Crime & Federalism

Although I believe in church-state separation as much as the next guy (because I think government involvement with religion is bad for religious freedom), I found this language very disturbing:

"Ms. Roberts explained that although Sharah would need to paint over the overt religious words and sectarian symbols on all three murals [that all students at Sharah's school could paint on], such as 'Jesus,' 'God,' and the crucifix, her other images and messages could remain. [ ] Notably, Sharah was not the only student whose mural was edited. Principal Harris directed the removal of profanity, gang symbols, and satanic images from students’ murals." Slip at 4-5 (emphasis added).

The language is taken from Bannon v. Palm Beach County and is located on pages 4-5 of this document.

From Norm Pattis' latest column:

I hope all of you have checked your client lists lately. Representing the wrong person without the permission of the federal government can net you a fine of up to $1 million for an innocent mistake; do so intentionally, and face fines of up to $10 million and 30 years in prison. Welcome to Club Fed.

Whether you know it or not, you need a federal license to accept fees from certain clients. On the list? Those suspected of aiding terrorists, narcotics traffickers, and countries subject to U.S. embargos. Needless to say, the list has grown by leaps and bounds since Sept. 11, 2001.

Thousands of names are on the United States Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. The list runs more than 140 pages in length, and has three columns densely packed with names, nationalities, dates of birth and other identifying information in tiny, hard-to-read type. The list is updated regularly and can be found at www.ustreas.gov/offices/eotffc/ofac. There is also a special federal hotline for the Office of Foreign Assets Control [OFAC]: 1 [800] 540-6322.

I found this information from the OFAC's FAQ:

As part of its enforcement efforts, OFAC publishes a list of individuals and companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries. It also lists individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers designated under programs that are not country-specific. Collectively, such individuals and companies are called "Specially Designated Nationals" or "SDNs." Their assets are blocked and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them. [09-10-02]

The list of SDN's is available here.

Would someone please send me an email regarding this program.  I'm not sure what to make of it.  Anonymity assured.

UPDATE: A reader writes:

Before I started law school last year I was a compliance officer for a major bank and OFAC was one of my areas of responsibility.  Its true that US citizens are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with individuals/entities on the SDN list unless granted a license by OFAC.

The good news is, you will likely not have a problem if the person you are dealing with has a US bank account.  Banks have become very sensitive to screening their accountholders against the SDN list since 9/11 due to OFACs "enhanced enforcement" efforts.  So, if your client pays by check, you should be OK.  If in doubt, you can always check the SDN list at OFAC's website and call if you have a potential hit.

It was my impression that OFAC was not keen on fining those who innocently engage in transactions with those on the SDN list. (Although they may seize the funds involved.) Their main concern was regulating financial services companies who have the resources to adequately screen transactions.  Even then, they didn't always fine companies that violated OFAC regs.

From the New York Times comes this story:

Following a recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission, the House and Senate are moving toward setting rules for the states that would standardize the documentation required to obtain a driver's license, and the data the license would have to contain.

Critics say the plan would create a national identification card. But advocates say it would make it harder for terrorists to operate, as well as reduce the highway death toll by helping states identify applicants whose licenses had been revoked in other states.

The [Department of Homeland Security] could require the license to include fingerprints or eye prints. The provision would allow the Homeland Security Department to require use of the license, or an equivalent card issued by motor vehicle bureaus to nondrivers for identification purposes, for access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation.

The advocates are correct, assuming that the only terrorists we need to worry about are foreign. Of course, America has its home-grown terrorism: the intermenment of Japanese-Americas; Waco; and Ruby Ridge. Do we trust folks like John Ashcroft enough that we would surrender our privacy to him?

The question is not, "Do you love America?" The question is, "Do you trust those in power?"

Even if you trust the current administration, a national-ID is a bad idea. The power the current administration gives itself will be available to the next administration. Even if we have a upright leaders today, we might have evil leaders tomorrow.

I remember Bill Clinton and his aides reading the FBI files on their political enemies. Would you trust Hillary Clinton with your most private information? If not, then you must not trust George Bush, not because he is evil (he isn't), but because he is a mere placeholder for the Office of the Presidency. Our next president might not have the wisdom of our current leader.

We're all used to seeing redactions in Department of Justice [sic] fillings. We're usually told that the court papers need to have sensitive information kept from the public eye. Usually, we're told that national security requires it. And, we generally believe them.

But Professor Heller from The Yin Blog has evidence that maybe DOJ's redacting information has more to do with keeping us from thinking, rather than protecing us fro our enemies. For example, in one brief, DOJ redacted this information:

"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent."

That block quote comes directly from a (publically-available) U.S. Supreme Court case. What is DOJ really trying to hide? What is DOJ trying to prevent? What is DOJ really trying to accomplish?

I'm afraid that the quote may give us the answers we seek. The DOJ might be saying:

We justify our actions based on national security concerns. But we really seek to abuse those who would publically dissent.

Ken Lammers from CrimLaw relays a story about a wonderful judge. I want to know the name of the judge who began a suppression hear like this:

I heard the evidence and oral argument by counsel. And since then I have reached a decision in the case. But in order to reach a decision I want the record to show that I went with my court security officer to the area where this occurred, because the record needed to be fleshened out, and an eye-balling of the territory where the event occurred was necessary for me to make an intelligent decision.

You can read the judge's well-reasoned decisionhere.

Aaron Larson, from The Stopped Clock has a thought-provoking post on a recent Sixth Circuit death penalty case. He writes:

And if a some innocent people rot in prison, or perhaps even suffer execution at the hands of the state, our conscience can be clean - because whatever the facts, we know that the I's were dotted and the T's were crossed, and the need for "finality" must sometimes be placed ahead of facts establishing innocence. Right?

The full post (with a link to the Sixth Circuit's decision) is here.

Law.com has this article on NYU's compiling the torture memos:

A myriad of so-called "torture memos" providing legal justification for the brutal military interrogation of terror suspects, starkly demonstrated at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, has been published in four volumes by the Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law.

In her introduction to "Torture: Volumes I-IV," Karen J. Greenberg, the center's executive director, comes to a troubling conclusion about policy developed by White House lawyers as well as attorneys in the Defense and Justice departments: "[T]he administration asked for -- and was granted -- the right to interrogate prisoners with techniques possibly outlawed by the Geneva Convention and by the American military and civil law and then justified them on the grounds that in these specific cases, the legal restrictions did not apply. "The assent to coercive interrogation techniques, defined under international law as torture, constitutes a landmark turn in American legal and political history."

NYU's Center on Law and Security is here though I can't find a place to order the collection.  That's pretty careless to help law.com on a PR-piece and then not allow us to easily find your book to order.

Wow.

A psychiatrist who police say smeared excrement on dollar bills used to pay a parking ticket has been charged with harassment of a public official.

Hmmm.... a shrink who pays his bills with sh*t. I wonder when his last check-up was?

Officers received an envelope in July labeled "Foreign brown substance on bills." The envelope contained several dollar bills and a parking ticket made out to a vehicle registered to McPike, police said.

No chain-of-custody problems there.

"All personnel that dealt with the bills were offended by what the defendant did," an affidavit said.

Understatement - I like that.

If convicted, McPike could face up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $500.

I wonder what he'll pay that fine with...

No photo of the cat to upload, but here is one of the puppy at 8 weeks - studying hard.

The creators of "This Land is Your Land" now bring us, "It's Good to be in D.C."