threat assessments. 

At the time of EDWARDS’s arrest, she was in possession of a flash drive appearing to be the flash drive on which she saved the unlawfully disclosed SARs, and a cellphone containing numerous communications over an encrypted application in which she transmitted SARs and other sensitive government information to Reporter-1.

*                      *                      *

EDWARDS, 40, of Quinton, Virginia, is charged with one count of unauthorized disclosures of suspicious activity reports and one count of conspiracy to make unauthorized disclosures of suspicious activity reports, both of which carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison.  The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencings of the defendants would be determined by the judge.

Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Treasury Department, and the Treasury Department’s Office of Inspector General.  He also thanked the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia for its assistance with the investigation.

This case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kimberly J. Ravener and Daniel C. Richenthal are in charge of the prosecution.

Natalie Edwards Complaint o... by on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Deutsche Bank Raided For Stealin' From The Poors - Panama Papers & Tax Evasion

Aaaaaaand we are off and running....

Next stop, The United States.

This is an international money laundering operation grounded in mortgage fraud by Corporate Shape Shifters through fake ass LLCs that was stealin' from "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).

Sound familiar?

It should.

Deutsche Bank offices raided this morning by 170 officers and investigators in money laundering probe over Panama Papers

More than six police vehicles, their blue lights flashing, pulled up to Deutsche Bank's main offices shortly before 9 a.m.

German authorities descended on Deutsche Bank AG, including its downtown Frankfurt headquarters, in a coordinated raid related to a money-laundering investigation.

More than six police vehicles, their blue lights flashing, pulled up to Deutsche Bank’s main offices shortly before 9 a.m., in an operation involving about 170 officers. The main suspects were two bank employees who were not identified beyond their ages — 50 and 46. Authorities were also looking at whether others might have been involved. The bank said it was cooperating in what prosecutors described as a continuing investigation.

For the beleaguered German lender, the raid adds to a panoply of headaches — commercial, regulatory and legal — facing chief executive Christian Sewing and chairman Paul Achleitner. The stock has lost almost half its value this year, after sliding about 3 per cent on Thursday. The cost of insuring its junior debt against losses jumped 11 basis points to 383 basis points, the highest in two years, according to data compiled by CMA.

“This must be associated with criminal behavior and not just a trivial offence,” said Stefan Mueller chief executive officer of DGWA, an investment advisory boutique based in Frankfurt. He believes the bank will now be paralyzed for months until it becomes clear how it will be effected by new potential fines. “Maybe this time, Achleitner will fall. The bank needs fresh blood to make a radical cut at its management.”

PANAMA PAPERS

The investigation stems from revelations in the Panama Papers, a collection of documents leaked in 2016 from Mossack Fonseca, a Panama-based law firm that created shell companies to facilitate tax avoidance. At the time, Deutsche Bank severed ties with a Cypriot lender partly owned by VTB Group that was identified in the reporting.

The subsequent investigations from the Panama Papers exposed evidence Deutsche Bank helped clients set up off-shore accounts, prosecutors said. The officials said the Thursday raid wasn’t related to its role as a correspondent bank for money laundering at Denmark’s Danske Bank.

The German lender may have helped clients in setting up offshore companies in tax havens. Money obtained illegally may have been transferred to accounts at Deutsche Bank, which failed to report the suspicions that the accounts may have been used to launder money, Frankfurt prosecutors said.

In an emailed statement, Deutsche Bank confirmed that police are investigating at several German locations in relation to Panama Papers, and said it is fully cooperating with authorities.

The timing of the raid inflicts more pain on Deutsche Bank after a series of setbacks and repeated failures in keeping misconduct in check have pushed the shares to all-time lows. Investor worries have mounted over its role as a correspondent bank in the multi-billion-dollar money-laundering scandal at Danske, and Germany’s markets regulator has taken the unprecedented step of appointing a monitor to oversee the firm’s efforts to improve money-laundering and terrorism-financing controls.

Deutsche Bank has spent more than US$18 billion paying fines and settling legal disputes since the start of 2008, according to company disclosures compiled by Bloomberg News. In Europe, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc is the only lender to have faced a bigger tab, at US$18.1 billion, the Bloomberg calculations show.

“Just when you thought Deutsche Bank had left it’s legal troubles behind it, there’s more,” said Markus Riesselmann, an analyst at Independent Research who recommends investors sell Deutsche Bank shares. “Investors really want to be able to focus on the bank’s operating business, so this noise around them is quite unhelpful for the mood.”

Sewing, who took the top job in April, is replacing key executives as part of a management shakeup as he struggles to get Germany’s biggest lender back on track. Sylvie Matherat, a management board member who serves as the bank’s chief regulatory officer, and Tom Patrick, who runs operations in the Americas, are among executives who might ultimately leave, people familiar with the matter said this week.

In a June 2017 interview, Matherat described the monumental task of modernizing the company’s compliance methods. After years of acquisitions and overseas expansion, the lender was left with a patchwork of computer programs to monitor transactions. The bank didn’t have a complete picture of the compliance controls in the organization’s businesses and regions, she said.

“I hate surprises, but you don’t know what you don’t know,” said Matherat, a lawyer and former deputy director general at the French central bank.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©