So, now, you have, not just the U.S. Attorney General looking into the constitutional violations of Gretch the Gov, but you also have the issue of the seals.
See, it goes like this...
U.S. AG instructs MIED District Attorney to check out the legitimacy of Michigan Governor; where, Schiender is going to find out that the Michigan Governor is not duly elected, because he already knows, which automatically makes her executive orders unconstitutional, in many instances, where one may start with a quick review of the fake ass seal of certification to her oath of office, which means the U.S. AG will find out that the same will be found in Trump's fake ass seal of certification of his oath of office, which makes The U.S. AG illegitimate, being unduly appointed, which means the MIED District Attorney is left open to take other actions, like referring the matter to sealed grand juries in Detroit, which means we will be experiencing another layer of messies.
I bet that will suck, but, hey, what do I know?
I know Gretch the Gov is not duly elected, hence, illegitimate.
I did not even get into the Emergency Powers in Government Act being a residual of the peculiar institution of gerrymandering.
Stay tuned, because Paul Maloney may actually know what I know about JonesDay.
A federal judge wants the Michigan Supreme Court to clarify some of the authority the governor has under emergency powers she has used during the COVID-19 pandemic.
On Thursday, the same day Gov. Gretchen Whitmer extended Michigan's state of emergency, Judge Paul Maloney out of the Western District asked the state's highest court to answer questions pertaining to if the governor's powers.
The request for clarification is connected to a lawsuit filed by a medical provider out of Grand Rapids after Whitmer banned non-essential procedures. However, the questions that Maloney is asking fall in line with several other lawsuits that citizens from Michigan have filed against Whitmer, including one sent by Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R-Clarklake).
After a Court of Claims judge ruled in favor of the governor, Shirkey and other parties requested the case go directly to the Michigan Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Claims. The Supreme Court rejected the request.
The questions at play are:
Whether the governor has the authority to continue renewing executive orders under the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act
If the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act violates the Separate of Powers as written in the Michigan constitution
Republican leaders in the House and Senate declined to extend Gov. Whitmer's emergency declaration beyond April 30 after she made a request to do so, arguing some of the executive orders she has issued infringed on the liberties of residents. Whitmer decided to issue another extension anyways. GOP lawmakers later sued the governor on May 6.
While oral arguments for the Court of Appeals case are scheduled for August, the Michigan Supreme Court doesn't have to wait that long to answer questions posed by Maloney.
The state's highest court is welcome to respond to the questions but doesn't have to.
While many of the restrictions the governor put in place no longer pertain to the state's efforts to slow COVID-19 in Michigan, there are several rules regarding safety procedures and business operations that are still in place.
Lansing — The Michigan Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer did not have authority after April 30 to issue or renew any executive orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic under the 1976 Emergency Management Act.
The court, in its 71-page ruling, also found Whitmer did not possess the authority to exercise emergency powers under the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act because the act violates the Michigan Constitution.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer
The ruling concluded the EPGA violated the Michigan Constitution because it delegated to the executive branch the legislative powers of state government and allowed the executive branch to exercise those powers indefinitely.
"... the Governor only possessed the authority or obligation to declare a state of emergency or state of disaster once and then had to terminate that declaration when the Legislature did not authorize an extension; the Governor possessed no authority to redeclare the same state of emergency or state of disaster and thereby avoid the Legislature’s limitation on her authority," the ruling said.
The ruling said while the EPGA only allows the governor to declare a state of emergency when public safety is imperiled, "public-health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic can be said to imperil public safety."
The Supreme Court's ruling on the question of the 1976 Emergency Management Act was unanimous. But the ruling on the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act saw a 4-3 split with Republican-nominated justices ruling the act unlawfully delegated legislative power to the governor.
Those ruling against the act were Justices Stephen Markman, Brian Zahra, Beth Clement and David Viviano.
Three medical centers filed suit against Whitmer in federal court earlier this year in a challenge to her executive order that prohibited non-essential procedures at the height of the pandemic.
The suit argued the 1945 Emergency Powers of Governor Act lacked reference to epidemics or public health and that the act's use of the word "emergency" implied a specific time limit.
House Speaker Lee Chatfield, R-Levering, said on Twitter that the court ruled in agreement with the Legislature that the 1945 law is unconstitutional.
"The governor had no right to extend the state of emergency over the Legislature’s objection. Our Constitution matters, and this was a big win for our democratic process," Chatfield said.
Michigan Republican Party Chairwoman Laura Cox added the ruling marked "a great day for the people of Michigan."
"Gov. Whitmer overexerted her powers," Cox said. "The Legislature wants to be a willing partner in dealing with COVID-19, and Governor Whitmer should recognize their duly delegated role.”
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer with Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist II, behind her, acknowledges some guests, during the State of the State address at the Capitol Building in Lansing, Mich. on Jan. 29, 2020. She is flanked by Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, left, and Speaker of the House Lee Chatfield, right.
Lower courts have previously interpreted the 1945 law as giving the governor the ability to declare an emergency and then determine when the emergency is over.
It's one of two laws that allow a Michigan governor to declare an emergency. The 1976 Emergency Management Act includes a time limit that requires the legislative approval to extend an emergency past 28 days.
The suit from the medical centers closely aligned with litigation filed by the GOP-led Michigan Legislature, which has argued Whitmer's unilateral powers violate the separation of powers in government.
The governor's emergency powers should last only as long as it takes for the Legislature to assemble itself to address the emergency, argued lawyers for the GOP Legislature and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the group representing the medical centers.
Deputy Solicitor General Eric Restuccia, who represented the governor in the case, countered that Whitmer's unilateral authority is necessary to ensure the governor can continue to act in the event that an emergency prevents the Legislature from holding session or makes it impractical to wait for lawmakers to go through the lawmaking process.
Whitmer has issued more than 180 executive orders since the start of the pandemic under the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act and the 1976 Emergency Management Act, the latter of which has a 28-day time limit unless extended by the Legislature.
The state high court only considered the arguments of the medical centers after federal district Judge Paul Maloney requested they rule on the question of Whitmer's emergency powers before he decided on the merits of their case.
Separately, a petition initiative drive led by the Unlock Michigan committee has collected more than 400,000 signatures to repeal the 1945 law at issue in the case.
Whitmer first declared a state of emergency because of COVID-19 on March 10. Since then, Michigan has confirmed more than 121,000 cases of the virus and 6,700 deaths linked to it.
A: When the Executive is illegitimate, being unduly elected.
Boo Boo Barr may not like the findings, but hey, what do I know?
I ♥️ MIED.
Recent Nationwide Protests Show the Importance of Allowing Peaceful Public Assembly
The Department of Justice today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of a lawsuit by plaintiffs Ron Givens and Christine Bish, two individuals seeking to hold peaceful in-person protests of 500 to 1,000 people with social distancing on the grounds of the California State Capitol Building.
In its friend-of-the-court brief in the Ninth Circuit, the United States explains that the district court wrongly denied plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief against California’s total ban on peaceful protests. While States have broad authority to protect the public during the COVID-19 pandemic, the First Amendment does not give them carte blanche to ban peaceful public protests and rallies. The brief also explains that the real and legitimate national outcry over George Floyd’s tragic killing has shown the importance of peaceful public protests to maintaining our civic fabric—and has highlighted the extreme nature of a blanket protest ban in California. Going forward, it could raise First Amendment concerns if California were to hold other protests, such as those proposed by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, to a different standard.
“Political speech in traditional public gathering spaces is at the core of the First Amendment’s protection of speech and assembly,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Civil Rights Division. “Moments of national trial reinforce the importance of the right of the people peaceably to speak and assemble. For more than two centuries, the First Amendment has endured, and it has helped preserve the United States of America as a beacon of hope and liberty for our people and for oppressed people all over the world. The right to protest government peacefully is at the heart of who we are as a people. Today’s filing by the Justice Department makes clear that the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights' protections remain in full force and effect at all times.”
“Now more than ever, Americans are exercising their First Amendment right to peacefully protest, and this fundamental right must be upheld even during times of national emergency,” said Matthew Schneider, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, who, with Assistant Attorney General Dreiband, is overseeing the Justice Department’s effort to monitor state and local policies relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The friend-of-the-court brief is part of Attorney General William P. Barr’s April 27, 2020 initiative directing Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Matthew Schneider, to review state and local policies to ensure that civil liberties are protected during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Givens is a firearms instructor and the director of training at the Sacramento Gun Club. He has been seeking to hold a protest on the California State Capitol Building grounds objecting to the State’s delay, purportedly due to the COVID-19 outbreak, in conducting background checks for gun purchasers. Bish is a resident of Sacramento County and is a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in the November 2020 general election who also wishes to organize a protest relating to the State’s response to the outbreak on the California State Capitol grounds.
On March 19, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order, which requires “all individuals living in the State of California to stay at home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations” in various “critical infrastructure sectors.” The executive order further requires Californians to “heed the State public health directives from the Department of Public Health.” At the time plaintiffs filed their complaint, those directives banned “until further notice” all public gatherings of any size in any “indoor or outdoor” space, and applied to “all non-essential professional, social, and community gatherings regardless of their sponsor.” Violations of the executive order are subject to criminal penalties. Neither the executive order nor the directives in place when plaintiffs filed their complaint made any exceptions for First Amendment activities, such as peaceful protest. Thus in California, all gatherings of any size protesting government action were banned.
Following the executive order, the California Highway Patrol denied Givens’ and Bish’s applications for a permit to protest, even though they planned to practice social distancing and to require protesters to wear masks. In their lawsuit, plaintiffs argued that the grounds of the California State Capitol Building “are the most important and widely used public forum in California” and have been the site of “[c]ountless watershed protests.” They claimed that California’s actions “amount[ed] to a total ban on public gatherings for the purpose of engaging in First Amendment [conduct] by means of demonstrations, rallies, or protests, regardless of the measures taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of the [COVID-19] virus spreading.”
Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, which the district court denied on the ground that California’s “total ban on public demonstrations” is consistent with the First Amendment. On May 17, 2020, plaintiffs appealed the district court’s order to the Ninth Circuit.
Since the filing of plaintiffs’ appeal, California has announced new guidelines for political protest that, in relevant part, allow socially distant protests of a maximum of 100 attendees or 25% of the relevant area’s maximum occupancy, whichever is lower. According to California, “[t]his limitation on attendance will be reviewed at least once every 21 days, beginning May 25, 2020,” to “assess the impacts of these imposed limits on public health and provide further direction as part of a phased-in restoration of gatherings that implicate the First Amendment.” Plaintiffs, who are seeking to hold protests of 500 to 1,000 attendees, are continuing to challenge California’s revised orders.
The federal case on appeal is Givens, et al. v. Newsom, et al., No. 20-15949 (9th Cir.).
Matt got his hair whipped & laid. I wonder if Trey referred him.
Detroit — Federal prosecutors on Monday started reviewing whether restrictions enacted by state and local officials to curtail the spread of COVID-19 are violating citizens' civil rights and liberties.
U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr announced the sweeping measures that followed criticism from President Donald Trump who has sparred in recent weeks with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer over the government's response to the coronavirus outbreak.
On Monday, Barr tapped the top law enforcement officer in Metro Detroit, U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider, to oversee a review of state and local orders — a review that could overturn measures that have included broad restrictions on businesses and other economic activity.
Trump nominated Schneider to serve as the region's top federal law enforcement officer in 2018.
"Many policies that would be unthinkable in regular times have become commonplace in recent weeks, and we do not want to unduly interfere with the important efforts of state and local officials to protect the public," Barr wrote in a memorandum Monday.
"But the Constitution is not suspended in times of crisis. We must, therefore, be vigilant to ensure its protections are preserved, at the same time that the public is protected."
Schneider oversees federal prosecutions in a region battered by COVID-19. As of Monday, 73% of Michigan's COVID-19 cases were in Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties.
“Across the country, many officials are imposing limitations on our rights in order to safely navigate citizens through the pandemic," Schneider said in a statement to The Detroit News on Monday.
"But these restrictions must be both reasonable and temporary.”
In his memo Monday, Barr said the Justice Department review will focus on the constitutionality of state and local laws imposed during the pandemic.
“If a state or local ordinance crosses the line from an appropriate exercise of authority to stop the spread of COVID-19 into an overbearing infringement of constitutional and statutory protections, the Department of Justice may have an obligation to address that overreach in federal court,” Barr wrote.
Kelly Rossman-McKinney, a spokeswoman for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, pushed against the federal moves Monday.
"As a former deputy attorney general for the State of Michigan, we’re confident that U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider is familiar with the concept of state sovereignty and the state’s power to make autonomous decisions for its citizens, without interference from the federal government," Rossman-McKinney said. "To the extent it becomes necessary though, my department stands ready to make those same arguments to a court."
Whitmer on Monday outlined her next steps for reopening the state's economy, saying construction and other low-risk workplaces will soon see loosened restrictions.
But the Democratic governor also announced she's seeking a 28-day extension of her emergency declaration from the Michigan Legislature, which is scheduled to meet this week.
Her declaration would expire Friday, but there's debate over what that would actually mean for executive powers. On Monday, Whitmer said her emergency powers don't depend on an extension from the Legislature.
Trump during his press briefing Monday was asked whether the federal government would sue states over their orders of restriction. He said it would depend on the circumstances of the state.
"(Barr) wants to see people get back and wants to see people get back to work," Trump said. "He doesn't want people to be held up when there's no reason for doing it. And in some cases, perhaps it's too strict. He wants to make sure people have their rights."
Trump was asked how America should be reopened and whether restrictions could be reimposed. The president said he's relying on the country's governors on those matters.
"From the beginning, the governors — some of them — are doing an extraordinary job — not all of them — but some of them," he said.
An attempt to overturn orders imposed by Whitmer and other state and local officials likely will require a federal lawsuit, said Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor and former federal prosecutor.
“I suspect there is a political aspect to this,” Henning told The News. “(Trump) wants the states to open up. But governors have authority over when states are going to open up and when businesses will restart. I’m not sure that’s going to be an easy lawsuit to bring.
“States have police powers and are separate sovereigns,” Henning added. “Typically, the Justice Department doesn’t have that inherent authority, but they can file their lawsuits. How far that’s going to go remains to be seen.”
Last week, Whitmer extended her stay-at-home order through May 15, while lifting certain restrictions on businesses and outdoor activities.
The order allows individuals to travel between two residences in Michigan, including to a new home, though Whitmer strongly discouraged such travel during the coronavirus pandemic. A ban on travel to vacation rentals remains in place.
She is also allowing motorized boating and golfing (without motorized carts) as long as people observe "strict" social distancing protocols to remain six feet apart from one another. Also open now are lawn services, garden shops, landscapers and nurseries.
Michigan now has 38,210 confirmed cases of the virus and 3,407 deaths linked to it, according to data from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.
Bill "Boo Boo" Barr deserves a standing ovation in his open mike poetry afternoon session in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
The topic was China.
Did Boo Boo talk about the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in Detroit, or how it even came to be the first satellite PTO outside of DC?
Nope, but he did use lots of alliteration and WWII Disney references when talking about "bowing" to Beijing.
Did Boo Boo talk about China and the DNC?
Nope.
Did Boo Boo talk about how a bunch of folks from other nations, hanging out in China, as I cannot call them Chinese, because I have yet to see any passports or corporate parental filings, running fake ass LLCs, fake ass mortgages, and fake ass quiet titles in Detroit?
Nope.
Did Boo Boo Barr talk about the U.S. auto industry in China?
Nope, well, there are ongoing actions with MIED, so he probably was not allowed to speak upon it.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr decried China's "predatory" trade policies during a 30-minute speech in Grand Rapids on Thursday, accusing the country of manipulating American businesses, stealing trade secrets and attempting to hack U.S. efforts to develop COVID-19 treatments and vaccines.
China's ultimate goal since the 1980s, "isn't to trade with the United States, it is to raid the United States," Barr said from the podium at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum.
"No one should underestimate the ingenuity and industry of the Chinese people," he said. "At the same time, no one should doubt the United States made China’s meteoric rise possible.”
Thursday's appearance in Grand Rapids was Barr's first in roughly 30 years when he visited the area while working under former President George H.W. Bush, he said.
"I feel a special bond to the Ford administration, so it's appropriate to be here today," said Barr, who worked in the CIA under Ford appointees in the 1970s.
"I had the privilege to work with many of the superb people he brought into government, many of whom I had the opportunity to work with over the years, several of whom were my mentors," he said.
Barr's appearance at the museum is his first in Michigan since Schneider filed a "state of interest" on behalf of the Department of Justice in a federal lawsuit brought by seven businesses challenging the governor's executive orders to combat COVID-19.
Federal prosecutors claimed credit for moving the needle on reopening when, four days after the statement was filed, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer moved Michigan out of a stay-home order and into loosened restrictions allowed under her reopening plan.
The lawsuit filed by the businesses is ongoing.
During his speech Thursday, Barr also alleged China's influence had infiltrated not only manufacturing and production but also film production companies, technology firms, the pharmaceutical market and universities.
Chinese hackers have targeted American universities and researchers to steal information on the development of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines, Barr said. They're hoping the introduction of a treatment by China would redeem its role in spreading the virus, he said.
"Beijing is desperate for a public relations coup and may hope it could take credit for any medical breakthroughs," he said.
I only call this alliance unholy due to the simple fact that it seems Trump was falsely advised in the signing of this Executive Order, just like they did with Obama, all the time, like with DACA, which is a policy, not a law, because only congress makes laws.
Now, why would I make such an allegation that the U.S. Attorney General, Secretary of State & Secretary of Defense falsely advised Trump?
So, if Trump is not duly elected, that would mean the unholy alliance is not duly appointed, which means they do not possessed sovereign nor qualified immunities, which means they will not just fall from the heavens upon defrocking, but will be prosecuted by the laws of the land.
Of course, everyone knows the U.S. never signed onto the Rome Statute, which makes the ICC jurisdiction improper, but, in this instance, the unholy alliance would have their parental rights to keep and bear the arms of the U.S. terminated, meaning, they slide right back down the rungs of the hierarchy of juridic persons, as chattel, under the guardianship of the U.S., to be tried on U.S. soil.
I am going to go out there on a soothsaying limb and just toss out there the possibility that the proper jurisdiction is going to be Detroit.
See, Boo Boo Barr just instructed MIED Matt Schneider to look into Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer's Executive Orders to see if they were constitutional.
I will tell you right now that Whitmer's Executive Orders are all unconstitutional because she is illegitimate, too, being, also, unduly elected.
That would mean Boo Boo Barr would have a transposable model to self-extract himself from office, or rather throw himself from the heavens.
It would also mean that Trump's Executive Orders, all of them, are illegitimate, meaning, we are looking at, not just a constitutional crisis, but the unmasking of the Arch-President.
But, hey, what do I know?
I know trafficking tiny humans operations when I see them because this is the reason they are pushing, really, truly hard, Religious Freedom Restoration Act to secure those Corporate Parental Rights in the name of the tax exempt god, to keep their most precious treasures they have pilfered through the world called the children's trust funds.
Hey, Boo Boo, can I get a #MeToo?
#sealsmatter #maytheheavensfall
Executive Order on Blocking Property Of Certain Persons Associated With The International Criminal Court
NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENSE
Issued on: June 11, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the situation with respect to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its illegitimate assertions of jurisdiction over personnel of the United States and certain of its allies, including the ICC Prosecutor’s investigation into actions allegedly committed by United States military, intelligence, and other personnel in or relating to Afghanistan, threatens to subject current and former United States Government and allied officials to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest. These actions on the part of the ICC, in turn, threaten to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and impede the critical national security and foreign policy work of United States Government and allied officials, and thereby threaten the national security and foreign policy of the United States. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, has never accepted ICC jurisdiction over its personnel, and has consistently rejected ICC assertions of jurisdiction over United States personnel. Furthermore, in 2002, the United States Congress enacted the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.) which rejected the ICC’s overbroad, non-consensual assertions of jurisdiction. The United States remains committed to accountability and to the peaceful cultivation of international order, but the ICC and parties to the Rome Statute must respect the decisions of the United States and other countries not to subject their personnel to the ICC’s jurisdiction, consistent with their respective sovereign prerogatives. The United States seeks to impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICC’s transgressions, which may include the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members. The entry of such aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States and denying them entry will further demonstrate the resolve of the United States in opposing the ICC’s overreach by seeking to exercise jurisdiction over personnel of the United States and our allies, as well as personnel of countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction.
I therefore determine that any attempt by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States, or of personnel of countries that are United States allies and who are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby determine and order:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(i) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General:
(A) to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States;
(B) to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any personnel of a country that is an ally of the United States without the consent of that country’s government;
(C) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsection (a)(i)(A) or (a)(i)(B) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(D) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.
Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1(a) of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1(a) of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1(a) of this order include:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1(a) of this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 4. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order, as well as immediate family members of such aliens, or aliens determined by the Secretary of State to be employed by, or acting as an agent of, the ICC, would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended, except where the Secretary of State determines that the entry of the person into the United States would not be contrary to the interests of the United States, including when the Secretary so determines, based on a recommendation of the Attorney General, that the person’s entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives. In exercising this responsibility, the Secretary of State shall consult the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to admissibility or inadmissibility within the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions). The Secretary of State shall have the responsibility for implementing this section pursuant to such conditions and procedures as the Secretary has established or may establish pursuant to Proclamation 8693.
Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 6. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 7. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a government or instrumentality of such government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization, including an international organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term “United States personnel” means any current or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States, any current or former elected or appointed official of the United States Government, and any other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government;
(e) the term “personnel of a country that is an ally of the United States” means any current or former military personnel, current or former elected or appointed official, or other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of a government of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member country or a “major non-NATO ally”, as that term is defined by section 2013(7) of the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (22 U.S.C. 7432(7)); and
(f) the term “immediate family member” means spouses and children.
Sec. 8. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to section 1 of this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.
Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury. All departments and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 11. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Detroit — Former United Auto Workers Region 5 Director Vance Pearson pleaded guilty Friday for his role in a racketeering enterprise and agreed to cooperate with an investigation targeting former presidents Gary Jones and Dennis Williams.
Pearson is the 12th person convicted of a crime during the years-long federal investigation into UAW corruption. He pleaded guilty after being accused of helping embezzle more than $1.5 million in union funds spent on personal luxuries for labor leaders, including golf, cigars, private villas and liquor in Palm Springs, Calif., and elsewhere.
"The monies came from member dues?" U.S. District Judge Paul Borman asked Pearson on Friday.
"Yes," Pearson replied.
His cooperation is viewed as a potential tipping point in the years-long probe because Pearson was a close aide to Jones, and his assistance could put pressure on others to cooperate, legal experts said.
“That is certainly problematic for the UAW if Jones cooperates and can point out other sins of the union,” said Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor and former federal prosecutor. “He could be a key witness if the U.S. Attorney’s Office wants to bring a racketeering lawsuit."
Pearson faces up to five years in prison for the charge of conspiring to embezzle union funds and aiding a racketeering enterprise. Prosecutors have agreed not to seek more than 30 months in prison, but could ask Borman for a lower sentence if Pearson provides substantial assistance.
The guilty plea continues a steep fall for one of the union's most powerful leaders. In six months, Pearson went from serving on the UAW's governing International Executive Board and overseeing the union's largest geographic region to becoming a criminal target whose home and offices were raided by federal agents. He was placed on leave after being charged in September and resigned two months later.
The plea deal portrays Pearson as carrying out orders from Jones and Williams to rent private villas and buy large quantities of cigars and alcohol, and covering up expenses by filing phony reports with the union. Jones' lawyer declined comment.
The corruption scandal has exposed the UAW to possible federal oversight if prosecutors decide to file a civil racketeering case against the union. Such a move could cost the union tens of millions of dollars, impose prolonged federal oversight and involve replacing labor leaders.
U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider has said federal oversight of the UAW is an option once the government determines the depth of corruption within one of the nation's largest and most powerful unions.
Outside federal court in downtown Detroit, Schneider called the guilty plea "good news," adding: “This is exactly what we expect and would hope for. A UAW official is pleading guilty and taking responsibility for his actions, admitting his conduct and agreeing (they) did something wrong.”
Pearson has “accepted responsibility and he’s cooperating truthfully … certainly owning everything he did," his lawyer Scott Rosenblum said. He would not comment on the potential for Pearson’s cooperation leading to a federal takeover of the union.
“That would be up to them,” Rosenblum said. “My role is defending Mr. Pearson and making sure he gets the best outcome possible. That’s what I intend to do.”
The UAW condemned Pearson's actions.
"Vance Pearson blatantly violated his oath of office and betrayed the trust of all our hard-working members," the union said in a statement. "In November 2019, the UAW International Executive Board filed its own action against Mr. Pearson not just to remove him from his elected position but taking away his membership in the UAW entirely. While our union is moving forward, we will never forget the costly lessons from our past."
The racketeering enterprise lasted from 2010 until September 2019 and involved Pearson and at least six others, according to the government. Jones and Williams are not identified by name in court filings. Instead, prosecutors refer to them as "UAW Official A" and "UAW Official B."
The embezzlement scheme described by prosecutors involved filing phony vouchers that concealed the true nature of expenses in Palm Springs and in Missouri.
Scott Rosenblum, attorney for former UAW regional director Vance Pearson, talks about his client's guilty plea and cooperation with the government The Detroit News
Pearson's plea deal included new allegations from prosecutors about how "UAW Official A" and "UAW Official B" were involved in the conspiracy.
During the alleged conspiracy, "UAW Official A," who is Jones, directed Pearson to conceal "hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal expenditures," according to the plea deal. "UAW Official B," who is Williams, directed Pearson to use UAW money to pay for "large quantities of cigars, cigar paraphernalia and humidors."
Pearson also ensured that "UAW Official B" was able to use, for months at a time, private villas in Palm Springs from 2015-18, prosecutors said. UAW money paid for the villas, according to the government.
UAW funds also paid for private villas for friends and "UAW Official D," whom sources identified as Williams aide Amy Loasching. The plea deal also describes benefits Williams' spouse received paid for with UAW funds.
Pearson was tasked with providing alcohol and cigars for "UAW Official B" and his spouse, according to prosecutors. Pearson also arranged for the spouse to charge expenses at Loew's Coronado Bay Resort in California "even though UAW Official B's spouse was not an officer or employee of the UAW and the expenses had no legitimate union business purpose," prosecutors wrote.
Williams' criminal defense lawyers did not respond to a message seeking comment Friday.
Pearson, 58, of Saint Charles, Missouri, pleaded guilty six months after emerging as a target of the investigation of corruption within the UAW.
Since those August raids, Pearson has been accused of helping the former presidents embezzle union funds. Prosecutors also have hinted in court filings that they have secret recordings of Pearson, Jones and another aide discussing possible crimes.
Pearson was a close aide to Jones. He served on the board of directors overseeing Jones' charity and succeeded Jones as director of Region 5. The region covers 17 states and is based in suburban St. Louis.
But after Pearson was charged, the union announced it would disband the region as part of a broad series of reforms.
As part of his plea deal, Pearson has agreed to forfeit $119,000. That includes $81,000 from his so-called "flower fund," an account originally established to pay for flowers for auto workers' funerals. Prosecutors, however, said senior staff were forced to contribute to the funds, which are controlled by top UAW officials.
Those top UAW officials, prosecutors said, used the flower fund money for personal expenses. The News first reported about the flower fund aspect of the corruption investigation in March.
Pearson also agreed to forfeit $38,000 from a second fund, called "Members in Solidarity." The money was supposed to pay for UAW election expenses. Missouri business records show Jones served as president of "Members in Solidarity" until becoming UAW president in 2018.
Pearson started negotiating a deal with prosecutors as early as November after prosecutors disclosed that investigators were armed with evidence that includes bank records, cooperation from top labor leaders and what court records suggest are secret recordings.
Court records describe conversations among UAW officials, including Jones and Pearson, last year and directly quote labor leaders talking about destroying evidence and obstructing justice.
The use of direct quotes is a strong indication investigators obtained audio recordings of Jones, Pearson and other UAW officers either through a wiretap or a hidden recording device, legal experts told The News. The government has yet to file discovery notices in federal court that would reveal whether prosecutors have evidence obtained through wiretaps or other electronic surveillance.
A video primer on corruption: Count the kickbacks, cash and bribes pocketed by Metro Detroit's most corrupt UAW bosses, auto execs and politicians. The Detroit News
In court filings, prosecutors quoted a conversation between Pearson and another UAW officer, Edward "Nick" Robinson, in July. Robinson is expected to plead guilty and is due in court Feb. 18.
Pearson told Robinson he would get him a burner phone so UAW officers involved in the conspiracy could talk freely without fear of being recorded by a federal wiretap, according to the criminal filing.
Pearson also told Robinson that if he had anything incriminating "at your house," prosecutors wrote, "then get rid of it."
Committee Dems Send 5th Request to Chairman for Oversight of Trump Administration
Washington, D.C. – Today, all House Judiciary Committee Democrats, led by Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), wrote to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (D-VA) to ask that he investigate Trump’s pardon of controversial sheriff Joe Arpaio and related events.
The letter is below.
In July, Joe Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt after years of racially profiling and arresting individuals based on their perceived immigration status. In today’s letter to Goodlatte, the memberswrote, “Sheriff Arpaio was convicted for criminal contempt of court because he ignored orders from a federal judge to stop engaging in racial profiling. The pardon not only disregards the rule of law, it directly flouts the courts themselves by signaling that it is acceptable for parties to ignore court orders.”
The letter notes that for “125 years, presidents have worked through the Pardon Attorney to ensure that the power of clemency is fairly applied. President Trump chose to work around this mechanism and ignore DOJ policy calling for a waiting period of five years or more before considering a pardon application and the expression of regret or remorse by the applicant.” It further details that “before resorting to a full pardon, President Trump asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to simply drop the criminal case against Sheriff Arpaio,” pointing out that the House Judiciary Committee “has long defended the view that presidents should avoid involvement in specific criminal cases in order to avoid even the perception of politicizing the administration of justice.”
The Members continued, “It is also our Committee’s unique and pressing responsibility to conduct oversight of the President’s use of executive power—particularly when that power is expressed as a pardon that only serves to endorse the transgressions committed by the offender. If we do not examine this use of the pardon power, we fear that the Committee will be seen by our constituents—and by future generations—as also having endorsed the Sheriff’s conduct.”
Today’s letter was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which includes: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Brad Schneider (D-IL).
