Attorney General Education
Hospitals & Asylums
Attorney General Enforcement
To supplement Chapter 2 Soldiers' and Airmen’s Home §41-70. The High Court must publish: 'To insert the word 'prescription' after inspection, and before fumigation, in domestic quarantine statute under 42USC§264 and 42CFR§70.2. National greeting: Hydrocortisone, eucalyptus, lavender or peppermint (HELP) cure coronavirus and Cushing's disease. Epsom salt bath cures methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Treat influenza with Hall's menthol or prescription Oseltamivir (Tamiflu), Zanamivir (Relenza) and Amantadine (Symmetrel) under 42USC§300u. A Bachelor degree is required for all federal, state and local law enforcement (including mandatory) and corrections officers whereas recidivism, defined as re-arrest within three years of release from prison, is reduced from 66% to 50% with vocational certificates, to 35% with Associate degree to 0% in those who earned a post-conviction Bachelor degree.' Civil action is afforded with the 12.4% OASDI tax on all state employees pursuant to the repeal of Sec. 230 of the Social Security Act under 42USC§430. DOJ FY 2021 Budget request totals $31.7 billion in discretionary outlays, including $29.9 billion for federal programs (net fees) and $1.8 billion for state, local, and tribal assistance programs and excluding much reduced claims of $7.9 billion in mandatory budget authority in FY 2021. Authority for Employment of the FBI and DEA Senior Executive Service must be repealed under 5USC§3151-§3152, US Sentencing Commission and Immigration and Customs Enforcement must be abolished. 20 week tuition for Quantico Federal Police Academy, fees for the Forensic Laboratory and Uniform Crime Reporting, are protected. The DEA drug stockpile must be destroyed and diversion control doctors who don't use the license are advised not to pay the $1,500 biannual fee, and optionally retain an attorney at +/-$200 hourly rate per year that would need to be pre-authorized for UN Controlled Substance prescription fillers offended by the DEA License. 1 police officer per 1,000 residents is considered normal. 1.5 million police officers in a population of 330 million is 4.5 police officers per 1,000 residents. 2.2 million people are behind bars in the United States, the most in the world, with 693 detainees per 100,000 residents, the second most concentrated, in a world with a norm of 144 and arbitrary legal limit of 250 detainees per 100,000 residents. The prison population quintupled from 503,586 detainees (220 per 100,000) in 1980 to a high of 2,307,504 (755 per 100,000) in 2008, before going down to 2,217,947 (696 per 100,000) in 2014. The federal prison population increased to a high of 219,298 in 2013 before decreasing to 183,191 in 2017. Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (2006) notes the wrongful execution of prisoners in Lagrand Brothers v. USA Judgment No. 104 on June 27, 2001 and Avena and other Mexican National v. USA Judgment No. 128 on March 31, 2004. ABA Kennedy Commission Report of June 23, 2004 admitted the most prisoners of any nation in the world and measures would need to be taken to redress this problem: Mandatory minimum sentencing and U.S. Sentencing Commission must be abolished pursuant to Blakely v. Washington (2004), decriminalize drugs in United States v. Booker J. & Fanfan (2005) and safely secure the release of disability beneficiaries to resolve prison overcrowding pursuant to Brown, Governor of California, et al v. Marciana & Plata et al (2011).
Ninth Annual Independence day ed. 13 Aug. 2011, 10th 5 Feb. 2015, 11th July 2016, 12th 18 March 2018, 13th 19 January 2019, 14th 10 January 2021
Art. 1 Justice Department
§41 Department of Justice
§42 Attorney General
§43 Bureau of Prisons
§44 International
§45 Justice Divisions
§46 Justice Programs
§47 District Attorneys and Trustees
Art. 2 Federal Law Enforcement
§48 Customs and Border Protection
§49 Coast Guard
§50 Firearms and Explosives
§51 Marshals Service
§52 Postal Service
Art. 3 Corruption
§53 Force Reduction
§54 Federal Bureau of Investigation
§55 Drug Enforcement Administration
§56 Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Art. 4 US Courts
§57 Judicial Branch
§58 Federal Courts
§59 State Courts
§60 Employees
Art. 5 Conduct
§61 American Legal System
§62 Crime
§63 Enforcement
§64 Detention
Art. 6 Legal Defenses
§65 Unwarranted Arrest, Search and Seizure
§66 Right to a Fair Trial
§67 Civil Law
§68 Immunity
Art. 7 International Justice
§69 International Courts
§70 Council on Human Rights
Text: Chapter 2 Soldiers' and Airmen's Home
Figures
Fig. 1 Justice Department, Budget Authority FY 16 – FY 21
Fig. 2 US Prison Population 1980 - 2014
Fig. 3 Assets Forfeiture Fund 2011-2017
Fig. 4 Federal Prison Population 1980-2016
Fig. 5 Victim Compensation Deposits, Disbursements and Balance FY 85 – FY 21
Fig. 6 Migration Estimates 2001-2017
Fig. 7 Coast Guard; Net Budget Authority, by Statutory Mission FY17 – FY20
Fig. 8 Coast Guard Procurement, Construction and Improvement FY 19
Fig. 9 US Marshal Service, Budget FY 16 – FY 20
Fig. 10 Postal Service Budget Request FY17 – FY18
Fig. 11 Postal Service Investigative Statistics FY 2014
Fig. 12 Federal Prohibition of Terrorism Finance FY 16 – FY 19
Fig. 13 DEA Domestic Arrests 1986-2016
Fig. 14 DEA Domestic Drug Seizures 1986-2014
Fig. 15 Judiciary Budget FY 16 – FY 20
Fig. 16 Administration of Justice by type of Government, fiscal 2012
Fig. 17 Property Crimes Known to Law Enforcement 1997-2016
Fig. 18 Arson 2010
Fig. 19 Violent Crimes Known to Law Enforcement 1997-2016
Fig. 20 Estimated Number of Arrests, 2016
Fig. 21 US Detainee Population and Rate 1980-2014
Fig. 22 Total Adult Correctional Population 1984-2014
Fig. 23 State by State Detention 1999, 2005, 2013
Fig. 24 World Prison Population and Rate of 223 National Jurisdictions 2014
Fig. 25 Legalization of Marijuana, State by State 2019
Text: Soldiers' and Airmen's Home
Bibliography
Article 1 Justice Department
§41 Department of Justice
A. This book supplements Title 24 US Code Chapter 2 §41-70 Soldier’s and Airmen’s Home that has been completely repealed by Pub. L. 101-510, Div. A, Title Xv, Sec. 1532 of Nov. 5, 1990 104 Stat. 1733; Pub. L. 101-189, Div. A, Title Iii, Sec. 347, Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1422; Pub. L. 94-454, Sec. 2, Oct. 2, 1976, 90 Stat. 1518 and Aug. 10, 1956, Ch. 1041, Sec. 53, 70a Stat. 641. - The High Court is encouraged by FDA Coronavirus Products Advisory Panel to publish the sentence: Hydrocortisone, eucalyptus, lavender or peppermint (HELP) cure coronavirus and Cushing's disease under 42USC§300u. Congress must be defended to insert the word 'prescription' after inspection, and before fumigation, in domestic quarantine statute under 42USC§264 and 42CFR§70.2, whereas the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court arbitrarily and unprecedentedly prohibits “prescriptions of law”, the coronavirus pandemic rages on untreated and the federal government must repeal marijuana from Schedule I(c)(17) of the UN Controlled Substances Act (CSA) under 21USC§812(c) for testing purposes. Brain shrinkage from pseudo-ephedrine, wrongfully prescribed to treat nasal and sinus congestion, and computer abuse take time and a torture free home and office to heal. Alzheimer's can be deadly to elderly people. This one paragraph application for writ of certiorari, by the State Court should satisfy Hippocrates: Hydrocortisone is a low-dose, topical corticosteroid that is highly effective at treating allergies, asthma, aspergillosis (Ginsburg J?), and coronavirus. Hydrocortisone creme can be purchased at the dollar store. When hydrocortisone crème is applied to the nose and/or chest the sinuses instantly improve and usually within an hour there is no nasal discomfort or chest congestion whatsoever. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the Cushing's disease side-effects poses a significant problem. Therefore, to treat the coronavirus pandemic safely and effectively it is medically necessary for the High Court to prescribe essential oil of eucalyptus, lavender or peppermint aromatherapy to the public. Hall's menthol cough drops work. Menthol cigarettes might cure coronavirus. Menthol is made from eucalyptus. The FDA has approved Lysol, also made from eucalyptus, for cleaning. Lavender spray smells nice when washing hands and offices. Lavender chamomile tea is as effective as Peppermint tea at curing coronavirus. Having enjoyed giving peppermint Candy Canes to all the snot nosed children at Christmas, filtered the tea water, cleaned the office, drank a Lavender vitamin water and eaten a half gallon of peppermint ice-creme the most completely effective non-corticosteroid relief from coronavirus nasal congestion is held to be Lavender or Eucalyptus scented Epsom salt bath available at the dollar store. Do not drink Epsom salt water. Eucalyptus scented humidifiers from the 1950s remain untried.
Held: Eucalyptus, lavender or peppermint products in medicinal doses, and hydrocortisone crème, all pass the non-inferiority test with more expensive corticosteroids, without allergy, Cushing's disease or side-effect, other than a side-arm, in regards to curing coronavirus. Epsom salt bath cures methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Treat influenza with Oseltamivir (Tamiflu), Zanamivir (Relenza) and Amantadine (Symmetrel). Congress must amend federal torture statute to comply with Arts. 2, 4 and 14 of the Convention against Torture (CAT) by repealing the phrase “outside the United States” from 18USC§2340A(a) and amending Exclusive Remedies at §2340B so: The legal system shall ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, their dependents shall be entitled to compensation under Art. 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)(1987). Congress must insert the word 'prescription' after inspection, and before fumigation, in domestic quarantine statute under 42USC§246 and 42CFR§70.2, whereas the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court arbitrarily and unprecedentedly prohibits “prescriptions of law”, the coronavirus pandemic rages on untreated. Congress must repeal marijuana from Schedule I(c)(17) of the UN Controlled Substances Act (CSA) under 21USC§812(c) for drug testing purposes.
1. The Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93 (1789) created the Office of the Attorney General. In 1870, after the post-Civil War increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States necessitated the very expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload, a concerned Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice, ch. 150, 16 Stat. 162 (1870) setting it up as "an executive department of the government of the United States" with the Attorney General as its head. The Act gave DOJ control over all criminal prosecutions and civil suits in which the United States had an interest. In addition, the Act gave the Attorney General and the Department control over federal law enforcement, establishing the Attorney General as the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. Finally, to assist the Attorney General, the Act created the Office of the Solicitor General. DOJ was charged with improving: representation of the federal government in the Courts, representation of the federal government to the State Attorney Generals, representation of state attorney generals to the federal government and counsel to the president by serving as the member of the cabinet who supervises judicial affairs and litigation with the title Attorney General of the United States.
2. The US Department of Justice is constituted in accordance with Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States, Title 28, Part 2 United States Code and manages its judicial administration in accordance with Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations and the U.S. Attorney’s Manual. The Department of Justice consists of the principal organizational units listed in 28CFR§0.1 as restructured by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 yielding roughly 17 offices, 7 divisions and 2 boards with four immigration and customs related agencies seceding to the Department of Homeland Security. The DOJ’s FY 2021 request includes 116,989 positions (direct only). This staffing level is comprised of: Agents (25,359 or 22%); Attorneys (12,151 or 10%); Correctional Officers (20,446 or 17%); Intelligence Analysts (4,434 or 4%); and Other (54,599 or 47%). “Other” captures analysts, administrative, clerical, information technology specialists, legal services, and security specialists. The FY 2021 DOJ Budget delineated by five spending categories: law enforcement (50.0%); prisons and detention (28.7%); litigation (12.1%); grants (5.4%); and immigration/ administration / technology /other (3.8%). The mission of the Department of Justice is: To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
B. The DOJ FY 2021 Budget request totals $31.7 billion in discretionary outlays, including $29.9 billion for federal programs (net fees) and $1.8 billion for state, local, and tribal assistance programs and excluding claims of $7.9 billion in mandatory budget authority in FY 2021. Justice is the only Department budget believed to accurately distinguish discretionary outlays and mandatory revenue funded operations. The summary of budget authority by appropriation is only a few thousand dollars off after mandatory budget authority FY 21. Once again, the FY 21 Budget Summary does not even attempt to justify termination of the Community Relations Service, Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) or Office of Violence against Women (OVW) they threaten with total abolition. The total FY 20 supplement is $460 million for the OVW FY 20 to redress COVID-19 quarantine related domestic violence, bringing total FY 20 discretionary budget authority from $32.4 billion to $32.9 billion FY 20. The total FY 21 supplement is $550 million outlays for the OVW, $17 million for the Community Relations Service and $250 million for COPS, a total supplement of $817 million FY 21 in addition to the $31.7 billion total discretionary outlays already requested, for total discretionary budget authority of $32.5 billion FY 21. The hypothetical depletion of the Crime Victim Fund (CVF) from the accurate number of -$7,783 million FY 19 to $5,695 million FY 20 to $0 FY 21, by means of large Victims Compensation Fund FY 21 and extremely low deposits, should be interpreted as a request for $5.7 billion FY 20, too much money, after losing ability to account for ultra-high deposits FY 14 and FY 17, and it is advised that deposits should moderate at a slightly higher rate than the $2,300 million FY 21 disbursement cap, $2,500 million FY 20 and FY 21, to afford CVF disbursement and reasonable transfers to victim compensation fund pursuant to the Anti-Deficiency Act of 1982 under 31USC§1515.
Justice Department, Budget Authority FY 16 – FY 21
(thousands)
|Appropriation |FY 16 |FY 17 |FY 18 |FY 19 |FY 20 |FY 21 |
| | | | | | | |
|DOJ Direct |27,506,922 |27,877,467 |27,780,426 |30,005,462 |32,387,263 |31,656,515 |
|Discretionary | | | | | | |
|Outlays | | | | | | |
|Mandatory and |12,552,090 |6,720,173 |5,324,174 |6,425,644 |7,339,040 |7,947,520 |
|Other Accounts | | | | | | |
|Total BA |40,308,374 |34,847,500 |33,379,248 |36,708,951 |40,013,197 |39,907,939 |
|Department of | | | | | | |
|Justice, with | | | | | | |
|Offset | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|General |142,500 |145,124 |144,138 |145,000 |148,615 |155,833 |
|Administration | | | | | | |
|total | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|General |111,500 |114,124 |113,349 |113,000 |114,740 |121,769 |
|Administration | | | | | | |
|Justice |31,000 |31,000 |30,789 |32,000 |33,875 |34,064 |
|Information | | | | | | |
|Sharing | | | | | | |
|Technology | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Executive Office |420,283 |440,000 |437,012 |563,407 |672,966 |882,872 |
|for Immigratio n | | | | | | |
|Review BA | | | | | | |
|Executive Office |416,283 |436,000 |433,012 |559,407 |668,966 |878,872 |
|for Immigration | | | | | | |
|Review outlays | | | | | | |
|Transfer from |4,000 |4,000 |4,000 |4,000 |4,000 |4,000 |
|Immigration Fees | | | | | | |
|Account | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Office of the |93,709 |95,583 |94,934 |101,000 |115,000 |107,211 |
|Inspector General| | | | | | |
|BA | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Office of the |93,709 |95,583 |94,934 |101,000 |105,000 |107,211 |
|Inspector General| | | | | | |
|Transfer from |0 |0 |0 |0 |10,000 |0 |
|Crime Victim Fund| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Working Capital |-69,000 |-300,000 |-218,000 |-151,000 |-107,000 |-75,000 |
|Fund | | | | | | |
|(Rescissions) | | | | | | |
|Transfer to FBI |0 |-181,000 |-181,000 |0 |0 |0 |
|Construction | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|U.S. Parole |13,308 |13,308 |13,218 |13,000 |13,308 |13,539 |
|Commission | | | | | | |
|National Security|95,000 |96,000 |95,348 |101,369 |110,000 |117,451 |
|Division | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|General Legal |899,508 |897,500 |891,406 |905,000 |920,000 |971,429 |
|Activities total | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Solicitor General|11,885 |11,885 |11,804 |11,828 |12,250 |13,585 |
|Tax Division |106,979 |106,979 |106,253 |105,925 |112,831 |113,502 |
|Criminal Division|181,745 |181,745 |180,511 |193,715 |195,617 |195,754 |
|Civil Division |292,214 |292,214 |290,230 |289,334 |295,084 |327,207 |
|Environmental & |110,512 |110,512 |109,762 |109,423 |109,423 |114,254 |
|Natural Resource | | | | | | |
|Division | | | | | | |
|Legal Counsel |7,989 |7,989 |7,935 |7,951 |8,114 |9,393 |
|Civil Rights |148,239 |148,239 |147,232 |148,239 |148,239 |157,332 |
|Division | | | | | | |
|Interpol |33,437 |33,441 |33,214 |34,111 |33,676 |35,592 |
|Pardon Attorney |6,508 |4,496 |4,465 |4,474 |4,766 |4,810 |
| | | | | | | |
|Vaccine Injury |[10,000] |[10,000] |[10,000] |[10,000] |[13,000] |[19,000] |
|Compensation | | | | | | |
|Trust Fund | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Antitrust |164,977 |169,101 |173,328 |164,977 |166,755 |188,524 |
| | | | | | | |
|U.S. Attorneys |2,000,000 |2,035,000 |2,021,180 |2,212,000 |2,254,541 |2,378,418 |
| | | | | | | |
|U.S. Trustees |225,908 |225,908 |224,374 |226,000 |227,229 |234,464 |
| | | | | | | |
|Foreign Claims |2,374 |2,374 |2,358 |2,409 |2,335 |2,366 |
|Settlement | | | | | | |
|Commission | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|U.S. Marshall's |2,489,575 |2,673,954 |2,655,795 |2,925,397 |3,312,461 |3,669,682 |
|Service total | | | | | | |
|outlays | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Salaries & |1,230,581 |1,249,040 |1,240,558 |1,358,000 |1,430,000 |1,608,073 |
|Expenses | | | | | | |
|Construction |15,000 |10,000 |9,932 |15,000 |15,000 |15,000 |
|Federal Prisoner |1,454,414 |1,454,414 |1,420,700 |1,552,397 |1,867,461 |2,046,609 |
|Detention | | | | | | |
|Rescission of |-195,974 |-24,000 |0 |0 |0 |0 |
|Prior Year | | | | | | |
|Balances | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Community |14,446 |15,500 |15,395 |15,500 |16,000 |0 |
|Relations Service| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Assets Forfeiture|14,673 |15,039 |15,415 |20,514 |20,514 |20,514 |
|Fund outlays | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Interagency Crime|512,000 |517,000 |513,489 |560,000 |550,458 |585,145 |
|and Drug | | | | | | |
|Enforcement | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Federal Bureau of|8,718,001 |8,995,779 |8,933,388 |9,452,811 |9,880,928 |9,570,724 |
|Investigation | | | | | | |
|total outlays and| | | | | | |
|BA | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Salaries & |8,489,786 |8,767,201 |8,707,663 |9,192,137 |9,467,902 |9,748,829 |
|Expenses | | | | | | |
|Rescission of |-80,767 |-140,000 |-191,600 |-124,326 |-71,974 |-80,000 |
|prior year | | | | | | |
|balance Direct | | | | | | |
|and CJIS Balances| | | | | | |
|Rescission FBI S |0 |-51,600 |0 |0 |0 |0 |
|& E | | | | | | |
|Construction |308,982 |420,178 |417,325 |385,000 |485,000 |51,895 |
|Transfer from WCF|0 |[181,000] |0 |0 |0 |0 |
|Rescission |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |-150,000 |
| | | | | | | |
|Drug Enforcement |2,080,000 |2,090,884 |2,086,617 |2,267,000 |2,269,153 |2,652,805 |
|Administration | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Salaries & |2,080,000 |2,102,976 |2,086,617 |2,267,000 |2,279,153 |2,398,805 |
|Expenses | | | | | | |
|Rescission of |0 |-12,092 |0 |0 |-10,000 |0 |
|Prior year | | | | | | |
|Balances DEA | | | | | | |
|High Intensity |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |254,000 |
|Drug Trafficking | | | | | | |
|Areas Program | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Bureau Alcohol, |1,240,000 |1,258,600 |1,250,053 |1,316,678 |1,400,000 |1,666,259 |
|Tobacco, Firearms| | | | | | |
|& Explosives | | | | | | |
|outlays and BA | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Salaries & |1,240,000 |1,258,600 |1,250,053 |1,316,678 |1,400,000 |1,637,574 |
|Expenses | | | | | | |
|Construction |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |28,685 |
| | | | | | | |
|Federal Prison |7,478,500 |7,135,400 |7,086,943 |7,514,000 |7,778,000 |7,205,579 |
|System total | | | | | | |
|outlays and BA | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Salaries & |6,948,500 |7,008,800 |6,961,203 |7,250,000 |7,470,000 |7,611,126 |
|Expense | | | | | | |
|Building & |530,000 |130,000 |125,740 |264,000 |308,000 |99,453 |
|Facilities | | | | | | |
|Rescission of |0 |-3,400 |0 |0 |0 |-505,000 |
|prior year | | | | | | |
|balance B & F | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Federal Prison |2,700 |2,700 |2,682 |2,700 |2,700 |2,700 |
|Industries | | | | | | |
|limitation on | | | | | | |
|Administrative | | | | | | |
|expenses | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Subtotal, w/o |26,538,462 |26,343,754 |26,258,073 |28,357,762 |29,753,963 |30,350,515 |
|State and Local | | | | | | |
|Grants Programs | | | | | | |
|Office of Justice|1,770,960 |1,582,800 |1,598,371 |2,044,800 |2,245,800 |1,765,000 |
|Programs | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Research, |116,000 |89,000 |123,189 |80,000 |79,000 |86,500 |
|Evaluation and | | | | | | |
|Statistics | | | | | | |
|OJP Salaries and |[214,617] |[220,717] |[219,218] |[225,000] |[235,000] |[286,338] |
|Expenses | | | | | | |
|Juvenile Justice |270,160 |247,000 |245,375 |287,000 |320,000 |227,500 |
|Programs | | | | | | |
|State and Local |1,408,500 |1,280,500 |1,263,618 |1,723,000 |1,892,000 |1,511,200 |
|Law Enforcement | | | | | | |
|Assistance | | | | | | |
|Public Safety |16,300 |16,300 |16,189 |24,800 |24,800 |24,800 |
|Officers Benefits| | | | | | |
|OJP wide |-40,000 |-50,000 |-50,000 |-70,000 |-70,000 |-85,000 |
|rescissions of | | | | | | |
|prior year | | | | | | |
|balance | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Community |202,000 |206,500 |160,403 |287,000 |330,000 |0 |
|Policing | | | | | | |
|(Includes OJP | | | | | | |
|programs) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Community |212,000 |221,500 |175,403 |303,500 |343,000 |0 |
|Policing | | | | | | |
|COPS Salaries and|[37,374] |[37,374] |[37,120] |[32,101] |[30,678] |0 |
|Expenses | | | | | | |
|Rescission of |-10,000 |-15,000 |-15,000 |-16,500 |-13,000 |0 |
|prior year | | | | | | |
|balance | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Office of |465,000 |471,500 |465,318 |487,500 |502,500 |-10,000 |
|Violence against | | | | | | |
|Women total | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Office of |480,000 |481,500 |475,318 |487,500 |67,500 |-10,000 |
|Violence against | | | | | | |
|Women | | | | | | |
|OVF Funding |0 |[326,000] |[326,000] |[497,500] |435,000 |[498,500] |
|within CVF | | | | | | |
|OVW Salaries and |[19,912] |[19,912] |[19,777] |[24,211] |[24,772] |[23,578] |
|Expenses | | | | | | |
|Rescission of |-15,000 |-10,000 |-10,000 |-10,000 |0 |-10,000 |
|Prior Year | | | | | | |
|Balances | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Discretionary |2,437,960 |2,260,800 |2,224,092 |2,819,300 |3,078,300 |1,755,000 |
|Grants Programs | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Subtotal |28,976,422 |28,604,554 |28,482,165 |31,176,062 |32,832,263 |32,105,515 |
|Discretionary w/o| | | | | | |
|scorekeeping | | | | | | |
|credits | | | | | | |
|Fees Collections |-265,500 |-269,087 | -397,739 |-496,600 |-445,000 | -449,000 |
| | | | | | | |
|Antitrust Offset |-103,500 |-106,087 |-108,739 |-136,000 |-136,000 |-136,000 |
|U.S. Trustee Fees|-162,000 |-163,000 |-289,000 |-360,000 |-309,000 |-313,000 |
|and Interest on | | | | | | |
|US Securities | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Subtotal |28,710,922 |28,335,467 |28,084,426 |30,679,462 |32,387,263 |31,656,515 |
|Discretionary | | | | | | |
|w/Fees | | | | | | |
|Scorekeeping | | | | | | |
|Credits | | | | | | |
|Crime Victims |[-9,479,000] |[-11,379,000] |[-11,020,000] |[-7,783,000] |[5,696,000] |0 |
|Fund | | | | | | |
|Crime Victim Fund|0 |0 |[-1,310,000] |0 |0 |0 |
|Rescission | | | | | | |
|Assets Forfeiture|-458,000 |-458,000 |-304,000 |0 |0 |0 |
|Fund | | | | | | |
|Assets Forfeiture|-746,000 |0 |0 |-674,000 |0 |0 |
|Fund (Permanently| | | | | | |
|Cancelled) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Subtotal |28,710,922 |28,335,467 |28,084,426 |30,679,462 |32,387,263 |31,656,515 |
|Discretionary | | | | | | |
|w/Fees | | | | | | |
|Subtotal |-1,204,000 |-458,000 |-304,000 |-674,000 |0 |0 |
|Scorekeeping | | | | | | |
|Credits | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Subtotal DOJ |27,506,922 |27,877,467 |27,780,426 |30,005,462 |32,387,263 |31,656,515 |
|Direct | | | | | | |
|Discretionary | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Mandatory and |12,552,090 |6,720,173 |5,324,174 |6,425,644 |7,339,040 |7,947,520 |
|Other Accounts | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Fees and Expenses|270,000 |270,000 |270,000 |270,000 |270,000 |270,000 |
|of Witnesses | | | | | | |
|(Mand.) | | | | | | |
|Witnesses |0 |-18,630 |-17,820 |-16,740 |-15,930 |0 |
|Sequester Cut | | | | | | |
|Witnesses |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |-150,000 |
|Rescission of | | | | | | |
|Prior Year | | | | | | |
|Balance | | | | | | |
|Independent |500 |3,872 |10,400 |4,760 |500 |500 |
|Counsel | | | | | | |
|(Permanent | | | | | | |
|Indefinite) | | | | | | |
|Sequester Cut |0 |-267 |-686 |-295 |-30 |0 |
|Radiation |65,000 |65,000 |50,000 |45,000 |65,000 |70,000 |
|Exposure | | | | | | |
|Compensation | | | | | | |
|Trust Fund | | | | | | |
|(Mand.) | | | | | | |
|Public Safety |72,000 |73,000 |73,000 |129,000 |117,000 |117,000 |
|Officers Death | | | | | | |
|Benefits (Mand.) | | | | | | |
|Sequester Cut |0 |0 |0 |-744 |-576 |0 |
|Assets Forfeiture|1,975,275 |1,465,668 |1,585,363 |1,704,719 |2,410,188 |1,296,124 |
|Fund (Permanent | | | | | | |
|Budget Authority)| | | | | | |
|Sequester cuts |0 |0 |0 |-135,273 |-86,582 |0 |
|Antitrust |103,500 |106,087 |108,739 |136,600 |136,000 |136,000 |
|Pre-Merger Filing| | | | | | |
|Fee Collections | | | | | | |
|US Trustees Fee |162,000 |163,000 |289,000 |360,000 |309,000 |313,000 |
|Collection | | | | | | |
|Diversion Control|371,515 |382,662 |419,574 |420,703 |450,046 |460,499 |
|Fees | | | | | | |
|Sequester Cut |0 |0 |0 |-26,586 |-26,553 |0 |
|9/11 Victim |2,565,300 |818,195 |0 |5,932 |0 |0 |
|Compensation Fund| | | | | | |
|Sequester cut |0 |0 |0 |-184 |0 |0 |
|Victim |4,600,000 |0 |0 |0 |897,051 |2,958,397 |
|Compensation Fund| | | | | | |
|Sequester Cut |0 |0 |0 |0 |-2,425 |0 |
|Domestic Victims |6,000 |6,000 |6,000 |6,000 |6,000 |6,000 |
|of Trafficking | | | | | | |
|Sequester Cut |0 |-414 |-396 |-62 |-59 |0 |
|Crime Victims |2,361,000 |2,361,000 |2,361,000 |3,353,000 |2,641,000 |2,300,000 |
|Fund | | | | | | |
|Office of |0 |0 |0 |[-497,500] |[-435,000] |[-498,500] |
|Violence Against | | | | | | |
|Women | | | | | | |
|Office of |0 |0 |0 |0 |[-10,000] |0 |
|Inspector General| | | | | | |
|Victim of State |0 |1,025,000 |170,000 |170,000 |170,000 |170,000 |
|Sponsored | | | | | | |
|Terrorism | | | | | | |
|Sequester cut |0 |0 |0 |-186 |-590 |0 |
| | | | | | | |
|Total BA |40,059,012 |34,597,640 |33,104,600 |36,431,106 |39,726,303 |39,604,035 |
|Mandatory and | | | | | | |
|Discretionary | | | | | | |
|Healthcare Fraud |249,362 |249,860 |274,648 |277,845 |286,894 |303,904 |
|Reimbursements | | | | | | |
|subtotal | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|HCFAC Mandatory |58,579 |58,045 |59,447 |61,120 |62,471 |67,308 |
|Reimbursement | | | | | | |
|FBI-Health Care |130,303 |131,335 |134,525 |138,344 |141,423 |153,596 |
|Fraud mandatory | | | | | | |
|HCFAC |60,480 |73,800 |73,800 |78,381 |83,000 |83,000 |
|Discretionary | | | | | | |
|Reimbursement | | | | | | |
|Total BA |40,308,374 |34,847,500 |33,379,248 |36,708,951 |40,013,197 |39,907,939 |
|Department of | | | | | | |
|Justice, with | | | | | | |
|Offset | | | | | | |
Source: Justice Department Summary of Budget Authority by Appropriation FY21
1. Other than the following DOJ budget request is not contested. Community Relations Service requires at least $17 million for 12% growth from FY 17 plus any arrears for 3% growth they wish to file for pursuant to Sec, 1004 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 18USC§246. Although COPS are genuinely a civil riot/terrorism finance suspect, they have not been accused, they are accused of hyper-inflation, rising from $225 million FY 17 to $340 million FY 20 after being cut FY 18 and receiving generous compensation in excess of $300 million FY 19, 3% inflation from FY 17 is fair, $250 million FY 21, 3% inflation thereafter. Nor does it explain how the Office of Violence against Women (OVW) is going to pimp DOJ -$10 million from their 3% inflation negligent compensation for wrongful termination of outlays from the Crime Victim Fund settlement since FY 17. OVW outlays are again threatened to be cut incidental to some unexplained replenishment of the Crime Victim Fund FY 20. OVW is due an estimated $540 million federal outlays FY 21, 12.5% growth from FY 16. The current federal outlay cut threat is $67.5 million FY 20, down from $487.5 million FY 19, that must be redressed with $528 million FY 20 in outlays are advised for 10% growth from FY 16, plus 2.5% increase in outlays. Furthermore, Crime Victim Trust Fund spending for OVW battered women shelters and medical treatment should be anticipated to increase 3% annually, from the previous year, to compete with inflation. DOJ has paid a high price by attempting to force OVW to live on the Crime Victim Fund and with continuing outlay cut threats, must continue to pay both federal outlays for the OVW agency and Crime Victim Fund payments for the shelter and medical treatment of female domestic violence victims they have begun to count since $326 million FY 17, $326 million FY 18, $497 million FY 19, $435 million FY 20 replenishment, and $498.5 million FY 21.
2. The Attorney General’s heart fails by the end of General Legal activities. The Antitrust division 10% increase in offsetting receipts from $109 million FY 18 to FY 19 comes after 3 years of federal outlays between $61.5 million FY 16 and $64.6 billion FY 18. Unable to get from $60 to $70 million in less than 42 months, Antitrust outlays took the cowardly way and charged the public more to back down from the persecution of the number of the beast by the appropriations committee, and try again with more momentum. Federal outlays declined -55% from $64 million FY 19 to $29 million FY 19 before rapidly increasing to $31 million FY 20 and 52.5 million FY 21. Total budget authority initially declined -5% from $173 million to $165 million and is now rapidly increasing. Antitrust must sue the public regarding their hypersensitivity, to limit the persecution of 666 to less than 42 months, and hopefully skip right over the antichrist reference ultra vires (Revelation 13:10). Antitrust could settle for $70 million outlays plus 3% growth in outlays and reduce the antitrust merger filing fee by 10% -15% FY 22.
3. 10.8% hyperinflation FY 20-FY 21 US Marshal Service total, 12.5% hyperinflation in salaries and expense and 9.6% in federal prisoner detention seems excessive under 31USC§1517(a)(2) and §1514(a)(2). The US Marshall must begin to warrant their rapid spending growth by seizure of FBI, DEA, Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement and ICE budget authority. It has long been held that the FBI, DEA and Inter-agency drug and crime enforcement are speed freaks who need to be completely abolished to end slavery of the innocent and random acts of violence by ignorant people they torture equally. Having destroyed food and drugs seized by the police, all that remains is Uniform Crime Reports, National Forensic Laboratory and FBI Police Academy at Quantico Bay.
4. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence should never have been allowed to seize Speaker of the House, who is now diagnosed Alzheimer’s after an improbably long career of “speed ticket” exposure dementia. Methamphetamine causes TMJ and is suspected in the passage of National Parks and Related Organizations Act of 2014. Ephedrine (Mormon tea) is suspected in the passage of TCJA of 2017 and CARES Act and 2020. The TMJ was possibly counterfeited by psychiatric drugs, potentially lethal at one regular dose, production of the antidote Cogentin was terminated, patient dies on New Year's Eve, FDA prescribes influenza drug Amantadine (Symmetrel), hospitals are addicted to Benadryl. Water soluble dimethoxy-methylamphetamine (DOM) causes a 3-day panic attack followed by six-month recovery from severe mental illness if not washed off with water. National Geographic hypothesized that henbane is suspect in quarantine related domestic violence where insomnia was not evident and that women retain verbal memory, for longer than men with Alzheimer’s in 2020. Pseudo-ephedrine: SudoGest, Suphedrine, Wal-Phed D, Sudafed 12 Hour, Sudafed 24 Hour, Sudogest 12-hour, Sudafed, Suphedrin, Wal-phed 12 hour, Sinus 12 Hour... not advised for even' temporary' relief of stuffy nose and sinus pain/pressure caused by infection (such as the common cold, flu) or other breathing illnesses (such as hay fever, allergies, bronchitis) because excessive use causes brain shrinkage and senility that is potentially deadly to elderly Alzheimer's patients under color of coronavirus.
US Prison Population 1980 - 2014
|Year |Detainees total |Per 100,000 Residents |
|1980 |503,586 |220 |
|1985 |744,208 |311 |
|1990 |1,148,702 |457 |
|1995 |1,585,586 |592 |
|2000 |1,937,482 |683 |
|2002 |2,033,022 |703 |
|2004 |2,135,335 |725 |
|2006 |2,258,792 |752 |
|2008 |2,307,504 |755 |
|2010 |2,270,142 |731 |
|2012 |2,228,424 |707 |
|2014 |2,217 947 |693 |
|2015 |2,166,600 |672 |
|2016 |2,121,600 |655 |
Source: World Prison Brief 2016
B. The United States has the highest number (2.2 million) and concentration of prisoners (746 per 100,000 residents) in the world as of 2014. The detainee population must go down to the international norm of less than 250 per 100,000. The incarcerated population decreased from 2,172,800 in 2015 to 2,162,400 in 2016. All of the decrease in the incarcerated population was due to a decline in the prison population (down 21,200), while the jail population remained relatively stable. The number of persons held in prison or local jail per 100,000 U.S. adult residents (incarceration rate) has declined since 2009 and is currently at its lowest rate (860 per 100,000 in 2016) since 1996 (830 per 100,000). Mandatory minimum sentences, and any sentencing regime but the statutory maximum, must abolished under Blakely v. Washington (2004).
1. The Obama administration assailed what it says are unfair and unduly harsh sentences for many inmates, particularly minorities and nonviolent offenders. Black Americans were incarcerated in state prisons at an average rate of 5.1 times that of white Americans, and in some states that rate was 10 times or more. The US is 63.7% non-Hispanic white, 12.2% black, 8.7% Hispanic white and 0.4% Hispanic black, according to the most recent census. In five states, the disparity rate was more than double the average. New Jersey had the highest, with a ratio of 12.2 black people to one white person in its prison system, followed by Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Vermont. Overall, Oklahoma had the highest rate of black people incarcerated with 2,625 black inmates people per 100,000 residents. Oklahoma is 7.7% black. Among black men in 11 states, at least 1 in 20 were in a state prison. Hawaii, which is 2.5% black, had the lowest incarceration rate among black people (585 per 100,000), and the lowest ratio – 2.4 black Americans to 1 white – in its prisons. The Obama administration has helped to reduce the high rates of incarceration however racial disparities among prisoners persist. In the 25-29 age group, 8.1% of black men - about one in 13 – were behind bars, compared with 2.6% of Hispanic men and 1.1% of white men. It's not much different among women. In 2005 the female population in state or federal prison increased 2.6 percent while the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7% of all inmates were women.
2. Trump administration statistics remain unavailable and there is deep concern regarding his racism, xenophobia and solidarity with police torture, might reverse liberty gains, but the cops are pretty dumb at courts, no longer excessively fooled by the “speed tickets’ before them. Racial disparities in sentencing implicate lawyers and judges of racism, and executing prisoners protected by the International Court of Justice. In response to mass protests regarding police brutality deaths in custody of black men, and countless other tortures, it is essential to raise the bar on police officers to require at least a Bachelor degree, to prevent recidivism in 100% of court orders. It is important to convict the Trump Administration Justice Department of discrimination on the basis of sex, race and civil rights in general, and order restitution of the Office of Violence against Women (OVW) and Community Relations Service. OVW may change its name to Office of Women's Rights (OWR) or something to the effect of battered women and their families.
§42 Office of the Attorney General
A. Edmund Randolph 1789-1794 began the first presidential appointment for Office of the federal Attorney General (AG) under the Judiciary Act of 1789 and served as the first of three attorney generals who were appointed by President Washington. The Attorney General shall (a) Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, including the offices of U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals, which are within the Department of Justice. (b) Represent the United States in legal matters generally. (c) Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the Government, as provided by law. (d) Appear in person to represent the Government in the Supreme Court of the United States, or in any other court, in which he may deem it appropriate. (e) Designate, pursuant to Executive Orders 9788 of October 4, 1946, and 10254 of June 15, 1951, officers and agencies of the Department of Justice to act as disbursing officers for the Office of Alien Property. (f) Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive order under 28CFR§0.5. 10.
The Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA) has the authority to Exercise of the powers and performance of the functions vested in the Attorney General and Performance of such other duties as may be assigned by the Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General under 28CFR§0.35. Journalistic, commercial, medical and government sources must be protected against the $10,000 per day fine for rejecting the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, backdoor, that needs to be repealed to prevent corrupt police investigation under 18USC§2522.
1. The Pardon Attorney shall submit all recommendations in clemency cases through the Associate Attorney General and the Associate Attorney General shall exercise such discretion and authority as is appropriate and necessary for the handling and transmittal of such recommendations to the President under 28CFR§0.36. 9. The Office of the Federal Detention Trustee shall be headed by a Detention Trustee appointed by the Attorney General. The Detention Trustee shall exercise all powers and functions authorized by law related to the detention of Federal prisoners in non-Federal institutions or otherwise in the custody of the United States Marshals Service in accordance with 28USC§530C(b)(7) under 28CFR§0.123. The Detention Trustee shall: (1) Manage funds appropriated to the Department in the exercise of such detention functions. (2) Oversee the construction of detention facilities or housing related to such detention. (3) Set policy regarding such detention, and perform such functions as may be necessary for the effective policy-level coordination of detention operations. (4) Oversee contracts for detention services, including, when the Detention Trustee deems appropriate, negotiating purchases and entering into contracts and intergovernmental agreements for detention services, and making required determinations and findings for the acquisition of services. (5) Manage the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System. (6) This regulation sets forth the general functions of the Detention Trustee solely for the purpose of internal Department of Justice guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, that are enforceable at law by any party in any matter, civil or criminal.
2. The following-described matters are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Solicitor General, in consultation with each agency or official concerned under 28CFR§0.20: (a) Conducting, or assigning and supervising, all Supreme Court cases, including appeals, petitions for and in opposition to certiorari, briefs and arguments, and settlement thereof. (b) Determining whether, and to what extent, appeals will be taken by the Government to all appellate courts (including petitions for rehearing en banc and petitions to such courts for the issuance of extraordinary writs) and, in accordance with Sec. 0.163, advising on the approval of settlements of cases in which he had determined that an appeal would be taken. (c) Determining whether a brief amices curiae will be filed by the Government, or whether the Government will intervene, in any appellate court. (d) Assisting the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the Associate Attorney General in the development of broad Department program policy, the Solicitor General may in consultation with each agency or official concerned, authorize intervention by the Government in cases involving the constitutionality of acts of Congress under 28CFR§0.21.
3. The Attorney General is totally discredited and wants to repeal the Authority for Employment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Senior Executive Service under 5USC§3151-3152. The FBI drug conspiracy since 1982 must be repealed from 28CFR§85(a). Congress has requested the President to normalize mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses and pursuant to zero fatalities marijuana should be legalized in the United States. After a 1,000% increase since 2001, fentanyl exposed opiate consumer overdoses outnumber automobile accidents. 52% of federal prisoners are detained with drug charges as their most serious offense. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Interagency Drug and Crime Enforcement (IDCE) must be abolished. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) must be abolished under Art. 22 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families (1990). Resurgence of cold war hostilities is attributed to Special Counsel politicizing Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) espionage of an Iron Curtain under 28CFR§0.87.
B. The Deputy Attorney General is authorized to exercise all the power and authority of the Attorney General, unless any such power or authority is required by law to be exercised by the Attorney General personally under 28CFR§0.15. (a) The Deputy Attorney General shall advise and assist the Attorney General in formulating and implementing Department policies and programs and in providing overall supervision and direction to all organizational units of the Department. Subject to the general supervision of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General shall direct the activities of organizational units as assigned. In addition, the Deputy Attorney General shall: (1) Except as assigned to the Associate Attorney General, exercise the power and authority vested in the Attorney General to take final action in matters pertaining to: (i) The employment, separation, and general administration of personnel in the Senior Executive Service and in General Schedule grades GS-16 through GS-18, or the equivalent, and of attorneys and law students regardless of grade or pay in the Department; (ii) The appointment of special attorneys and special assistants to the Attorney General under 28USC§515(b) for $12,000 yearly; (iii) The appointment of Assistant U.S. Trustees and fixing of their compensation; and (iv) The approval of the appointment by U.S. Trustees of standing trustees and the fixing of their maximum annual compensation and percentage fees (v) The appointment, employment, separation, and general administration of Assistant United States Attorneys and other attorneys to assist United States Attorneys when the public interest so requires and fixing their salaries. (2) Administer the Attorney General's recruitment program for honor law graduates and judicial law clerks. (3) Coordinate Departmental liaison with White House Staff and the Executive Office of the President. (4) Coordinate and control the Department's reaction to civil disturbances and terrorism. (5) Perform such other duties and functions as may be assigned from time to time by the Attorney General. (6) The Deputy Attorney General is authorized to exercise the authority vested in the Attorney General under section 528(a), Public Law 101-509, to accept from federal departments and agencies the services of attorneys and non-law enforcement personnel to assist the Department of Justice in the investigation and prosecution of fraud or other criminal or unlawful activity in or against any federally insured financial institution or the Resolution Trust Corporation, and to supervise such personnel in the conduct of such investigations and prosecutions.
1. The Professional Responsibility Advisory Office; (a) Is headed by a Director appointed by the Deputy Attorney General. The Director shall be responsible to, and report directly to, the Deputy Attorney General and shall be a member of the Senior Executive Service. (b) The Professional Responsibility Advisory Office shall: (1) Advise Department of Justice attorneys on specific questions involving professional responsibility, including compliance with 28USC§530b (“Section 530B”), which requires certain federal attorneys to comply with state rules of ethics. (2) Assist or support training and informational programs for Department attorneys and client agencies concerning Section 530B and other professional responsibility requirements, including disseminating relevant and timely information. (3) Assemble, centralize and maintain ethics reference materials, including the codes of ethics of the District of Columbia and every state and territory, and any relevant interpretations thereof. (4) Coordinate with the relevant litigating components of the Department to defend attorneys in any disciplinary or other proceeding where it is alleged that they failed to meet their ethical obligations, provided that the attorney made a good-faith effort to ascertain the ethics requirements and made a good-faith effort to comply with those requirements. (5) Serve as a liaison with the state and federal bar associations in matters relating to the implementation and interpretation of Section 530B, and amendments and revisions to the various state ethics codes. (6) Perform such other duties and assignments as deemed necessary from time to time by the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General under 28CFR§ 0.129. (c) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as affecting the functions or overriding the authority of the Office of Legal Counsel as established by 28CFR§0.25.
C. The Associate Attorney General (AAG) shall advise and assist the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General in formulating and implementing Departmental policies and programs under 28CFR§0.19 (a). The Associate Attorney General shall also provide overall supervision and direction to organizational units as assigned. In addition the Associate Attorney General shall: (a) Exercise the power and the authority vested in the Attorney General to take final action in matters pertaining to the employment, separation, and general administration of attorneys and law students in pay grades GS-15 and below in organizational units subject to his direction. (b) Perform such other duties as may be especially assigned from time to time by the Attorney General. (c) Exercise the power and authority vested in the Attorney General to authorize the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service to deputize persons to perform the functions of a Deputy U.S. Marshal.
1. The following-described matters are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Assistant Attorney General (AAG), Office of Legal Counsel under 28 CFR§0.25: (a) Preparing the formal opinions of the Attorney General; rendering informal opinions and legal advice to the various agencies of the Government; and assisting the Attorney General in the performance of his functions as legal adviser to the President and as a member of, and legal adviser to, the Cabinet. (b) Preparing and making necessary revisions of proposed Executive orders and proclamations, and advising as to their form and legality prior to their transmission to the President; and performing like functions with respect to regulations and other similar matters which require the approval of the President or the Attorney General. (c) Rendering opinions to the Attorney General and to the heads of the various organizational units of the Department on questions of law arising in the administration of the Department. (d) Approving proposed orders of the Attorney General, and orders which require the approval of the Attorney General, as to form and legality and as to consistency and conformity with existing orders and memoranda. (e) Coordinating the work of the Department of Justice with respect to the participation of the United States in the United Nations and related international organizations and advising with respect to the legal aspects of treaties and other international agreements. (f) When requested, advising the Attorney General in connection with his review of decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals and other organizational units of the Department. (g) Designating within the Office of Legal Counsel: (1) A liaison officer, and an alternate, as a representative of the Department in all matters concerning the filing of departmental documents with the Office of the Federal Register, and (2) A certifying officer, and an alternate, to certify copies of documents required to be filed with the Office of the Federal Register (1 CFR 16.1). (h) Approving certain blind trusts, as required by section 202(f)(4)(B) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 1843. (i) Consulting with the Director of the Office of Government Ethics regarding the development of policies, rules, regulations, procedures and forms relating to ethics and conflicts of interest, as required by section 402 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 1862. (j) Performing such special duties as may be assigned by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Associate Attorney General from time to time.
2. The following-described matters are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs (OLA) under 28CFR§0.27: (a) Maintaining liaison between the Department and the Congress. (b) Reviewing, coordinating and submitting departmental legislative reports. (c) Coordinating the preparation and submission of proposed departmental legislation. (d) Maintaining liaison between the Department and State and local governments and their representative organizations. (e) Consulting with State and local officials and their representative organizations to inform them of Department policy and law enforcement initiatives that may affect State and local governments. (f) Performing such other duties respecting legislative matters as may be assigned by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Associate Attorney General.
3. The Office of Legal Policy (OLP) shall be headed by an Assistant Attorney General. The principal responsibilities of the Office shall be to plan, develop, and coordinate the implementation of major policy initiatives of high priority to the Department and to the Administration under 28CFR§0.23. In addition, the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, shall: (a) Examine and study legislation and other policy proposals and coordinate Departmental efforts to secure enactment of those of special interest to the Department and the Administration. (b) Assist the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General in fulfilling responsibilities of the Federal Legal Council to promote coordination and communication among Federal legal offices with the goal of achieving effective, consistent, and efficient management of legal resources throughout the Federal Government. (c) Advise and assist the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General regarding the selection and appointment of Federal judges. (e) Administer the Federal Justice Research Program. (f) Represent the Department on the Administrative Conference of the United States and, as appropriate, on regulatory reform matters. (g) Participate, as appropriate, in internal budget hearings of the Department with regard to policy implications of resource allocations and resource implications of major policy initiatives; and advise the Assistant Attorney General for Administration with regard to information requirements for Departmental policy formulation. (h) Advise appropriate Departmental officials, from time to time, on investigation, litigation, negotiation, penal, or correctional policies to insure the compatibility of those policies with overall Departmental and National goals. (i) Perform such other duties and functions as may be specially assigned by the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. (2) In carrying out his responsibilities under this section, the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, shall have the right to call upon the relevant Departmental units for personnel and other assistance.
D. The Office of Public Affairs is headed by a Director of Public Affairs (OPA) under 28 CFR I 0.28 who shall: (a) Handle matters pertaining to relations with the public generally. (b) Disseminate information to the press, the radio and television services, the public, members of Congress, officials of Government, schools, colleges, and civic organizations. (c) Coordinate the relations of the Department of Justice with the news media. (d) Serve as a central agency for information relating to the work and activities of all agencies of the Department. (e) Prepare public statements and news releases. (f) Coordinate Department publications. (g) Assist the Attorney General and other officials of the Department in preparing for news conferences, interviews and other contacts with the news media. Because freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of members of the news media to investigate and report the news, the Department's policy is intended to provide protection to members of the news media from certain law enforcement tools, whether criminal or civil, that might unreasonably impair news-gathering activities. The policy is not intended to extend special protections to members of the news media, but protect those members of the news media from questioning, arresting, or charging members of the news media. In criminal matters, there should be reasonable grounds to believe, based on public information, or information from non-media sources, that a crime has occurred, and that the information sought is essential to a successful investigation or prosecution. The subpoena should not be used to obtain peripheral, nonessential, or speculative information. In civil matters, there should be reasonable grounds to believe, based on public information or information from non-media sources, that the information sought is essential to the successful completion of the investigation or litigation in a case of substantial importance. The subpoena should not be used to obtain peripheral, nonessential, cumulative, or speculative information. The subpoena must be issued by a judge to protect the source (e.g. organizational defendant) from the inadmissibility of evidence unlawfully obtained by corrupt police investigation under Rule 4 Fed. Crim. P.
1. The United States’ ranking fell from 43 to 45 out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) 2018 World Press Freedom Index, continuing its downward trend in the first year of Donald J. Trump’s presidency. labeling the press an “enemy of the American people” in a series of verbal attacks toward journalists, attempts to block White House access to multiple media outlets, routine use of the term “fake news” in retaliation for critical reporting, and calling for media outlets’ broadcasting licenses to be revoked. President Trump has routinely singled out news outlets and individual journalists for their coverage of him. The violent anti-press rhetoric from the White House has been coupled with an increase in the number of press freedom violations at the local level as journalists run the risk of arrest for covering protestors simply attempting to communicate with public officials. Reporters have been subject to physical assault while on the job. The US Press Freedom Tracker launched in August 2017 documented 34 arrests of journalists in 2017, the majority while covering protests (find out more on the racker). Whistleblowers face disability retirement if they leak information of public interest to the press that runs contrary to their employer's direction. Unlawful disclosures to the press, foreign or corrupt governments or corporations are prosecuted for damages to life, liberty and property under the Espionage Act. There is still no federal “shield law” guaranteeing reporters’ and governments, the right to protect their sources against corrupt police investigation. “Fake news” is now a trademark excuse for media repression, in both democratic and authoritarian regimes. A federal press “shield law,” the Journalistic Source Protection Act, was adopted unanimously in October 2017 by Canada’s parliament, and two months later, a Commission of Inquiry tasked with investigating Quebec police surveillance of journalists recommended Quebec adopt legislation to better protect journalistic sources under statute and Rules of Evidence. These improvements are the cause of Canada’s 4-point gain in 2017. The United States must better protect journalistic and government sources against the $10,000 per day fine for rejecting the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, that needs to be repealed to protect commerce against corrupt police investigation under 18USC§2522. Civil action against state officials under 18USC§2707 is afforded with mandatory minimum 12.4% OASDI payroll tax on state employees in Title I of the Social Security Act and requiring a Bachelor degree for employment. Civil acton against the federal government under 18USC§2712 must require a Bachelor degree and exclude marijuana from drug testing for federal employment to be morally competent to repeal, abolish or otherwise overrule the Authority for Employment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Senior Executive Service under 5USC§3151-3152, Office of Special Counsel, Interagency Drug and Crime Enforcement, National Office of Drug Control Policy, International Narcotic Control and Law
Enforcement, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
E. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 established the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund to receive the proceeds of forfeiture and to pay the costs associated with such forfeitures, including the costs of managing and disposing of property, satisfying valid liens, mortgages, and other innocent owner claims, and costs associated with accomplishing the legal forfeiture of the property. The Attorney General is authorized to use the Assets Forfeiture Fund to pay any necessary expenses associated with forfeiture operations such as property seizure, detention, management, forfeiture, and disposal. The Fund may also be used to finance certain general investigative expenses. These authorized uses are enumerated in 28USC§524(c). The Asset Forfeiture Program most recently reported to Congress that in FY 2015 total net deposits to the Assets Forfeiture Fund are reported to be -$1,629,261,564 and total expenses of $1,643,576,000 for a federal cost of $14,315,000. The Asset Forfeiture Fund is isolated in the summary of appropriations table to express 2.5% annual growth in cost of the Asset Forfeiture Fund to the federal government to calculate revenues as the difference with the fluctuating cost estimates given in the summary of appropriations and disregarding the two revenue columns. Future estimates in this category are obviously subject to change.
Assets Forfeiture Fund 2011-2017
(in millions)
| |2011 |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |2016 |2017 |
|Assets |-73 |141 |-236 |-705 |1,011 |15 |15 |
|Forfeiture Fund| | | | | | | |
|Revenues |-1,737 |-4,168 |-2,011 |-3,777 |-526 |-1,961 |-1,430 |
|Net Costs |1,664 |4,309 |1,775 |3,072 |1,537 |1,975 |1,445 |
Source: Audit of the Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund Annual Financial Statements Fiscal Year 2015. Office of the Inspector General. Department of Justice. February 2016 & 2017
a. The Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program is a key component of the federal government’s law enforcement efforts to combat major criminal activity by disrupting and dismantling illegal enterprises, depriving criminals of the proceeds of illegal activity, deterring crime and restoring property to victims. Proceeds generated from asset sales are used to operate the program, compensate victims and support various law enforcement efforts. DOJ Asset Forfeiture Program participants include the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section of the Department of Justice Criminal Division; U.S. Marshals Service; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Administration; FBI; and U.S. Attorneys' Offices. Other participants include the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; Food and Drug Administration; Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General; Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security; and Defense Criminal Investigative Service. As of September 30, 2016 US Marshal Service estimates the asset forfeiture fund held a total of $1.5 billion in 15,346 assets distributed $183 million to victims of crime and claimants FY 2016 and shared $305 million with participating state and local law enforcement agencies.
b. The Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (Treasury Forfeiture Fund or the Fund) was re-established by the Treasury Forfeiture Fund Act of 1992, Public Law 102-393 (the TFF Act), from the Customs Forfeiture Fund, and is codified at 31USC§9705. The Treasury Asset Forfeiture Office reported that they earned revenues of $4.6 billion for the for federal government FY 2015 on page 50. Net Cost of Operations totaled $204.7 million in FY 2015, up from $188.0 million in FY 2014 including equitable sharing. Total assets of the Fund increased in FY 2015 to $7.9 billion, up from $7.5 billion in FY 2014, an increase in asset value of slightly over 5 percent. On the other hand the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Fund never makes general revenues, and retained the Inspector General, rather than an accountant, to help redress a revenue shortfall since 2014. The summary of appropriations table is duplicitous in regards to the Asset Forfeiture Fund, Asset Forfeiture Fund 'Permanent Cancellation' and Asset Forfeiture Fund 'Permanent Budget Authority' rows.
§43 Bureau of Prisons
A. 2.2 million people are behind bars in the United States, the most in the world, with 693 detainees per 100,000 residents, the second most concentrated, in a world with a norm of 144 and arbitrary legal limit of 250 detainees per 100,000 residents. The prison population quintupled from 503,586 detainees (220 per 100,000) in 1980 to a high of 2,307,504 (755 per 100,000) in 2008, as the result of mandatory minimum sentencing, and their drug enforcement, before quietly going down to 2,217,947 (696 per 100,000) in 2014. The federal prison population increased to a high of 219,298 in 2013 before decreasing to 183,191 in 2017. The average felony sentence to incarceration (prison or jail) in state courts was about 3 years in 2006, compared to almost 5 years and 6 months in federal courts. Federal felony drug offenders received incarceration terms (7 years and 3 months) that were more than twice the length of incarceration terms of state felony drug offenders (2 years and 7 months). State courts accounted for the vast majority of all felony sentences in the United States during 2006. Federal courts sentenced about 73,000 persons for a felony in 2006, which represented about 6% of the combined state and federal total. State courts sentenced an estimated 1,132,290 persons for a felony in 2006, including 206,140 (or 18% of all felony convictions) for a violent felony. A drug crime was the most serious conviction offense for about a third of felons sentenced in state courts that year. According to the 2001 national data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 3,500,0000 parents were supervised by the correctional system. Prior to incarceration, 64% of females prisons and 44% of male prisoners in State facilities lived with their children. Between 1991 and 1999, the number of children with a parent in a Federal or State correctional facility increased by more than 100% from approximately 900,000 to approximately 2,000,000.
1. From 1995 to 2003, inmates in federal prison for drug offenses have accounted for 49% of total prison population growth. As a result of Federal law enforcement efforts, corrupting the FBI with drugs in 1982 under 28CFR§0.85(a), and new legislation that dramatically altered sentencing in the Federal criminal justice system, the 1980s brought a significant increase in the number of Federal inmates. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 established determinate sentencing, abolished parole, and reduced good time; additionally, several mandatory minimum sentencing provisions were enacted in 1986, 1988, and 1990. From 1980 to 1989, the inmate population more than doubled, from just over 24,000 to almost 58,000. During the 1990s, the population more than doubled again, reaching approximately 136,000 at the end of 1999 as efforts to combat illegal drugs and illegal immigration contributed to significantly increased conviction rates. From 2000 to the present, the population increased to a high of 219,298 in 2013 before decreasing to 183,191 in 2017. 154,934 inmates, 84%, are confined in BOP-operated facilities, 18,056 inmates, 10%, are confined in privately managed facilities, primarily responsible for the special needs of criminal aliens, and 10,201 inmates, 6%, are confined in other facilities.
B. At yearend 2012, 414,065 persons were under some form of federal correctional control, 256,720 were in confinement 62% and 157,345 were under supervision in the community, 38%. „„Fifteen percent of federal prisoners released in 2010 were returned to federal prison within 3 years. Over half (54%) were returned for supervision violations. In 2012, five federal judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border accounted for 60% of federal arrests, 53% of suspects investigated, and 41% of offenders sentenced to prison. In 2012, 3,171 suspects were arrested for a sex offense. Defendants convicted of a felony sex offense were the most likely (97%) to receive a prison sentence following conviction. During 2012, 172,248 suspects were booked by the U.S. Marshals Service, a 2% decline from 179,034 booked in 2010. The number of federally sentenced prisoners in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) increased 84% between fiscal year (FY) 1998 and 2012, and the number of drug offenders in federal prison grew 63% during this time.
Federal Prison Population 1980-2016
|1980 |24,640 |0 |1999 |133,689 |+11,373 |
|1981 |26,313 |+1,673 |2000 |145,125 |+11,436 |
|1982 |30,531 |+4,218 |2001 |156,572 |+11,447 |
|1983 |33,216 |+2,685 |2002 |163,436 |+6,864 |
|1984 |35,795 |+2,579 |2003 |172,499 |+9,063 |
|1985 |40,330 |+4,535 |2004 |179,895 |+7,396 |
|1986 |46,055 |+5,725 |2005 |187,394 |+7,499 |
|1987 |49,378 |+3,323 |2006 |192,584 |+5,190 |
|1988 |50,513 |+1,135 |2007 |200,020 |+7,436 |
|1989 |57,762 |+7,249 |2008 |201,668 |+1,648 |
|1990 |64,936 |+7,174 |2009 |208,759 |+7,091 |
|1991 |71,508 |+6,572 |2010 |210,227 |+1,468 |
|1992 |79,678 |+8,170 |2011 |217,768 |+7,541 |
|1993 |88,565 |+8,887 |2012 |218,687 |+919 |
|1994 |95,162 |+6,597 |2013 |219,298 |+611 |
|1995 |100,958 |+5,796 |2014 |214,149 |-5,149 |
|1996 |105,443 |+4,485 |2015 |205,723 |-8,426 |
|1997 |112,289 |+6,846 |2016 |192,170 |-13,553 |
|1998 |122,316 |+10,027 | | | |
Source: BOP
1. At fiscal yearend 2012, offenders whose most serious offense (as defined by the BOP) was a drug offense accounted for about half (52%) of the federally sentenced prison population. A study based on 94,678 offenders in federal prison at fiscal yearend 2012 who were sentenced on a new U.S. district court commitment and whose most serious offense (as classified by the Federal Bureau of Prisons) was a drug offense. Almost all (99.5%) drug offenders in federal prison were serving sentences for drug trafficking. Cocaine (powder or crack) was the primary drug type for more than half (54%) of drug offenders in federal prison. Race of drug offenders varied greatly by drug type. Blacks were 88% of crack cocaine offenders, Hispanics or Latinos were 54% of powder cocaine offenders, and whites were 48% of methamphetamine offenders. More than a third (35%) of drug offenders in federal prison at sentencing, had either no or minimal criminal history. Nearly a quarter (24%) of drug offenders in federal prison used a weapon in their most recent offense. The average prison sentence for federal drug offenders was more than 11 years. Across all drug types, crack cocaine offenders were most likely to have extensive criminal histories (40%), used a weapon (32%), and received longer prison terms (170 months). More than half (54%) of drug offenders in the federal prison system had a form of cocaine (powder or crack) as the primary drug type. Methamphetamine offenders (24%) accounted for the next largest share, followed by marijuana (12%) and heroin (6%) offenders. Offenders convicted of crimes involving other drugs (including LSD, some prescription drugs, and MDMA or ecstasy) made up 3% of offenders. Congress has proposed to reduce mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses and is encouraged by zero fatalities to legalize marijuana.
C. Pursuant to Pub. L. No. 71-218, 46 Stat. 325 (1930), the Bureau of Prisons was established within the Department of Justice and charged with the "management and regulation of all Federal penal and correctional institutions." This responsibility covered the administration of the 11 Federal prisons in operation at the time. As time has passed and laws have changed, the Bureau's responsibilities have grown, as has the prison population. At the end of 1930, the agency operated 14 facilities for just over 13,000 inmates. By 1940, the Bureau had grown to 24 facilities with 24,360 inmates. Except for a few fluctuations, the number of inmates did not change significantly between 1940 and 1980, when the population was 24,252. Today, the BOP consists of more than 119 institutions, six Regional Offices, a Central Office (headquarters) located in Washington, D.C., a Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC) located in Grand Prairie, Texas, two staff training centers, and 22 Residential Reentry Management (RRM) Offices. Federal Prison Industries (trade name “UNICOR”) established by Congress in 1934 and the National Institute of Corrections created in 1974 are components of the BOP. The BOP has broad authority to provide for the “custody, care, subsistence, education, treatment and training” of D.C. Code felony offenders in its custody “consistent with the sentence[s] imposed.” D.C. Code § 24-1201(a), (b). In 2017 the Bureau of Prison employed a total of 37,270 people – 8,021 African-Americans (21.5%), 4,513 Hispanic (2.2%), 481 Native Americans (1.3%), 23,427 White (Non-Hispanic) (1.3%) and 7 other.
1. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) shall direct all activities of the Bureau of Prisons under 28CFR§0.95 including: (a) Management and regulation of all Federal penal and correctional institutions and prison commissaries (including military prisons).(b) Provision of suitable quarters for, and safekeeping, care, and subsistence of, all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States or held as witnesses or otherwise. (c) Provision for the protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States. (d) Classification, commitment, control, or treatment of persons committed to the custody of the Attorney General. (e) Payment of rewards with respect to escaped Federal prisoners under 18USC§3059 repealed by general arrest authority for violation of release under 18USC§3062. (f) Certification with respect to the insanity or mental incompetence of a prisoner whose sentence is about to expire pursuant to title under 18USC§4247. (g) Entering into contracts with State officials for the custody, care, subsistence, education, treatment, and training of State prisoners, upon certification with respect to the availability of proper and adequate treatment facilities and personnel, pursuant to section 18USC§5003. (h) Conduct and prepare, or cause to be conducted and prepared, studies and submit reports to the court and the attorneys with respect to disposition of cases in which juveniles have been committed, pursuant to 18USC§5037, and to contract with public or private agencies or individuals or community-based facilities for the observation and study and the custody and care of juveniles, pursuant to 18USC§5040. (i) Conduct of examinations to determine whether an offender is an addict, mentally ill or a sexual offender who is likely to be rehabilitated through treatment, as well as the preparation and submission of reports to committing courts. (j) Transfer of prisoner to appropriate hospital pursuant to 18USC§4245. (k) Providing technical assistance to State and local governments in the improvement of their correctional systems under 18USC§4042.
(2) Under 28CFR§0.96 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons is authorized to exercise or perform any of the authority, functions, or duties conferred or imposed upon the Attorney General by any law relating to the commitment, control, or treatment of persons (including insane prisoners and juvenile delinquents) charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States, including the taking of final action in the following-described matters: (a) Requesting the detail of Public Health Service officers for the purpose of furnishing services to Federal penal and correctional institutions under 18USC§4005. (b) Payment of claims less than $1,000 by officers losing property under 31USC§3722. (c) Designating places of imprisonment or rehabilitation where the sentences of prisoners shall be served and ordering transfers from one institution to another, whether maintained by the Federal Government or otherwise, under 18USC§4082b. (d) Designation of agents for the transportation of prisoners under 18USC§4008. (e) Performing the functions of the Attorney General under the provisions of Offenders with Mental Disease or Defect under 18USC§4241-4247. (f) Settlement of claims arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act as provided in 28CFR§0.172. (g) Entering into reciprocal agreements with fire organizations for mutual aid and rendering emergency assistance in connection with extinguishing fires within the vicinity of a Federal correctional facility, as authorized by sections 2 and 3 of the Act of May 27, 1955 under 42USC§1856a, §1856b. (h) Prescribing rules and regulations applicable to the carrying of firearms by Bureau of Prisons officers and employees under 18USC§3050. (i) Promulgating rules governing the control and management of Federal penal and correctional institutions and providing for the classification, government, discipline, treatment, care, rehabilitation, and reformation of inmates confined therein under 18USC§4001, §4041, and §4042. (j) Granting permits to states or public agencies for rights-of-way upon lands administered by the Director in accordance with the provisions of 43USC§931c, §961; 18USC§4001, §4041, §4042. (k) Authority under the provisions of 18USC§4082(b) to provide law enforcement representatives with information on Federal prisoners who have been convicted of felony offenses and who are confined at a residential community treatment center located in the geographical area in which the requesting agency has jurisdiction. (l) Approving inmate disciplinary and good time regulations under 18USC§3624. (m) Contracting, for a period not exceeding three years, with the proper authorities of any State, Territory, or political subdivision thereof, for the imprisonment, subsistence, care, and proper employment of persons convicted of offenses against the United States under 18USC§4002.
D. A pre-trial defendant may be committed for a reasonable period (not to exceed 30 days) for examination; the court may approve a 15-day extension, if incompetent, the defendant shall be hospitalized for a reasonable period of time (not to exceed 4 months) for treatment to regain competency under 18USC§4241 and not longer than the maximum sentence for the crime charged with. There is concern that involuntary antipsychotic as competence to stand trial, constitutes the crime of torture. A federal sentence does not begin to run when a federal defendant is produced for prosecution by a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum from state custody. The state authorities retain primary jurisdiction over the prisoner; federal custody does not commence until state authorities relinquish the prisoner on satisfaction of the state obligation. A defendant cannot receive double credit for his detention time 18USC§3585(b). Although federal law does provide for the prosecution and housing of juveniles, under 18USC§5031-5042, the federally-sentenced juvenile population is too small to make it cost-effective to operate a separate BOP facility for just these offenders. Accordingly, the BOP contracts for placement of these offenders in state and local facilities, some of which are operated by private firms.
1. Parole was abolished. The BOP’s Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC), in Grand Prairie, Texas, oversees both initial designations and re-designations of inmates, and all sentence computations. The BOP is solely responsible for calculating federal terms of imprisonment. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992). BOP policies and instructions to staff for the calculation of terms of imprisonment includes Program Statements 5880.28, Sentence Computation Manual (CCCA of 1984); 5880.30, Sentence Computation Manual ("Old Law"-Pre-CCCA-1984); 5880.33, District of Columbia Sentence Computation Manual; and 5110.16, Administration of Sentence for Military Inmates. A prisoner challenging the calculation of a particular sentence does so by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28USC§2241, in the U.S. District Court possessing personal jurisdiction over his or her immediate custodian (Warden). However, inmates are required to exhaust the administrative remedy process within the BOP prior to seeking judicial relief. See Program Statement 1330.17, Administrative Remedy Program.
2. The U.S. Parole Commission (USPC) was composed of nine Commissioners of whom one is designated Chairman under 28CFR§0.124. The Commission: (a) Has authority, to grant, modify, or revoke paroles of eligible U.S. prisoners serving sentences of more than 1 year, and is responsible for the supervision of parolees and prisoners mandatorily released prior to the expiration of their sentences, and for the determination of supervisory conditions and terms; (b) Has responsibility in cases in which the committing court specifies that the Parole Commission shall determine the date of parole eligibility of the prisoner; (c) Has responsibility for determining, in accordance with the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 under 29USC§504, whether the service as officials in the field of organized labor or in labor oriented management positions of persons convicted of certain crimes is contrary to the purposes of that act; and (d) Has responsibility under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 under 29USC§1111, for determining whether persons convicted of certain crimes may provide services to, or be employed by, employment benefit plans. The U.S. Parole Commission was authorized to exercise the authority to make a finding that a parolee is unable to pay a fine in whole or in part and to direct release of such parolee based on such finding under 28CFR§0.127.
3. 18USC§3624(b) provides Good Conduct Time (GCT) credit for U.S. Code felony offenders whose offense was committed on or after November 1, 1987, and D.C. Code felony offenders whose offense was committed on or after August 5, 2000. Under that provision, inmates serving sentences greater than one year, but less than life, may receive up to 54 days sentence credit per year served. Inmates sanctioned for violating prison disciplinary rules may lose all or part of these credits. See Program Statement 5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program. For prisoners for whom the court did not assess a fine to cover the costs of incarceration, and for whom the court did not waive the fine due to indigence, the BOP is authorized to collect a fee equal to the cost of one year of imprisonment, or a prorated amount, if the defendant is sentenced to a shorter term under 18USC§4001 and Program Statement 5380.06, Cost of Incarceration Fee (COIF). The yearly average cost of incarceration for a federal inmate in a BOP facility for Fiscal Year 2013 was $29,291.25; in an RRC, that cost was $26,612.15. The BOP is authorized to require inmates transferred to RRCs to pay a portion or all of the costs of their confinement, and with few exceptions, all employed offenders confined in RRCs must make payments toward their housing costs under 18USC§3622(c)(2). All sentenced inmates are required to work in an institutional job assignment or UNICOR work assignment with the exception of those who are unable to work for security, educational, or medical reasons. 13,000 UNICOR job for prisoner wages currently range from $0.23 cents to $1.15 per hour.
4. Inmates are encouraged, throughout their incarceration, to maintain ties with their family and friends in the community. Inmates are ordinarily permitted face-to-face visitation with approved family and friends in the institutions’ general visiting room area. Attorney visits are afforded as much privacy as possible to ensure confidentiality. Conjugal visits are not permitted. An inmate’s telephone time is ordinarily limited to 300 minutes per calendar month. A notice is posted at each inmate telephone advising that calls are monitored. Inmate correspondence is classified as either “general” or “special” mail. “General mail” is opened and inspected by staff for both contraband and content which might threaten the security or good order of the institution. Incoming “special mail” is opened only in the presence of the inmate, and inspected for physical contraband and the qualification of any enclosures as special mail. All BOP facilities provide eligible inmates with the capability to send and receive electronic messages using dedicated BOP computers Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System (TRULINCS)-Electronic Messaging. TRULINCS is funded entirely by the Inmate Trust Fund, which is maintained by profits from inmate purchases of commissary products and telephone services, and the fees inmates are pay for using TRULINCS. Inmates have no access to the Internet. As with traditional mail communication, all such messages are subject to staff monitoring, including an inmate's electronic communication with his or her attorney. Message content is subject to the same restrictions as regular mail. Inmates (other than pre-trial detainees), may not direct a business while incarcerated. This does not, however, prohibit correspondence necessary to enable an inmate to protect property and funds that were legitimately the inmate’s at the time of commitment. Inmates are permitted to subscribe to, or receive by mail, publications without prior approval.
5. Pursuant to 18USC§4042(a)(3), the BOP administers an inmate disciplinary process to promote a safe and orderly environment for inmates and staff. After arriving at a BOP facility, all inmates receive written notice of their rights and responsibilities, prohibited acts within the institution, the possible range of sanctions for each offense, and disciplinary procedure. Violation of a prohibited act carries sanctions corresponding to the severity of the offense. Sanctions may include time in disciplinary segregation, loss of good time credits, and loss of privileges. Only institution staff may take disciplinary action against inmates. Corporal punishment, as well as retaliatory and capricious disciplinary action, is not permitted under any circumstance. Consistent with the minimum procedural protections required by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), the BOP disciplinary process requires that staff provide the inmate with a written copy of the charges, and that the inmate is entitled to be present during the initial hearing. An inmate is not permitted a staff representative nor to call witnesses at a Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) hearing, but may present documentary evidence. However, at a Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) hearing, the inmate may request a staff representative and may have witnesses appear at the proceeding. An attorney may not represent the inmate at either hearing. Inmates may appeal the decision of the UDC or the DHO through the Administrative Remedy program.
6. The BOP affords an inmate reasonable access to legal materials and to his or her attorney, and reasonable opportunity to prepare legal documents. All federal prisons maintain electronic inmate law libraries. Legal materials maintained in the inmate law libraries include federal court decisions, federal statutes, and a number of other publications. Inmates not physically able to utilize the main law library (inmates in segregation status, or those with a medical disability), are assisted by staff to access law library resources. In many cases, legal resource materials may be available to inmates during evening and weekend hours. Inmates with pending court deadlines may be given additional time to use the law library. Inmates are permitted a reasonable amount of time, ordinarily when not participating in a scheduled program or work assignment, to conduct their own legal research and to prepare legal documents. Inmates ordinarily have access to photocopying machines, typewriters, and office supplies. At every institution inmates are permitted to contact and retain attorneys. Attorneys and, in some cases, their representatives, may generally visit inmate clients in private conference rooms if available, or in other accommodations designed to ensure a reasonable degree of privacy. Inmates may place unmonitored telephone calls to their attorneys under 28CFR§540.102. Inmates may possess only that property which is authorized by policy to be retained upon admission to the institution, is issued while the inmate is in custody, is purchased in the institution commissary, or is approved by staff to be mailed to, or otherwise received by an inmate. Inmates may purchase a variety of clothing, snacks, and grooming items in the inmate Commissary at scheduled times. As of April 15, 2006, no tobacco products are sold in the Commissary, and inmates are prohibited from smoking or using tobacco in any form except for religious purposes as authorized by staff in accordance with Program Statement 5360.09.
E. The US Sentencing Commission needs to be abolished and all mandatory minimum sentencing they incited repealed by the statutory maximum sentence of the legislature pursuant to Blakely v. Washington (2004), In 2016, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that only 34% of the inmates released from the Bureau of Prisons in 2005 were rearrested or had their supervision revoked over a three year period. This figure reflects a 16% decline over the past couple of decades, and is half the rate of many large state Departments of Corrections. 2009 estimates indicate the federal recidivism rate may be as low as 9%. Parenting classes help inmates develop appropriate skills during incarceration. Recreation and wellness activities encourage healthy life styles and habits. Institution libraries carry a variety of fiction and nonfiction books, magazines, newspapers, and reference materials. Inmates also have access to legal materials to conduct legal research and prepare legal documents. All institutions offer literacy classes, English as a Second Language, parenting classes, wellness education, adult continuing education, library services, and instruction in leisure-time activities. In most cases, inmates who do not have a high school diploma or a General Educational Development (GED) certificate must participate in the literacy program for a minimum of 240 hours or until they obtain the GED. Non-English-speaking inmates must take English as a Second Language. Vocational and occupational training programs are based on the needs of the inmates, general labor market conditions, and institution labor force needs. An important component is on-the-job training, which inmates receive through institution job assignments and work in Federal Prison Industries. The Bureau also facilitates post-secondary education in vocational and occupationally oriented areas. Some traditional college courses are available, but inmates are responsible for funding this coursework. Education program are mandated for those federal prisoners who are not functionally literate under 18USC§3624(f). Non-English speaking inmates are required to participate in an English-as-a-Second Language program until able to function in the English language at the eighth grade level, pursuant to 18USC§3624(f)(4). With few exceptions, inmates lacking either a high school diploma, or a General Educational Development credential (GED), are required to enroll in an adult literacy program for a minimum of 240 hours and pursue a GED if they do not want to lose Good Conduct Time See 28 CFR pt. 544, subpt. H.
1. Good behavior must re-defined as the achievement of a Bachelor degree for all law enforcement, voluntary or mandatory, inc. prisoners, whereas several state studies have shown that people who achieved a post-conviction Bachelor degrees were 100% free of recidivism for the purposes of and 34USC§12577. Otherwise 66% state offenders are re-arrested within 3 years of being released under 34USC§60501. Vocational, technical, substance abuse education of the sort offered for free by prisons reduce recidivism to 50%. Associated degrees reduce recidivism to 25%. Review of several state studies indicated that nobody who had earned a post-conviction Bachelor degree were re-arrested within three years of being released from prison. This is a great inspiration to law enforcement and correctional officers who are often only required have a high school education and 6 weeks to 6 months police academy training. Student loans for all, $100,000 law school for some. The only middle-income people who can afford an undergraduate degree anymore are undereducated law enforcement officers who particularly want to be required a minimum of a Bachelor degree and funded part-time through law school. Several state studies have shown no recidivism, re-incarceration within three years of release, from people who earned a post-conviction Bachelor degrees, whereas recidivism otherwise ran around 25% for associates degrees, 50% for vocational certificates (such as police academy) and 66% for those otherwise released from state prison. Bachelor curriculum should be provided to prisoners in exchange for student loans. There are 1,315,561 Licensed Lawyers, saturating employment in the legal system, in the United States of America. To reduce 60% unemployment on graduation from law school, it is recommended that law schools include 4-20 week police and correctional correctional programs, in their three year curriculum, and having saturated the courts with impressive standing juries of public defenders, academy lawyers be preferentially employed as police and corrections officers.
§44 International
A. The following functions are assigned to the Chief of the United States National Central Bureau, International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL--U.S. National Central Bureau), under 28CFR§0.34, as authorized by statute and within guidelines prescribed by the Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Department of Treasury: (a) Pay a pro rata share to the International Prison Commission under 22USC§263a. (b) Represent the U.S. National Central Bureau at criminal law enforcement and international law enforcement conferences and symposia. (c) Serve as a member of the Executive Committee of INTERPOL-United States National Central Bureau (INTERPOL-USNCB). (d) Transmit information of a criminal justice, humanitarian, or other law enforcement related nature between National Central Bureaus of INTERPOL member countries, and law enforcement agencies within the United States and abroad; and respond to requests by law enforcement agencies, and other legitimate requests by appropriate organizations, institutions and individuals, when in agreement with the INTERPOL constitution. (e) Coordinate and integrate information for investigations of an international nature and identify those involving patterns and trends of criminal activities. (f) Conduct analyses of patterns of international criminal activities, when specific patterns are observed. (g) Establish and collect user fees to process name checks and background records for licensing, humanitarian and other non-law enforcement purposes.
1. The granting of Asylum is a peaceful and humanitarian act and that, as such, it cannot be regarded as unfriendly by any other State under the Declaration on Territorial Asylum 2312 (XXII) of 14 December 1967. A decision to grant diplomatic asylum withdraws the offender from the jurisdiction of the territorial State pursuant to the Asylum Case (Colombia / Peru) ICJ 20 November 1950. Meng Hongwei, President of Interpol since 2016, was arbitrarily arrested without charge in what seems to be the ongoing retaliation for the false arrest, torture and bond of Huawei Technologies Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou by Canada unlawfully obtaining evidence from a proceeding in New York District Court in December 2018. To end the hostage crisis the Presidents of the United States, Russia and China have an international treaty obligation to pardon to their respective hostages pursuant to Article 36 of the International Court of Justice. Huawei Technologies Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, was arrested in Vancouver, Canada, in December 2018 and is facing extradition to the U.S. Meng is the daughter of Huawei’s founder Ren. Meng was provisionally detained by the Canadian Authorities on behalf of the U.S., which is seeking her extradition to face unspecified charges in the Eastern District of New York. Meng Hongwei was elected president of Interpol in 2016. In April, it was announced that he was no longer on the Communist Party committee that oversees his Chinese ministry. Interpol issued a cryptic statement on Friday December 14, 2018. His wife, who is living in France, where Interpol has its headquarters, reported him missing after she did not hear from him upon his arrival in China. The French authorities have opened an investigation. Special pardons had to be issued for at least three Canadians in China and an American in Russia pursuant to United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran) (1979-1981). The US owes >100% interest on $3.6 billion pursuant to Certain Iranian Assets (2019).
B. The United States has extradition treaties with more than 100 countries. Of the treaties most are dual criminality treaties with the remaining being list treaties. A list of countries with which the United States has an extradition treaty relationship can be found in the Federal Criminal Code and Rules, following 18USC§3181, but this list may not be completely accurate. Generally under 18USC§3184, extradition may be granted only pursuant to a treaty. Some countries grant extradition without a treaty, but every such country requires an offer of reciprocity when extradition is accorded in the absence of a treaty. Further, the 1996 amendments to 18USC§3181 and §3184 permit the United States to extradite, without regard to the existence of a treaty, persons (other than citizens, nationals or permanent residents of the United States), who have committed crimes of violence against nationals of the United States in foreign countries.
1. All extradition treaties in force require foreign requests for extradition to be submitted through diplomatic channels, usually from the country's embassy in Washington to the Department of State. Many treaties also require that requests for provisional arrest be submitted through diplomatic channels, although some permit provisional arrest requests to be sent directly to the Department of Justice. The Department of State reviews foreign extradition demands to identify any potential foreign policy problems and to ensure that there is a treaty in force between the United States and the country making the request, that the crime or crimes are extraditable offenses, and that the supporting documents are properly certified in accordance with 18USC§3190. If the request is in proper order, an attorney in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser prepares a certificate attesting to the existence of the treaty, etc., and forwards it with the original request to the Justice Department's Office of International Affairs ("OIA").
2. Once the OIA receives a foreign extradition request, it reviews the request for sufficiency and forwards appropriate ones to the United States Attorney's Office for the judicial district in which the fugitive is located. The U.S. Attorney's office then obtains a warrant, and the fugitive is arrested and brought before the magistrate judge or the US district judge. The government opposes bond in extradition cases. Unless the fugitive waives his or her right to a hearing, the court will hold a hearing pursuant to 18USC§3184 to determine whether the fugitive is extraditable. If the court finds the fugitive to be extraditable, it enters an order of extraditability and certifies the record to the Secretary of State, who decides whether to surrender the fugitive to the requesting government. OIA notifies the foreign government and arranges for the transfer of the fugitive to the agents appointed by the requesting country to receive him or her. Although the order following the extradition hearing is not appealable (by either the fugitive or the government), the fugitive may petition for a writ of habeas corpus as soon as the order is issued. The district court's decision on the writ is subject to appeal, and the extradition may be stayed if the court so orders.
3. Extradition to the United States is complicated because the United States is ultra vires Arts. 2, 4 and 14 of the Convention against Torture and non-refoulement, non -extradition to torturous conditions, is fundamental principle of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Furthermore, the federal structure of the United States can pose particular problems with respect to extraditions when the police power and the power of foreign relations are held at different levels of the federal hierarchy. For instance, in the United States, most criminal prosecutions occur at the state level, and most foreign relations occur at the federal level. In fact, under the United States Constitution, foreign countries may not have official treaty relations with sub-national units such as individual states; rather, they may have treaty relations only with the federal government. As a result, a state that wishes to prosecute an individual located in a foreign country must direct its extradition request through the federal government, which will negotiate the extradition with the foreign country. However, due to the constraints of federalism, any conditions on the extradition accepted by the federal government—such as not to impose the death penalty—are not binding on individual states.
4. In the case of Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the United Kingdom was not permitted under its treaty obligations to extradite an individual to the United States, because the United States' federal government was constitutionally unable to offer binding assurances that the death penalty would not be sought in Virginia courts. Ultimately, the Commonwealth of Virginia itself had to offer assurances to the federal government, which passed those assurances on to the United Kingdom, which extradited the individual to the United States. To prevent widespread justification for non-refoulement of criminals wanted by the United States and United States citizens convicted of crimes abroad, federal torture statute must be amended to comply with Arts. 2, 4 and 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984 by repealing the phrase “outside the United States” from 18USC(113C) §2340A(a) and Exclusive Remedies at 18USC(113C)§2340B amended so: (1) The legal system shall ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, their dependents shall be entitled to compensation. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other persons to compensation which may exist under national law.
C. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) was created on January 9, 1983, through an internal Department of Justice (DOJ) reorganization which combined the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) with the Immigration Judge function previously performed by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (now part of the Department of Homeland Security). Besides establishing EOIR as a separate agency within DOJ, this reorganization made the Immigration Courts independent of INS, the agency charged with enforcement of Federal immigration laws. The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) was added in 1987. EOIR is also separate from the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices in the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the Office of Immigration Litigation in the DOJ Civil Division.
1. The Executive Office for Immigration Review shall be headed by a Director who shall be assisted by a Deputy Director. The Director shall be responsible for the general supervision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer in the execution of their duties. The Director may re-delegate the authority delegated to him by the Attorney General to the Deputy Director, the Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Chief Immigration Judge, or the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer under 28CFR§0.115 General functions. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, Immigration Judges, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, Supervise naturalization work in the specific courts designated by section 310 of the Immigration and Nationality Act under under 8USC§1421 to have jurisdiction in such matters, including the requiring of accountings from the clerks of such courts for naturalization fees collected, investigation through field officers of the qualifications of citizenship applicants, and representation of the Government at all court hearings under 28CFR§0.105(e).
2. The Board of Immigration Appeals shall consist of a Chairman, two Vice Chairmen, and twenty other members. The Chairman shall be responsible for providing supervision and establishing internal operating procedures of the Board in the exercise of its authorities and responsibilities as delineated in 28CFR§0.116 that makes reference to 8CFR3.1-3.4 instead of the current citation of 8CFR§1003.1 et seq (a) (1) Organization. There shall be in the Department of Justice a Board of Immigration Appeals, subject to the general supervision of the Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The Board members shall be attorneys appointed by the Attorney General to act as the Attorney General's delegates in the cases that come before them. The Board shall consist of 15 members. A vacancy, or the absence or unavailability of a Board member, shall not impair the right of the remaining members to exercise all the powers of the Board. Reopening or reconsideration before the Board of Immigration Appeals under 8CFR§1003.2 (a) General. The Board may at any time reopen or reconsider on its own motion any case in which it has rendered a decision. A request to reopen or reconsider any case in which a decision has been made by the Board, which request is made by the Service, or by the party affected by the decision, must be in the form of a written motion to the Board. The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board, subject to the restrictions of this section. The Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief. (b) Motion to reconsider. (1) A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law by the Board, an Immigration Judge or Service officer.
D. In recent years the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 under 50USC§1801 et seq. authorizing the wholesale wiretaps of the 50,000 people employed by the National Security Agency and wire interception investigations against individuals 36,000 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, has been criticized for their censorship of civil liberties under 50USC§3029. Should international correspondence be censored in peacetime, as though the entire United States is a prison? FISA continues to be re-authorized despite counsel to abolish the NSA, lay-off its 50,000 workers, and sell or transfer its headquarters to a different military or civilian federal government agency. The Attorney General is ultimately responsible for the confiscation of NSA and FBI wire and oral communication intercepting devices under 18USC§2513. The Attorney General has been recommended to institute minimization procedures that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non-publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information under §1801(h).
1. Since 2001 the number of names entered in the NSA supercomputer has risen tenfold from 15,000 to 150,000. The NSA has pled guilty to armed attacks against civilians in Europe. Since 2006 NSA interception of every wire communications leaving the United States has been associated with international and domestic violence that constitutes terrorism under §1801(c) to such a degree that international emails must be singularly isolated and domestic email lists limited to less than a dozen trusted readers, from untroubled email lists numbering in the tens of thousands before 2006. Since 2013 information has been even more compromised by FBI sabotaged Windows computers, time and money it takes to adapt to this crisis the federal government complacently continues to use insecure Microsoft computers and produce intellectually insipid, often tampered, literary works under §1801(d) without even publishing any information regarding any potential attacks, sabotage, international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities under §1801(e) and 18USC§1512.
2. The FISA Court is located on the top-floor of Justice Department headquarters. Over the past four decades, the FISA court has only rejected about four out of millions of wiretap applications. Every international cable is tapped, usually by a secret office in the corporate office, but the US Navy has a boat that is able to tap into the transatlantic cable, and cellular transmissions are intercepted. Due to the ever-present danger of being targeted for random armed attack against groups and individuals by NSA or FBI associates using global positioning system (GPS) hardwired into cell-phones, it is recommended to use airplane mode when not in use, such as anywhere near home, with its relatively secure landline, ever, and advised to remove the GPS function from standard cell phones. The Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), under the direction of the Counsel for Intelligence Policy, is responsible for advising the Attorney General on all matters relating to the 50,000 employees of the National Security Administration. The Office prepares and files all applications for electronic surveillance and physical search under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, assists Government agencies by providing legal advice on matters of national security law and policy, and represents the Department of Justice on variety of interagency committees such as the National Counterintelligence Policy Board. The Office also comments on and coordinates other agencies' views regarding proposed legislation affecting intelligence matters. The Office serves as adviser to the Attorney General and various client agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Defense and State Departments, concerning questions of law, regulation, and guidelines as well as the legality of domestic and overseas intelligence operations.
3. The United States must better protect journalistic and government sources against the $10,000 per day fine for rejecting the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, that needs to be repealed to protect commerce against corrupt police investigation under 18USC§2722. Civil action against state officials under 18USC§2707 is afforded with mandatory minimum 12.4% OASDI payroll tax on state employees in Title I of the Social Security Act and requiring a Bachelor degree for employment. Civil acton against the federal government under 18USC§2711 must require a Bachelor degree and exclude marijuana from drug testing for federal employment to be morally competent to repeal, abolish or otherwise overrule the Authority for Employment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Senior Executive Service under 5USC§3151-3152, Office of Special Counsel, Interagency Drug and Crime Enforcement, National Office of Drug Control Policy, International Narcotic Control and Law Enforcement, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
E. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division shall direct all other civil litigation including claims by or against the United States, its agencies or officers, in domestic or foreign courts, special proceedings, and similar civil matters not otherwise assigned, and shall employ foreign counsel to represent before foreign criminal courts, commissions or administrative agencies officials of the Department of Justice and all other law enforcement officers of the United States who are charged with violations of foreign law as a result of acts which they performed in the course and scope of their Government service under 28CFR§0.46. The Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office, at 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, in the Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, is designated to transmit letters of request to foreign tribunals in connection with the Court of International Trade (COITUS) that must change their name to U.S. Customs Court under 28CFR§0.48 if the United States is ever to stop being Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse (a-FRaI-d) and start being Foreign Relations (FR-ee). The President shall be authorized, if in his judgment such action should be justified by reason of the abuse by an international organization or its officers and employees of the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter or for any other reason, at any time to revoke the designation of any international organization under this section, whereupon the international organization in question shall cease to be classed as an international organization for the purposes of this subchapter under 22USC§288. Whereas, it is the President who is abusing international organizations, the direct legal consequence of his abusive actions are found in arrears under Article 19 of the UN Charter. The indirect consequence of such incompetent decision-making is that the United States of America is accounted for as a non-self-governing trust territory by Hospitals & Asylums under Chapter XII of the Charter of the United Nations (1946) and Art. 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Times of War (1949).
1. The Office of Alien Property shall be a part of the Civil Division under 28CFR§0.47: (a) The following described matters are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division, who shall also be the Director of the Office of Alien Property: (1) Exercising or performing all the authority, rights, privileges, powers, duties, and functions delegated to, vested in, or conducted by the Attorney General under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, title II of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended and transferred to the Department of Justice under 22USC§1622a, the act of September 28, 1950, 64 Stat. 1079 (50 USC App. 40), the Philippine Property Act of 1946, as amended, and the Executive orders relating to such acts, including, but not limited to, vesting, supervising, controlling, administering, liquidating, selling, paying debt claims out of, returning, and settling of intercustodial disputes relating to, property subject to one or more of such acts. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division is authorized to administer and give effect to the provisions of the agreement entitled “Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Austria Regarding the Return of Austrian Property, Rights and Interests,” which was concluded on January 30, 1959, and was ratified by the Senate of the United States on February 25, 1964.
2. The two most recent Secretary-Generals of the United Nations have observed that sanctions on trade tend to harm the innocent and vulnerable members of the nations population rather than the people in power who the sanctions are intended to disempower. Therefore the President is required to abide by the Security Council’s very specific description of the programs and/or commodities that are to be restricted by the sanction under 22USC§7202, he or she must demonstrate that these sanctions will directly affect only the “terrorist” organizations making breaches in internationally recognized human rights and must be approved by a joint resolution. Sanctions should be limited to include only people and organizations designated terrorist, and should very rarely or never affect an entire nation; wherefore the United States is permitted to authorize sanctions only; 1. Against nations with whom the United States is at war under 22USC§7203; 2. Against people and organizations designated as terrorists for their acts of terrorism 18USC§2331; 3. Against people and organizations who harbor and conceal terrorists under §2339A and provide material support to terrorist organizations under §2339B. Sanctions are authorized for 1 year to prohibit a state from supplying lethal arms to a terrorist organization under 22USC§2378.
3. Congress is advised to repeal 22USC§7204 that entraps the President and Treasury to be impeached for 'economic sanctions' against trade, agriculture and medicine. Sanctions must target only legitimate military objectives or they are maligned as “economic sanctions”. The Secretary of State may make recommendation to the President for submission of a request for Sanction Relief for the joint resolution of the Senate and Congressional Foreign Relations Committees under 22USC§2371. The applicant nations for sanction relief must demonstrate; 1. there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the government of the country concerned; [or that the leader was not directly involved or informed of the terrorist plans of people on his/her payroll; or had a declared war with the United States and has signed and upholds a peace treaty and has paid any reparations required by law]; 2. that government is not supporting acts of international terrorism; and 3. that government has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future; or 4. at least 45 days before the proposed rescission would take effect, a report justifying the rescission and certifying that 5. the government concerned has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding 6-month period.
4. Economic sanctions constitute a breach of the Geneva Convention. The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them. This prohibition does not affect the right of the Occupying Power to remove public officials from their posts under Art. 54 of Fourth Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians, Geneva, 12 August 1949 the Fourth Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians, Geneva, 12 August 1949. Sanctions must be limited to the Prohibition of Terrorism Finance under 18USC§2339C. The Prohibition provides for the sanction regime of the treasury and freezing of assets and is the most used and effective peaceful method for preventing and punishing acts of terrorism. The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Finance of December 9, 1999 prohibits the financing of terrorism when directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully provides or collects funds with the intention that such funds be used for terrorist activity. It shall not be necessary that the funds were actually used to carry out an offence. It also prohibits any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not actively involved in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to either do, or to abstain from doing a specific act. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) No. 2017/11 9 March 2017.
5. Congress has an unfulfilled international treaty obligation to pay international assistance program FY 18 and the United Nations requires affirmation that the United States intends to fully fund all international assistance programs FY 19, prioritizing interdepartmental international agricultural assistance P.L. 480, and Palestine UN Relief and Works Administration (UNRWA) at levels 3% annual growth from FY 16. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World: Building Climate Resiliency for Food Security (2018) by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports after a prolonged decline, the most recent estimates showed global hunger increased in 2016. In 2017, the number of undernourished people is estimated to have reached 821 million – around one person out of every nine in the world. Although stunting is decreasing 151 million children under five have stunted growth, while the lives of over 50 million children in the world continue to be threatened by wasting. Undernourishment and severe food insecurity appear to be increasing in almost all subregions of Africa, as well as in South America, whereas the undernourishment situation is stable in most regions of Asia. In 1996 Soviet agricultural assistance was terminated and 6 million North Koreans starved to death in a totalitarian famine. The Treasury has a duty to pay compensation for the evidence miscarriage of justice detaining a shipment of economic aid for North Korea although sanctions may target only military concerns regarding terrorism under 18USC§2339C and cannot be used to pillage or as a method of collective punishment under Art. 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Times of War (1949). Coronavirus lockdowns have heightened food insecurity and constitute incitement for the purpose of Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar) Summary 2020/1 23 January 2020 that held Myanmar’s military and security forces responsible, inter alia, for killings, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture, beatings, cruel treatment, and for the destruction of or denial of access to food, shelter and other essentials of life, all with the intent to destroy the Rohingya group, in whole or in part.
6. Consignments of medical supplies, food and clothing intended for civilians shall be allowed free passage under Art. 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate under Art. 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and UN Charter. If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal under Art. 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. States must remove any impediments arising to the free exportation of goods required for humanitarian needs, such as (i) medicines and medical devices; and (ii) foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; as well as goods and services required for the safety of (agriculture) civil aviation, such as (iii) spare parts, equipment and associated services (including warranty, maintenance, repair services and safety-related inspections) necessary for (irrigation and agricultural equipment) civil aircraft. To this end, the United States must ensure that licenses and necessary authorizations are granted and that payments and other transfers of funds are not subject to any restriction in so far as they relate to the goods and services referred to above, pursuant to Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) No. 175 3 October 2018 and United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran) (1979-1981).
§45 Justice Divisions
A. There are 7 Divisions to the US Department of Justice that have Assistant Attorney Generals appointed to them (1) Anti-Trust Division, (2) Civil Division, (3) Civil Rights Division, (4) Criminal Division, (5) Environment and Natural Resources Division, (6) Tax Division, and (7) Justice Management Division. In suits against federal agencies and officials, an attorney to represent the government, shall be appointed by division Assistant Attorney General, at the request of the plaintiff in the District Court.
1. The following functions are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division under 28CFR§0.41: (a) Institution of proceedings to impose penalties for unjustly or unreasonably discriminating among persons, classes of persons, or localities (b) Representing the United States before three-judge district courts under 28USC§2321-2325 to enforce, suspend, enjoin, annul, or set aside, in whole or in part, any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. (c) Representing the United States in proceedings before courts of appeals under 28USC§2341-2350. (d) Defending the Secretary of the Treasury (e) Guaranteeing Standby Energy Authority under 42USC§6272-6285. The following functions are assigned to and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division (ATR) under 28CFR§0.40: (a) General enforcement, by criminal and civil proceedings, of the Federal antitrust laws and other laws relating to the protection of competition and the prohibition of restraints of trade and monopolization, including conduct of surveys of possible violations of antitrust laws, conduct of grand jury proceedings, issuance and enforcement of civil investigative demands, civil actions to obtain orders and injunctions, civil actions to recover forfeitures or damages for injuries sustained by the United States as a result of antitrust law violations, proceedings to enforce compliance with final judgments in antitrust suits and negotiation of consent judgments in civil actions, civil actions to recover penalties, criminal actions to acquit including actions against the prosecution and judiciary for the imposition of penalties for conspiring to defraud the Federal Government by violation of the antitrust laws, participation as amices curiae in private antitrust litigation; and prosecution or defense of appeals in antitrust proceedings. (b) Intervention or participation before administrative agencies functioning wholly or partly under regulatory statutes in administrative proceedings which require consideration of the antitrust laws or competitive policies, including such agencies as the Civil Aeronautics Board, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Maritime Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Trade Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission, except proceedings referred to any agency by a federal court as an incident to litigation being conducted under the supervision of another Division in this Department. (c) Preparing the approval or disapproval of the Attorney General whenever such action is required by statute from the standpoint of the antitrust laws as a prerequisite to the development of Defense Production Act voluntary programs or agreements and small business production or raw material pools, the national defense program and atomic energy matters. (d) Assembling information and preparing reports required or requested by the Congress or the Attorney General as to the effect upon the maintenance and preservation of competition under the free enterprise system. (e) Preparing for transmittal to the President, Congress, or other departments or agencies views or advice as to the propriety or effect of any action, program or practice upon the maintenance and preservation or competition under the free enterprise system. (f) Representing the Attorney General on interdepartmental or interagency committees concerned with the maintenance and preservation of competition generally and in various sections of the economy and the operation of the free enterprise system and when authorized participating in conferences and committees with foreign governments and treaty organizations concerned with competition and restrictive business practices in international trade. (g) Collecting fines, penalties, judgments, and forfeitures arising in antitrust cases. (h) The Attorney General is authorized to grant export trade certificates in accordance with 15USC§4011-4021.
2. The following-described matters are assigned to the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division (CD) under 28CFR§0.45: (a) Admiralty and shipping cases--civil and admiralty litigation in any court by or against the United States, its officers and agents, which involves ships, shipping, workmen's compensation, litigation and waiver of claims and tariffs under reciprocal-aid maritime agreements with foreign governments, (b) Court of Federal Claims cases--litigation by and against the United States, (c) Civil litigation at the Court of International Trade, pursuant to 28USC§1581(i) ,(d) Fraud cases--civil claims arising from fraud and (gross) negligence under 19USC§1592, (e) Gifts and bequests to the United States. (f) Patent, copyright, and trademark litigation before the U.S. courts and the Patent Office and the Court of Federal Claims under 28USC§1498, (g) suits for compensation under the Patent Secrecy Act where the invention was ordered to be kept secret by he government under 35USC§183, (h) suits for compensation for unauthorized practice of a patented invention in the furnishing of assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act under 22USC§2356), (i) suits for compensation for the unauthorized communication of restricted data by the Atomic Energy Commission to other nations under 42USC§2223), (j) Tort cases--defense of tort suits against the United States, Government contractors and Federal employees whose official conduct is involved. (k) Consumer litigation--All civil and criminal litigation and grand jury proceedings arising under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act under 21USC§301-397), the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act under 15USC§1451 et seq.), the Automobile Information Disclosure Act under 15USC§1231 et seq. (l) All civil litigation arising under the passport, visa and immigration and nationality laws and related investigations and other appropriate inquiries pursuant to all the power and authority of the Attorney General to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens except all civil litigation, investigations, and advice with respect to forfeitures, return of property actions,
a. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division shall direct all other civil litigation including claims by or against the United States, its agencies or officers, in domestic or foreign courts, special proceedings, and similar civil matters not otherwise assigned, and shall employ foreign counsel to represent before foreign criminal courts, commissions or administrative agencies officials of the Department of Justice and all other law enforcement officers of the United States who are charged with violations of foreign law as a result of acts which they performed in the course and scope of their Government service under 28CFR§0.46. The Office of Alien Property shall be a part of the Civil Division under 28CFR§0.47: (a) The following described matters are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division, who shall also be the Director of the Office of Alien Property: (1) Exercising or performing all the authority, rights, privileges, powers, duties, and functions delegated to, vested in, or conducted by the Attorney General under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, title II of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended and transferred to the Department of Justice under 22USC§1622a, the act of September 28, 1950, 64 Stat. 1079 (50 USC App. 40), the Philippine Property Act of 1946, as amended, and the Executive orders relating to such acts, including, but not limited to, vesting, supervising, controlling, administering, liquidating, selling, paying debt claims out of, returning, and settling of inter-custodial disputes relating to, property subject to one or more of such acts. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division is authorized to administer and give effect to the provisions of the agreement entitled “Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Austria Regarding the Return of Austrian Property, Rights and Interests,” which was concluded on January 30, 1959, and was ratified by the Senate of the United States on February 25, 1964.
b. The Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office, at 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, in the Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, is designated to transmit letters of request to foreign tribunals in connection with changing the name of the Court of International Trade (COITUS) to U.S. Customs Court under 28CFR§0.48 and amending Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse (a-FRAI-d) to just Foreign Relations (FR-ee). The word trade is deemed to mean any form of business or commercial communication. By designating an enemy of the United States the President monopolizes trade with that nation under §1 and unlawful restraint was neutralized by Trump v. International Refugee Association (2017). The President is authorized to appoint, prescribe the duties of, and fix the salary of an official to be known as the alien property custodian, who shall be empowered to receive all money and property in the United States due or belonging to an enemy, or ally of enemy under §6. The Commission shall, upon completion of its work, certify in duplicate to the Secretary of State and to the Secretary of the Treasury the following: (1) A list of all claims disallowed; (2) a list of all claims allowed, in whole or in part, together with the amount of each claim and the amount awarded thereon; and (3) a copy of the decision rendered in each case under 22USC§1622.
3. The following functions are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division (CRT) under 28CFR§0.50: (a) Enforcement of all Federal statutes affecting civil rights as it applies to equal employment, including those rights pertaining to religion, elections and voting, public accommodations, public facilities, school desegregation, employment under 42USC§2000e. (b) Protecting housing, credit, and constitutional and civil rights of Indians arising under 25USC§1301 et seq., and of institutionalized persons. (c) 18 USC§§591-611, relating to criminal elections and political activities; (d) 18USC§241-248 pertaining to criminal aspects of Civil Rights. (e) Requesting and reviewing investigations arising from reports or complaints of public officials or private citizens with respect to matters affecting civil rights. (f) Conferring with individuals and groups who call upon the Department in connection with civil rights matters, advising such individuals and groups thereon, and initiating action appropriate thereto. (g) Coordination within the Department of Justice of all matters affecting civil rights.(h) Consultation with and assistance to other Federal departments and agencies and State and local agencies on matters affecting civil rights. (i) Research on civil rights matters, and the making of recommendations to the Attorney General as to proposed policies and legislation relating thereto. (j) Representation of civil rights to Federal officials in private litigation arising from discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under 42USC§2000d. (k) Administration of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended under 42USC§1973c). (l) Administration of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 pursuant to 50 U.S.C. App. 1989b). (m) Upon request, Federal Protection certification under 18USC§245. (n) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 42USC§12101-12213.
a. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division shall exercise the authority vested in and perform the functions assigned to the Attorney General by Executive Order 12250 (`Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws''). (b) The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division shall be responsible for coordinating the implementation and enforcement by Executive agencies of the nondiscrimination provisions of the following laws: (i) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under 42USC§2000d. (ii) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 under 20USC§1681. (iii) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended under 29USC§794. (c) Any other provision of Federal statutory law which provides, in whole or in part, that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, handicap, religion, or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; ie. the Older Americans Act of 1965 and Age Discrimination Act of 1975 42USC§6101 under 28 CFR§0.51.
b. The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices shall be headed by a Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices (“Special Counsel”). The Special Counsel shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, pursuant to section 102 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as amended. The Office of Special Counsel shall be part of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and the Special Counsel shall report directly to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division under 28CFR§ 0.53. In carrying out his or her responsibilities under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as amended, the Special Counsel is authorized to: (1) Investigate charges of immigration-related unfair employment practices filed with the Office of Special Counsel and, when appropriate, file complaints with respect to those practices before specially designated administrative law judges within the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, U.S. Department of Justice; (2) Intervene in proceedings involving complaints of immigration-related unfair employment practices that are brought directly before such administrative law judges by parties other than the Special Counsel; (3) Conduct, on his or her own initiative, investigations of immigration-related unfair employment practices and, where appropriate, file complaints with respect to those practices before such administrative law judges; (4) Conduct, handle, and supervise litigation in U.S. District Courts for judicial enforcement of orders of administrative law judges regarding immigration-related unfair employment practices; (5) Initiate, conduct, and oversee activities relating to the dissemination of information to employers, employees, and the general public concerning immigration-related unfair employment practices; (6) Establish such regional offices as may be necessary; (7) Perform such other functions as the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division shall direct; and (8) Delegate to any of his or her subordinates any of the authority, functions, or duties vested in him or her.
4. The following functions are assigned to and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division (CD) under 28CFR§0.55: (a) Prosecutions for Federal crimes not otherwise specifically assigned. (b) Civil petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeitures and civil penalties, in compromise, and related proceedings for prison-made goods under 18USC§1761-1762). (c) Immigration and Nationality authority under 8USC§1182-1183, (d) Coordination of enforcement activities directed against organized crime and racketeering. (e) All civil proceedings seeking exclusively equitable relief against Criminal Division activities including criminal investigations, prosecutions and other criminal justice activities (including without limitation, applications for writs of habeas corpus, deportation or detention under the immigration laws and coram nobis) not supervised by another division, (f) International extradition proceedings. (g) Relation of military to civil authority with respect to criminal matters affecting both. (h) §241, §242, §1201 and §594 of title 18, and §1973i and §1973j of title 42, U.S. Code, insofar as they relate to voting and election matters not involving discrimination or intimidation on grounds of race or color, and §245(b)(1) of title 18 U.S. Code, insofar as it relates to matters not involving discrimination or intimidation on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin; (i) §245(b)(3) of title 18, U.S. Code, pertaining to forcible interference with persons engaged in business during a riot or civil disorder; and (j) Administrative Subpoenas under 39USC§3016 (Postal Reorganization Act). (k) Resolving questions that arise as to Federal prisoners held in custody by Federal officers or in Federal prisons, commitments of mentally defective defendants and juvenile delinquents, validity and construction of sentences, probation, and parole. (l) Supervision of matters of Prisoners arising under the Escape and Rescue Act under 18USC§751, §752, the Fugitive Felon Act under 18 U.S.C. §1072, §1073, and Influencing or Injuring Jurors under 18USC§1503. (m) Supervision of prisoner release matters arising under the Bail Reform Act of 1966 arrest and release 28USC§3041-3063, release and detention pending judicial proceedings 28USC§3141-3156. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division is authorized to determine administratively whether the Federal Government has exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over offenses committed upon lands acquired by the United States, and to consider problems arising there from under 28CFR§0.56.
5. The following functions are assigned to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Land, Environment, and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) under 28CFR§0.65:
(a) Civil suits and matters in Federal and State courts (and administrative tribunals), by or against the United States, its agencies, officers, or contractors, or in which the United States has an interest, whether for specific or monetary relief, and also non-litigation matters, relating to: (i) The public domain lands and the outer continental shelf of the United States. (ii) Other lands and interests in real property owned, leased, or otherwise claimed or controlled, or allegedly impaired or taken, by the United States, its agencies, officers, or contractors, including the acquisition of such lands by condemnation proceedings or otherwise, (iii) The water and air resources controlled or used by the United States, its agencies, officers, or contractors, (iv) The other natural resources in or related to such lands, water, and air, (b) Rendering opinions as to the validity of title to all lands acquired by the United States, except as otherwise specified by statute. (c) Civil and criminal suits and matters involving air, water, noise, and other types of pollution, the regulation of solid wastes, toxic substances, pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the control of the environmental impacts of surface coal mining. (d) Civil and criminal suits and matters involving obstructions to navigation, and dredging or filling under 33USC§403. (e) Civil and criminal suits and matters arising under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 under 42USC§2011 insofar as it relates to the prosecution of violations committed by a company in matters involving the licensing and operations of nuclear power plants. (f) Civil and criminal suits and matters relating to the natural and biological resources of the coastal and marine environments, the outer continental shelf, the fishery conservation zone and, where permitted by law, the high seas. (g) Performance of the Secretary of the Interior under the authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, section 201(f), 91 Stat. 450, and contained in 30 CFR part 706. (h) Conducting the studies of processing sites required by section 115(b) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, publishing the results of the studies and furnishing the results thereof to the Congress. (i) Criminal suits and civil penalty and forfeiture actions relating to wildlife law enforcement under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 under 16USC§1531-1544; the Lacey Act and related provisions under 18USC§41-48; the Airborne Hunting Act under 16USC§742j-1; the Migratory Bird Act under 16USC§701; the Wild Horses and Wild Burros Act under 16USC§1331-1340; the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act under 16USC§668-668d); and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act under 16USC§661-667d.
a. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Land, Environment and Natural Resources Division or such members of his staff as he may specifically designate in writing, are authorized to sign the name of the Attorney General to opinions on the validity of titles to property acquired by or on behalf of the United States, except those which, in the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General involve questions of policy or for any other reason require the personal attention of the Attorney General under 28CFR§0.66. (a) the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Land and Natural Resources Division is authorized: (i) To exercise the Attorney General's power of delegating to other departments and agencies his (the Attorney General's) responsibility for approving the title to lands acquired by them, (ii) With respect to delegations so made to other departments and agencies, to exercise the Attorney General's function of general supervision regarding the carrying out by such departments and agencies of the responsibility so entrusted to them, and (iii) To promulgate regulations and any appropriate amendments thereto governing the approval of land titles by such departments and agencies. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Land, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and such members of his staff as he may specifically designate in writing, are authorized to execute the power and authority of the Attorney General under the provisions of section 3 of the act of August 7, 1947, 61 Stat. 914, 30USC§352, respecting the leasing of minerals on lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice under 28CFR§0.68.
6. The following functions are assigned to the Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division (TD) under 28CFR§0.70: (a) Prosecution and defense in all courts, other than the Tax Court, of civil suits, and the handling of other matters, arising under the internal revenue laws, and litigation resulting from the taxing provisions of other Federal statutes, (b) Criminal proceedings arising under the internal revenue laws, (c) Enforcement of tax liens, and mandamus, injunctions, and other special actions or general matters arising in connection with internal revenue matters. (d) Defense of actions arising under of title 28USC§2410 whenever the United States is named as a party to an action as the result of the existence of a Federal tax lien. (e) Petitions to review decisions of the Tax Court of the United States. (2) The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Tax Division is Authorized to handle matters involving the immunity of the Federal Government from State or local taxation and State or local taxation involving contractors performing contracts for or on behalf of the United States under 28CFR§0.71
7. The Assistant Attorney General for Administration shall head the Justice Management Division (JMD) and shall provide advice relating to basic Department policy for budget and financial management, program evaluation, auditing, personnel management and training, procurement, information processing and telecommunications, security and for all matters pertaining to organization, management, and administration. The following matters are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Assistant Attorney General for Administration under 28CFR§0.75: (a) Conduct, direct, review, and evaluate management studies and surveys of the Department's organizational structure, functions, and programs, operating procedures and supporting systems, and management practices throughout the Department; and make recommendations to reduce costs and increase productivity. (b) Supervise, direct, and review the preparation, justification and execution of the Department of Justice budget, including the coordination and control of the programming and reprogramming of funds. (c) Review, analyze, and coordinate the Department's programs and activities to ensure that the Department's use of resources and estimates of future requirements are consistent with the policies, plans, and mission priorities of the Attorney General. (d) Plan, direct, and coordinate Department-wide personnel management programs, and develop and issue Department-wide policy in all personnel program areas, including training, position classification and pay administration, staffing, employee performance evaluation, employee development, employee relations and services, employee recognition and incentives, equal employment opportunity programs, including the equal opportunity recruitment program under 5USC§7201, personnel program evaluation, labor management relations, adverse action hearings and appeals, employee grievances, and employee health programs. (e) Develop and direct Department-wide financial management policies, programs, procedures, and systems including financial accounting, planning, analysis, and reporting. (f) Supervise and direct the operation of the Department's central payroll system, automated information services, publication services, library services and any other Department-wide central services which are established by or assigned to the Justice Management Division. (g) Formulate and administer the General Administration Appropriation of the Department's budget. (h) Formulate Department-wide audit policies, standards and procedures; develop, direct and supervise independent and comprehensive internal audits, including examinations authorized by 28USC§526, of all organizations, programs, and functions of the Department, and audits of expenditures made under the Department's contracts and grants to ensure compliance with laws, regulations and generally accepted accounting principles; economy and efficiency in operation; and that desired results are being achieved. (i) Develop and direct a Department-wide directives management program and administer the directives management system. (j) Plan, direct, administer, and monitor compliance with Department-wide policies, procedures, and regulations concerning records, reports, procurement, printing, graphics, audiovisual activities (including the approval or disapproval of production and equipment requests), forms management, supply management, motor vehicles, real and personal property, space assignment and utilization, and all other administrative services functions. (k) Formulate Department policies, standards, and procedures for information systems and the management and use of automatic data processing equipment; review the use and performance of information systems with respect to Department objectives, plans, policies, and procedures; provide technical leadership and support to new Department-wide information systems; review and approve all contracts for information processing let by the Department, and provide the final review and approval of systems and procedures and standards for use of data elements and codes. (l) Formulate policies, standards, and procedures for Department telecommunications systems and equipment and review their implementation. (m) Provide computer and digital telecommunications services on an equitable resource-sharing basis to all organizational units within the Department. (n) Formulate Department policies for the use of consultants and non-personal service contracts, review, and approve all non-personal service contracts, and review the implementation of Department policies. (o) Serve as liaison with state and local governments on management affairs, and coordinate the Department's participation in Federal regional interagency bodies. (p) Direct all Department security programs including personnel, physical, document, information processing and telecommunications, special intelligence, and employee health and safety programs and formulate and implement Department defense mobilization and contingency planning. (q) Review legislation for potential impact on the Department's resources. (r) Develop and implement a legal information coordination system for the use of the Department of Justice and, as appropriate, the Federal Government as a whole.
§46 Justice Programs
A. Since the 1984 Justice System Improvement Act the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has supervised, 1. the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2. the National Institute of Justice, 3. the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 4. Bureau of Justice Assistance and 5. the Office for Victim Compensation. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) state and local law enforcement assistance needs to be abolished. The Public Safety Officer Death Benefit Program needs to be sustained. BJA and COPS are grouped together in this work. The Office of Justice Programs is headed by an Assistant Attorney General appointed by the President. Under the general authority of the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General maintains liaison with and provides information to Federal, State, local, and private agencies and organizations on criminal justice matters, and provides staff support to and coordinates the activities of the National Institute of Justice under 28CFR§0.90.
1. Office of Justice Programs (OJP) provides federal finance for state and local enforcement and community policing that gravely interferes with the independence of the judiciary,and the extra-jurisdictional police finance needs to be abolished to prevent deaths from retaliation against witnesses, victims and informants under 18USC§1513.
Total OJP spending has gone down 30% from $1.8 billion FY 17 to $1.3 billion FY 18 with marginal cuts in all categories but salaries and expenses and a $500 million reduction in prohibited state and local law enforcement funding from $1.4 billion FY 17 to $940 million FY 18. Funding for state and local law enforcement needs to be totally abolished, while salaries and expenses, and extra-judicial, statistical and juvenile justice programs could grow at 2.5%, although they don't compete with Uniform Crime Statistics (UCR) and whose juvenile involuntary psychiatric drug abuse seems to have preceded the adulteration of the federal court to abuse involuntary antipsychotic consumption as competency to stand trial, although the continuing not guilty by reason of insanity plea means that person must serve the maxim maximum sentence for the crime for which they are accused. Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) spending should be reduced from $218 million to $38 million for salaries and expenses FY 18. Among the special procedures of the Human Rights Council, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions holds unlawful killings by the police may occur in situations where the police are not pursuing law enforcement objectives, such as attempts at extortion that may escalate into extra- judicial killings; engaging in “social cleansing” operations and intentionally killing criminals or members of marginalized groups; or in even more extreme situations, where police are operating as a militia or death squad.
2. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is headed by a Director appointed by the Attorney General under 28 CFR 0.94-1. Under the general authority of the Attorney General and reporting through the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, the Director performs functions and administers programs, including provision of financial assistance, under 42USC§3741-3742, §3750-3766b; §3769, relating to the administration of State and local criminal justice systems. The Director also administers the Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits Program under 42USC§3796.Subject to the authority and direction of the Attorney General, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance is authorized to exercise the power and authority vested in the Attorney General by Executive Order No. 11755 of December 29, 1973, 39 FR 779, with respect to work-release laws and regulations.
3. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) shall be headed by a Director appointed by the Attorney General under 28CFR§0.119. The Director shall report to the Attorney General through the Associate Attorney General. The Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services under 28 CFR I 0.120 shall: (a) Exercise the powers and perform the functions vested in the Attorney General by title I and subtitle H of title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-322); and (b) Perform such other duties and functions relating to policing and law enforcement as may be specially assigned by the Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General. Grant programs administered through the Office of Justice Programs, shall apply with equal force and effect to grant programs administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services under 28 CFR I 0.121.
4. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is headed by a Director appointed by the President. Under the general authority of the Attorney General and reporting through the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, the Director performs functions and administers programs, including provision of financial assistance, under 42USC §3721-3723 to support basic and applied research into justice issues. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), is headed by a Director appointed by the President under 28CFR§0.93. Under the general authority of the Attorney General and reporting through the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, the Director performs functions and administers programs, including provision of financial assistance, under 42USC§3731-3734, to provide a variety of statistical services for the criminal justice community. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is headed by an Administrator appointed by the President under 28 CFR I 0.94. Under the general authority of the Attorney General and reporting through the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, the Administrator performs functions and administers programs, including provision of financial assistance, under 42USC§5601 et seq., relating to juvenile delinquency, the improvement of juvenile justice systems and missing children. Their most impressive achievement is the National Juvenile Court Data Archive that compiles statistics for juvenile courts.
5. The Office for Victims of Crime is headed by a Director appointed by the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs under 28CFR§0.91. Under delegation by the Attorney General (DOJ Order No. 1079-84, Dec. 14, 1984), the Assistant Attorney General and the Director are responsible for providing national leadership to encourage improved treatment of victims by implementing the recommendations of the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime and the Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence, and by administering the Crime Victims Fund and the Federal Crime Victim Assistance Program, established under the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, under 42USC§10601 et seq.
B. The FY 2021 President’s Budget requests an annual obligation limitation of $2.3 billion for the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), a decrease of $341.0 million from the FY 2020 Enacted level. The CVF was established by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (“1984 Act”). It is financed by collections of fines, penalty assessments, and bond forfeitures from defendants convicted of federal crimes. Most collections stem from large corporate cases rather than individual offenders. The CVF is administered by the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). Programs supported by the CVF focus on providing compensation to victims of crime and survivors, supporting appropriate victims’ service programs and victimization intervention strategies, and building capacity to improve response to crime victims’ needs and increase offender accountability. The CVF was established to address the continuing need to expand victims’ services programs and assist federal, state, local, and tribal agencies and organizations in providing appropriate services to their communities. In FY 2017, the CVF received a historic level of receipts deposited to the Fund—$6.6 billion, nearly double the previous record-setting level of receipts ($3.6 billion in FY 2014). As of 2018, the Fund balance was over $12 billion and includes deposits from federal criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, penalties, and special assessments collected by U.S. Attorneys' Offices, federal courts, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Conversely, in both FY 2018 and FY 2019 the CVF received near-historically low levels of receipts ($445 million in FY 2018; $495 million in FY 2019). This volatility has created difficulty in creating an accurate predictive model for CVF receipts. Despite these lower receipt levels, spending out of the CVF hit a historic high in FY 2018 at $4.4 billion, before falling to $3.4 billion in FY 2019. The low levels of receipts in these years combined with historically high spending levels have significantly decreased the balance of the Fund itself, and raised significant questions regarding the viability of the Fund itself absent reform. The FY 2021 request therefore continues to seek CVF reform through an authorizing proposal that would amend the 1984 Act and establish a $2.3 billion obligation cap for the CVF. Of this amount, $498.5 million would be provided to the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) and the remaining $1.8 billion would be administered by OVC.
Victim Compensation Deposits, Disbursements and Balance FY 85 – FY 21
(in millions)
|Fiscal Year |1985 |1986 |1987 |1988 |
|Aids to Navigation |1,347,180 |1,283,614 |1,418,384 |1,460,935 |
|Defense Readiness |406,751 |599,748 |593,160 |610,955 |
|Drug Interdiction |1,366,883 |1,479,440 |1,414,807 |1,457,251 |
|Ice Operations |386,863 |186,136 |259,436 |267,219 |
|Living Marine Resources |888,026 |896,369 |934,106 |962,129 |
|Marine Environmental |207,244 |217,744 |260,574 |268,391 |
|Protection | | | | |
|Marine Safety |568,322 |549,718 |703,796 |154,078 |
|Migrant Interdiction |785,747 |874,666 |927,195 |955,011 |
|Other-Law Enforcement |117,433 |112,287 |114,833 |118,278 |
|(Foreign Fish) | | | | |
|Ports, Waterways and |1,678,786 |1,756,284 |2,142,068 |1,861,661 |
|Coastal Security | | | | |
|Search and Rescue |871,150 |803,901 |929,998 |957,898 |
|Net Discretionary |8,624,385 |8,759,907 |9,698,357 |9,073,806 |
|Retired Pay |1,666,940 |1,690,824 |1,734,844 |1,786,889 |
|Boat Safety |113,049 |118,416 |114,682 |118,122 |
|Maritime Oil Spill |101,000 |101,000 |101,000 |101,000 |
|Program | | | | |
|Gift Fund |2,829 |2,864 |2,864 |2,864 |
|Mandatory Funding |1,883,818 |1,913,104 |1,953,390 |2,002,225 |
|OSLTF Contribution |[45,000] |[45,000] |[45,000] |[45,000] |
|Overseas Contingency |162,692 |0 |0 |0 |
|Operations | | | | |
|Total Budget Authority |10,670,895 |10,673,011 |11,651,747 |11,082,681 |
Source: Zukunft, Paul F. Admiral. Commandant of the Coast Guard. United States Coast Guard FY 2019 Posture Statement, 2019 Budget Overview and 2017 Performance Highlights. 2018
2. On an average day, the Coast Guard: Conducts 44 search and rescue cases; saves 12 lives; assists 60 people in distress, saves over $1.2M in property; seizes 1,221 pounds of cocaine and 85 pounds of marijuana; conducts 48 waterborne patrols of critical maritime infrastructure; interdicts 7 illegal migrants; escorts 9 high-capacity passenger vessels; conducts 12 security boardings in and around U.S. ports; screens 329 merchant vessels for potential security threats prior to arrival in U.S. Ports; conducts 15 fisheries conservation boardings; services 80 buoys and aids to navigation; investigates 34 pollution incidents; completes 23 safety examinations on foreign vessels; conducts 107 marine inspections; investigates 50 marine casualties involving commercial vessels; facilitates movement of $12.6 B worth of goods and commodities through the Nation’s Maritime Transportation System. Between 2015 and 2017 the Coast Guard increased the amount of cocaine and decreased the amount of marijuana seize and is escorting more commercial vessels, and investigating significantly more commercial vessel deaths, and conducting fewer searches. In 2017, the Coast Guard once again surpassed its annual record, interdicting over 223 metric tons of cocaine from the maritime domain and detaining 708 suspected smugglers for prosecution. The wholesale value of narcotics removed in 2017 was $6.6 billion. In 2017, the Coast Guard interdicted 2,510 undocumented migrants attempting to illegally enter the United States by maritime routes and repatriated 1,532 Cuban migrants, 451 Dominican migrants, and 1,442 Haitian migrants back to their country of origin. The Coast Guard conducted 5,500 fisheries boardings on U.S. vessels and cited 158 significant fishery violations. The Coast Guard detected 136 illegal incursions by foreign flagged fishing vessels into the U.S. EEZ and interdicted 31 vessels, protecting the Nation’s sovereignty and natural resources.
Coast Guard Procurement, Construction and Improvement FY 19
(thousands of dollars)
|Appropriation |FY 19 |
|Vessels, Subtotal |1,543,750 |
|Survey and Design – Vessels and Boats |500 |
|In-Service Vessel Sustainment |63,250 |
|National Security Cutter (NSC) |65,000 |
|Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) |400,000 |
|Fast Response Cutter (FRC) |240,000 |
|Cutter Boats |5,000 |
|Waterways Commerce Cutter |5,000 |
|Polar Icebreaker |750,000 |
|Polar Sustainment |15,000 |
|Aircraft, Subtotal |148,000 |
|HC-144A Conversion/ Sustainment |17,000 |
|HC-27J Conversion / Sustainment |80,000 |
|HH-65 Conversion / Sustainment Projects |20,000 |
|MH-60T Sustainment |25,000 |
|Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) |6,000 |
|Other, Subtotal |60,000 |
|Program Oversight and Management |20,000 |
|C41SR |23,300 |
|CG-LIMS |13,200 |
|Other Equipment and Systems |3,500 |
|Shore and ATON, Subtotal |135,000 |
|Major Shore, ATON and S&D |30,000 |
|Major Acquisition Systems Infrastructure |100,000 |
|Minor Shore |5,000 |
|Total |1,886,750 |
Zukunft, Paul F. Admiral. Commandant of the Coast Guard. United States Coast Guard FY 2019 Posture Statement, 2019 Budget Overview and 2017 Performance Highlights. 2018
3. By mobilizing more than 2,900 personnel, 66 helicopters, 28 fixed wing aircraft, 29 cutters, and 115 shallow water assets, the Coast Guard rescued or assisted nearly 12,000 people. The Service responded to 16,069 Search and Rescue (SAR) cases in 2017, assisted 22,004 people, saved 4,228 lives, and protected approximately $76 million in property loss. In 2017, the Service conducted over 25,000 container inspections and monitored 1,000 oil, hazardous substance, or explosive transfers to ensure security of the maritime domain. The Coast Guard also inspected more than 16,000 marine facilities for compliance with safety and environmental protection regulations. In addition, the Coast Guard investigates commercial marine casualties to determine causal factors and provide recommendations to prevent future incidents. In 2017, the Coast Guard conducted more than 3,300 incident investigations, after having initiated more than 18,600 preliminary investigations, and partnered with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate 27 major marine casualties involving public interest vessels. The Coast Guard also regulates recreational boating. In 2017, the Coast Guard boarded over 41,800 recreational vessels and conducted over 2,500 recreational boat manufacturer inspections to ensure compliance with federal regulations. The Coast Guard minimizes security risks to the homeland through activities to prevent incidents in the maritime domain, to the global supply chain, or to the maritime transportation system. In 2017, the Service conducted over 5,300 security-related inspections at Maritime Transportation Security Act regulated facilities to identify potential port security risks. The Coast Guard also visited more than 50 maritime trading partner countries to assess the effectiveness of anti-terrorism measures in over 150 foreign port facilities.
B. The United States Coast Guard is the primary agency tasked with the enforcement of vessel and fishery laws. The amendments to Shipping regulations in Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations and United States Code of the Commercial Fishing Vessel Industry Safety Act of 1988 are extensive and scattered and the Proceedings of the International Fishing Industry Safety and Health Conference in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, October 23-25, 2000, is 496 pages long. Globally, of about 85,000 vessels, excluding fishing vessels, about 25 are lost annually. In the U.S. marine deaths dropped in 2012, from 803 to 706. The vast majority of the fatalities, (651), occurred in recreational boating. In 2012, the Coast Guard counted 4,515 accidents that involved 651 deaths, 3,000 injuries and approximately $38 million dollars of damage to property as a result of recreational boating accidents. The fatality rate was 5.4 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels. This rate represents a 12.9% decrease from last year’s fatality rate of 6.2 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.
1. In 2008, over 8 billion pounds of seafood was harvested in the United States earning over $4.4 billion. Species that contributed the most to this revenue include shrimp, Pacific salmon, pollock and lobster. There are approximately 115,000 harvesters in the United States using a variety of different fishing gear and vessels. Commercial fishing is one of the most dangerous occupations in the United States. Many commercial fishing operations are characterized by hazardous working conditions, strenuous labor, long work hours and harsh weather. During 2000-2010, an annual average of 46 deaths occurred (124 deaths per 100,000 workers), compared with an average of 5,466 deaths (4 per 100,000 workers) among all U.S. workers. 545 commercial fishermen died while fishing in the U.S. More than half of all fatalities (279, 51%) occurred after a vessel disaster. Another 170 (31%) fatalities occurred when a fisherman fell overboard without a lifevest. Another 56 (10%) fatalities resulted from an injury onboard. The remaining 40 (7%) fatalities occurred while diving or from onshore injuries. Fishermen who wear Personal Floatation Devices are far more likely to survive vessel sinkings or capsizings. Vessels that maintain emergency equipment such as life rafts, electronic beacons, and immersion suits in good working order help to ensure the survival of their crew.
1. Since the Commercial Fishing Vessel Industry Safety Act of 1988, statistics show a decrease in fatalities and vessels lost. Technology has been able to help many fishermen in European and North American areas to obtain more accurate weather forecasts and to avoid hazardous fishing areas. Lifevests are required for everyone onboard and exposure suits are required for every fisherman north of 32 degrees North latitude in the Atlantic Ocean or north of 35 degrees North latitude in all other waters amongst other safety standard set forth in 46USC§4502. The Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels in 1977 of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) established uniform principles and rules regarding design, construction and equipment for fishing vessels 24m (79 feet) in length and over. Other IMO codes and guidelines include the Voluntary Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Equipment of Small Fishing Vessels (1980) and the Code of Safety for Fishermen and Vessel Design and Construction (1975).
C. Opportunistic state actors like Russia and China are building military and technological capabilities to exploit emerging regions and erode our military advantage. Escalating competition is evident in the Arctic, where Russia’s militarization and China’s economic investments have accelerated, effectively challenging U.S. sovereignty and threatening regional stability. Coast Guard polar icebreakers can ensure year-round access to both Polar Regions. The U.S. faces growing military and economic competition in the Arctic, as melting ice provides greater access to the region’s resources. Coast Guard domestic icebreakers conducted more than 5,300 hours of icebreaking to facilitate the movement of $1.5 billion of dry bulk and liquid cargoes through ice-impeded waters of the Great Lakes and Eastern Seaboard, providing critical supplies and materials to American manufacturers. Domestic Coast Guard icebreaking cutters kept connecting Tier One Waterways in the Great Lakes and Eastern Seaboard open to vessel transits during the 2017 icebreaking season. 'The surge in drug consumption and its ancillary effects in the U.S., to include more than 66,000 drug overdose deaths in 2017, exacerbate the challenge, as TCOs (transnational criminal organizations) and subsidiary networks continue to exploit illicit pathways to bring drugs and other contraband to the U.S. market' is a deceptive statement. The exploitation of 66,000 drug overdose deaths in 2017 from fentanyl, a FDA approved drug manufactured in the United States, continues illicit pathways for drugs and other contraband.
1. The Coast Guard continues to build unity of effort with the Department of State and other Federal and international partners in support of the U.S. Chairmanship of the Arctic Council, advance the Arctic Coast Guard Forum and support the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ratification. Use new US Coast Guard icebreaker in Arctic waters is regulated by the International Maritime Organization who has adopted the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code) and related amendments to make it mandatory under both the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). The Polar Code entered into force on 1 January 2017. The Polar Code is intended to cover the full range of shipping-related matters relevant to navigation in waters surrounding the two poles – ship design, construction and equipment; operational and training concerns; search and rescue; and, equally important, the protection of the unique environment and eco-systems of the polar regions.
2. The treaty was upheld by the Fairbanks Declaration 2017: On the Occasion of the Tenth Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council Reaffirming our commitment to the well-being of the inhabitants of the Arctic, especially including the indigenous, to sustainable development and to the protection of the Arctic environment. Thermal pollution from hydrocarbon heating pumps is clearly prohibited. Use of the new Coast Guard ice-breaker under the Agreement on arctic cooperation between the United States and Canada, that was signed at Ottawa on 11 January 1988, is limited by the Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic and Arctic Coast Guard Forum. US-Russia Bilateral Agreement on Polar Bear Conservation to protect the shared Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population become effective on September 23, 2007. The agreement calls for the active involvement of native people in both countries in managing the polar bear population. The treaty contains specific protections for females with cubs and cubs less than one year old. The United States and Russia concluded this agreement in 2000 and the U.S. Senate ratified it in 2003. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of State are the principal U.S. implementing agencies. The application of the first Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program’s State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity Report to the Arctic Protected Area Indicator Report will help implement the Framework for a Pan-Arctic Network of Marine Protected Areas to strengthen marine ecosystem resilience and to foster the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources.
3. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary federal responsibility for the Federal Water Pollution Act of 1972 33USC§1251 et seq. President Ronald Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea treaty (LOST) in 1982. Three autonomous international organization were established by the United Nations Division on Ocean Affairs the Law of the Sea when the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea entered into force with the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI. (a) The International Seabed Authority, which has its headquarters in Kingston, Jamaica, came into existence on 16 November 1994, upon the entry into force of the 1982 Convention. (b) The Tribunal of the Law of the Sea came into existence following the entry into force of the Convention on 16 November 1994. After the election of the first judges on 1 August 1996, the Tribunal took up its work in Hamburg on 1 October 1996. The official inauguration of the Tribunal was held on 18 October 1996. (c) The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf established a subsidiary body – the Standing Committee on provision of scientific and technical advice to coastal States, in June 1997, at its first session. In 1998, as part of the United Nation's International Year of the Ocean, the Department of Commerce and Department of the Navy cohosted the National Ocean Conference in Monterey, California. The participants found the United States should, join the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and the accompanying 1994 Agreement to implement Part IX of the Convention on the Law of the Sea (incorrectly remembered by the U.S. as the Seabed Mining Agreement) to address issues such as military and commercial navigation, fishing, oil and gas development, offshore mining, and scientific research The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended U.S. accession to the treaty in a unanimous vote in March 2004. As an active member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the Coast Guard shares a global responsibility to facilitate safe and secure maritime commerce. Through the Port State Control program, the Coast Guard conducted over 9,100 safety examinations on foreign commercial vessels, resulting in 75 operational control restrictions reportable to the IMO. A bilateral US-Canada Legal Marijuana Trade Act is recommended to protect all marijuana importers.
§50 Firearms and Explosives
A. Subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, it is advised to change the name of the Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to Bureau of Firearms and Explosives (FE) and appoint a Director under 28CFR §0.130. The functions, transferred to the Department of Justice by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, of regulations contained in 27 CFR part 47 (Importation of Arms, Ammunition and Implements of War), part 55 (Commerce in Explosives), part 178 (Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition), and part 179 (Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms) as in effect on January 23, 2003, shall continue in effect with respect to the operations of the Bureau of Firearms, and Explosives according to their terms until amended, modified, superseded, terminated, set aside, or revoked in accordance with law. The ATF was created from various treasury bureaus in the Gun Control Act of 1968 with added authority over explosives. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) that was transferred from the Treasury to the Department of Justice in the Homeland Security Bill of 2003. The ATF must be dissolved. It is common sense that people consuming and addicted to alcohol and tobacco must not handle firearms and explosives. To safely and effectively abolish the ATF the Regulation of Firearms and Explosives would be done by a Bureau of Firearms and Explosives (BFE) in DoJ and/or U.S. Customs. In 2011 the Attorney General was indicted by Congress for potentially perjuring in regards to the negligence of his involvement in the ATF Fast Furious Program whereby the ATF helped known felons smuggle guns at the height of the Mexican drug war. It is common sense that people who operate firearms, heavy machinery and explosives are not under the influence of alcohol, tobacco or any drug. The ATF is frivolous and the name of the Department of Justice (DoJ) agency is recommended to be changed to Bureau of Explosives and Firearms (BEF). In 2014, 33,594 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States, accounting for 16.8% of all injury deaths in that year. The age-adjusted death rate from firearm injuries (all intents) did not change significantly in 2014 from 2013. The two major component causes of firearm injury deaths in 2014 were suicide (63.7%) and homicide (32.8%). The age-adjusted death rate for firearm homicide decreased 2.8%, from 3.6 in 2013 to 3.5 in 2014. The rate for firearm suicide did not change. Mass shooters die in 48 percent of the attacks, 38 percent by suicide and the rest by police bullet. The study also showed that for every person a mass shooter killed, the likelihood of their death rose by 1.2 times. For every weapon a shooter carried, the shooter was 1.73 times more likely to die.
1. The taxes on firearms and ammunition are 10% of sale price of pistols and revolvers and 11% of the sale price of other firearms and ammunition, explosives are untaxed. $2.8 million from $123 million in firearms and ammunition excise taxes are remitted to the Fish and Wildlife Restoration Fund under provisions of the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937. The Justice Department Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) needs to change its name to Bureau for Firearms and Explosives (FE). In 2015 it is estimated that $11 billion were made in guns and ammunition manufacturing. An average of 1,425,000 million rifles, 777,000 shotguns, 352,625 revolvers and 889,125 pistols were manufactured in the United States over the past 8 years. 35,165 people were employed by 465 weapons manufacturing companies. There are about 50,812 retail gun stores. About $123 million in federal tax dollars are collected on firearm sales. Gross sales of 31,625,161 hunting licenses, tags, permits and stamps are $525,753,481. There were 17 million background checks for gun purchases in 2013. 32% of US households own a gun. 645,000 Americans use a firearm for protection annually. 49% feel that laws limiting gun ownership infringe on the public's right to bear arms. Firearm market share in units, not dollars, is Remington Rifles 17.5%, Remington Shotguns 21.5%, Mossberg Shotguns 21.5%, Thompsom Center Mussleloaders 31.9%, Ruger Handguns 16.7%, 17.1% Bushnell Scopes, Remington Rifle Ammunition 25.3%, Winchester Shotgun Ammunition 31.9%, and Winchester Handgun Ammunition 22% according to data derived from State Fish & Game Departments, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and IRS statistics. The Number of National Firearms Act Firearms processed in a year by the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record by Fiscal Year (FY) from FY 2005 to FY 2014. The number of NFA firearms processed were: 147,484 NFA firearms in FY 2005; 296,127 NFA firearms in FY 2006; 563,127 NFA firearms in FY 2007; 981,303 NFA firearms in FY 2008; 834,328 NFA firearms in FY 2009; 828,462 NFA firearms in FY 2010; 992,975 NFA firearms in FY 2011; 1,112,041 NFA firearms in FY 2012; 1,152,163 NFA firearms in FY 2013; and 1,383,677 NFA firearms in FY 2014.
2. The explosives industry is currently made up of more than 10,440 federal explosives licensees and permittees working in two major areas, commercial explosives and fireworks. Black powder is a low explosive, and is the oldest type of explosive material known. While used for gun powder centuries earlier, it began to be used in mining and rock blasting for road construction in the 1600s. Two centuries later, the development of nitroglycerin and dynamite led to advancements such as the construction of road tunnels and the invention of the seismometer to detect ground vibrations by earthquakes. The 1900s saw a tremendous increase in the use of explosives in the United States. The United States consumed 287 million pounds of black powder in 1907. In 2013 the United States used 6.7 billion pounds of explosives. In 2000, U.S. explosives production was 2.57 million metric tons (Mt), a 21% increase from that of 1999; sales of explosives were reported in all States. Coal mining, with 67% of total consumption, continued to be the dominant use for explosives in the United States. Kentucky, Virginia, Wyoming, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, in descending order, were the largest consuming States, with a combined total of 51% of U.S. sales. In 2003, 5 billion pounds of explosives were consumed in the United States. (2004 data is pending.) The value of this indispensable industry to the economy is $1 billion per year. In 2005 a $120 million $0.02/pound tax on explosives was proposed but it was estimated to cause 12% inflation in the price of explosives. A $0.025 tax would represent roughly an 18 percent increase to the cost of this product. If the tax were restricted to detonator sensitive explosives, the cost of products like dynamite, that retail for about $1.00/pound, would simply increase 150 percent. There are 61 million detonators used annually containing less than 1 gram of explosives each. All tolled, these devices would generate about $550 in revenue, but the paperwork burden to assess this minuscule tax on a per detonator basis would be factors higher than the value of the tax. Explosives remain untaxed.
B. The Director of the Bureau of Firearms, and Explosives, under 28CFR§0.130 shall: (a) Investigate, administer, and enforce the laws related to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives, and arson, and perform other duties as assigned by the Attorney General, including exercising the functions and powers of the Attorney General under the following provisions of law: (1) 18 USC chapters 40 (related to explosives), 44 (related to firearms); (2) Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 USC chapter 53 (related to certain firearms and destructive devices); (3) Chapters 61 through 80, inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. chapters 61-80, insofar as they relate to activities administered and enforced with respect to chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. chapter 53; (4) 18USC§1956 and §1957, insofar as they involve violations of: (i) 18USC§844(f) or (i) (relating to explosives or arson), (ii) 18USC§922(l) (relating to the illegal importation of firearms), (iii) 18USC§924(n) (relating to illegal firearms trafficking), (iv) Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act, as added by Public Law 94-329, section 212(a)(1), as amended, 22USC§2778 (relating to the importation of items on the U.S. Munitions Import List), except violations relating to exportation, in transit, temporary import, or temporary export transactions; (v) 18USC§1961 insofar as the offense is an act or threat involving arson that is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; and (vi) Any offense relating to the primary jurisdiction of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that the United States would be obligated by a multilateral treaty either to extradite the alleged offender or to submit the case for prosecution if the offender were found within the territory of the United States; (b) (1) Investigate, seize, and forfeit property involved in a violation or attempted violation within the investigative jurisdiction set out in paragraph (a), under 18USC§981 and §982; (c) Subject to the limitations of 3USC§301, exercise the authorities of the Attorney General under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act, 22USC§2778, relating to the importation of defense articles and defense services, including those authorities set forth in 27 CFR part 47; and (d) Perform any other function related to the investigation of violent crime or domestic terrorism as may be delegated by the Attorney General under 28CFR§0.132.
1. The Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, under 28CFR§0.131, shall: (a) Operate laboratories in support of Bureau activities; provide, with or without cost, technical and scientific assistance, including expert testimony, to Federal, State, or local agencies; and make available the services of the laboratories to foreign law enforcement agencies and courts under procedures agreed upon by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General; (b) Operate the National Explosives Licensing Center to review applications for explosives licenses and permits; determine the eligibility of applicants; issue licenses and permits on approved explosives applications; coordinate with field offices the inspection of applicants, licensees, and permittees; and maintain an explosives license and permit database; (c) Operate the National Firearms Licensing Center to review applications for firearms licenses; determine the eligibility of applicants; issue licenses on approved firearms applications; coordinate with field offices the inspection of applicants and licensees; and maintain a firearms license database; (d) Maintain and operate the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR), pursuant to section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26USC§5841, as a registry of all National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms in the United States that are not in the possession or under the control of the United States; (e) Maintain and operate the Arson and Explosives National Repository, a national repository of information on incidents involving arson and the suspected criminal misuse of explosives, under 18USC§846(b); (f) Maintain and operate the National Tracing Center to process requests from Federal, State, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies for the tracing of crime guns; and collect and analyze trace data, out-of-business records, reports of firearms stolen or lost from the inventories of licensees or interstate shipments, and multiple sales reports contained in the Firearms Tracing System (FTS), under 18 USC chapter 44; (g) Establish, maintain and operate an Explosives Training and Research Facility to train Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to investigate bombings and explosions, properly handle, utilize, and dispose of explosives materials and devices, train canines as explosives detection canines, and conduct research on explosives, as authorized by section 1114 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002; (h) Pay awards for information or assistance and pay for the purchase of evidence or information as authorized by 28USC§524. (i) Subject to applicable statutory restrictions on the disclosure of records of information: (1) Release information obtained by the Bureau and Bureau investigative reports to Federal, State, and local officials engaged in the enforcement of laws related to arson, firearms, and explosives offenses; (2) Release information obtained by Bureau and Bureau investigative reports to Federal, State, and local prosecutors, and State licensing boards, engaged in the institution and prosecution of cases before courts and licensing boards related to arson, firearms and explosives offenses; (3) Authorize the testimony of Bureau officials in response to subpoenas or demands issued by the prosecution in Federal, State, or local criminal cases involving offenses under the jurisdiction of the Bureau. The Director or Chief Counsel of the Bureau of Firearms, and Explosives is authorized to exercise the power and authority vested in the Attorney General under 31USC§3724, with regard to claims arising out of the lawful activities of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives personnel, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 in any one case under 28CFR§0.133.
§51 Marshals Service
A. The U.S. Marshals Service is the nation’s oldest and most versatile federal law enforcement agency. Federal marshals have served the country since 1789, often in unseen but critical ways. The Marshals Service occupies a uniquely central position in the federal justice system. It is the enforcement arm of the federal courts, involved in virtually every federal law enforcement initiative. Presidentially appointed U.S. marshals direct the activities of 94 districts — one for each federal judicial district. Approximately 3,709 deputy U.S. marshals and criminal investigators form the backbone of the agency. The duties of the U.S. Marshals Service include protecting the federal judiciary, apprehending federal fugitives, managing and selling seized assets acquired by criminals through illegal activities, housing and transporting federal prisoners and operating the Witness Security Program. The Witness Security Program has successfully protected an estimated 18,750 participants since the program began in 1971. The agency ensures the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings at approximately 719 facilities in 94 federal court districts and provides protection for federal judges, other court officials, witnesses, jurors, the visiting public and prisoners. The agency oversees the daily operation and management of security services performed by approximately 5,200 court security officers within the 94 U.S. District Courts and 12 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Marshals provide assistance to state and local agencies in locating and apprehending their most violent fugitives. The Marshals arrest 242 fugitives every day on average. U.S. Marshals’ Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System transports prisoners between judicial districts and correctional institutions in the U.S., including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. JPATS is one of the largest transporters of prisoners in the world — handling 1,051 movements per day on average.
1. 94 U.S. Marshals, appointed by the President, one for each of the federal court district, employed a total of 5,238 people, 3,709 deputy U.S. marshals and criminal investigators, 1,435 administrative employees and detention enforcement officers, in 218 sub-offices, three foreign field offices FY 16. The FY 16 enacted budget was $3.05 billion rising at an unacceptably high rate of 4.9% to $3.36 billion FY 17 when salaries and expenses were $1.23 billion. Marshals protect 2,375 federal judges, 26,000 federal prosecutors, public defenders and other court employees. In 2016: Marshals responded to an estimated 2,357 threats and inappropriate communications. They arrested a total of 88,432 fugitives, 63,811 state and local fugitives, 25,273 federal fugitives, 11,727 sex offenders, 5,107 gang members, 4,217 homicide suspects, 1,720 international/foreign fugitives, 770 organized crime drug enforcement task forces program fugitives, 417 Adam Walsh violations (civil commitments for pedophiles) with zero of the 15 most wanted fugitive cases closed. These arrests cleared a total of 107,933 warrants, 79,930 state and local warrants and 28,003 federal warrants. The $526 million FY 17 spent on the Inter-Agency Crime and Drug Enforcement brought only 770 fugitives, 0.9% of fugitives arrested for 15.7% of budget authority. Marshals were responsible for 793 extraditions, deportations and expulsions. FY 17 USMS held $21.5 million in forfeited assets, distributing $183 million to victims of crime and claimants and $305 million shared with participating state and local law enforcement agencies. Total expenditure for federal prisoners in U.S. Marshal custody was $1.41 billion FY 16 rising 5.8% to $1.5 billion FY 17. Marshals escorted 835,522 prisoners to court appearances and other required events. The total average daily detention population was 51,400, 32,225 in state and local facilities with 1,800 agreements, 9,464 in private facilities managed by 15 contracts, 9,478 in Federal Bureau of Prison facilities and 233 non-paid (i.e medical facilities) at an average daily cost of $86.83. The agency pays Medicare rates for medical services provided to federal prisoners under 18USC§4006. Marshals received 195,656 prisoners FY 16. Marshals moved a total of 255,519 prisoners, 98,637 by air and 156,882 by ground, an average of 1,051 movements per day.
US Marshal Service, Budget FY 16 – FY 20
($1,000 dollars)
| |FY16 |FY17 |FY18 |FY 19 |FY |
|Salaries & Expenses |1,230,581 |1,228,242 |1,252,000 |1,283,300 |1,315,383 |
|Construction |15,000 |14,971 |14,971 |15,000 |15,375 |
|Federal Prisoner |1,454,414 |1,451,815 |1,536,000 |1,574,400 |1,613,760 |
|Detention | | | | | |
|Rescission of Prior |-195,974 |-24,000 |0 |0 |0 |
|Year Balances | | | | | |
|Community Relations |14,446 |14,419 |14,419 |0 |0 |
|Service | | | | | |
|Federal Outlays |2,518,467 |2,685,447 |2,817,390 |2,887,480 |2,944,518 |
|Assets Forfeiture |(20,514) |(20,475) |(21,475) |(22,012) |(22,562) |
|Fund Current Budget | | | | | |
|Authority | | | | | |
|Congressional Budget|2,538,981 |2,705,922 |2,838,865 |2,909,492 |2,944,518 |
|Authority | | | | | |
Source: Justice Department Summary of Budget Authority by Appropriation FY18
2. The largest spending category of the US Marshal Service is $1.6 billion for federal prison detention, 46% of total $3.5 billion congressional budget authority and $3.4 billion federal spending. Reports of involuntary antipsychotic drug consumption, being construed as competency to stand trial, indicate sentences are being reduced torture compensation rather, than by explaining that the not guilty by reason of insanity plea results in service of the maximum sentence for the crime for which they have been accused, that can only be reduced by trial. Proof that mandatory minimum sentences are crazy. The second leading spending category is salaries and expenses of $1.3 billion, 37% of total budget authority. Construction and Community Relations Service are each about $15 million, 4.3% of total. Community Relations Service was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wasn't codified, nor have they impressed the public with their civil rights. Asset forfeiture is the only outside source of revenue the USMS reports to add to congressional budget authority, but not total federal spending. Rescission is money left over at the end of the previous fiscal year that is used to pay for current year budget, reducing federal spending.
B. Marshals publish and remove prisoner identification and keep all case information confidential. Prisoner interview requests may be granted when there is no objection from the U.S. attorney or prosecutor of record, the presiding trial judge, the prisoner, the defense attorney, and the management of the detention facility where the prisoner is located. It is the responsibility of media representatives to obtain the aforementioned documentation in writing and provide them to the U.S. marshal, chief deputy U.S. Marshal, or the Office of Public Affairs. Upon receipt of the required documentation, the U.S. Marshals will consider the request. Any prisoner interview requests of terrorism‐related defendants must be approved, in advance, by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and DOJ National Security Division. The U.S. Marshals Service performs tactical operations for sensitive and classified missions involving homeland security, national emergencies, domestic crises and the intelligence community. The Special Operations Group is a specially trained and equipped tactical unit deployed in high-risk and sensitive law enforcement situations, national emergencies, civil disorders and natural disasters. SOG is comprised of volunteer deputy U.S. marshals who meet higher standards and complete rigorous training in specialties such as high-risk entry, explosive breaching, sniper/observer, rural operations, evasive driving, less-lethal weapons, waterborne operations and tactical medical support. Group members also act as the agency’s primary response force for any critical incident nationally and worldwide as ordered by the attorney general or the Marshals Service director. The Marshals also assist with security operations for the Strategic National Stockpile, the nation’s emergency medicine and medical supplies that protect the public if there is a public health emergency (e.g., terrorist attack, flu outbreak or earthquake) severe enough to cause local supplies to run out.
1. The Director of the United States Marshals Service (USMS) directs and supervises all activities of the U.S. Marshals Service under 28CFR§0.111 including: (a) Execution of Federal arrest warrants pursuant to rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the service of all civil and criminal process emanating from the Federal judicial system. (b) Re-employment at the same pay grade if laid off in good behavior pursuant to 28USC§569(b). (c) Provisions for the health, safety, and welfare of Government witnesses and their families, including the psychological well-being and social adjustment of such persons, pursuant to 18USC§3521. (d) Administration and implementation of courtroom security requirements for the Federal judiciary. (e) Protection of Federal jurists, court officers, witnesses, defendants and other threatened persons in the interests of justice whereas criminal intimidation impedes the functioning of the Federal judicial process. (f) Provision of assistance in the protection of Federal property and buildings. (g) Direction and supervision of a training school for United States Marshals Service personnel. (h) Disbursement of appropriated funds to satisfy Government obligations incurred in the administration of justice. (i) Maintenance of custody, management control, and disposal of property and money seized or forfeited pursuant to any law enforced or administered by the Department of Justice, when the property is seized by the U.S. Marshals Service or delivered to the U.S. Marshals Service in accordance with regulations; and administer the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Fund. (k) Receipt, processing and transportation of prisoners held in the custody of a marshal or transported by the U.S. Marshals Service under cooperative or intergovernmental agreements. (l) Sustention of custody of Federal prisoners from the time of their arrest by a marshal or their remand to a marshal by the court, until the prisoner is committed by order of the court to the custody of the Attorney General for the service of sentence, otherwise released from custody by the court, or returned to the custody of the U.S. Parole Commission or the Bureau of Prisons. (m) Coordination and direction of the relationship of the offices of U.S. Marshals with the other organizational units of the Department of Justice. (n) Approval of staffing requirements of the offices of U.S. Marshals. (o) Investigation of alleged improper conduct on the part of U.S. Marshals Service personnel. (p) Acquisition of adequate and suitable detention space, health care and other services and materials required to support prisoners under the custody of the U.S. Marshal who are not housed in Federal facilities. (q) Approval of ``other necessary expenditures in the line of duty'' of U.S. Marshals and Deputy U.S. Marshals under 28USC§567(3). (r) Exercising the delegate authority vested in the Attorney General under 28USC§510 to conduct and investigate fugitive matters, domestic and foreign, involving escaped federal prisoners, probation, parole, mandatory release, and bond default violators.
C. The Extradition of Fugitives Clause in the Constitution requires States, upon demand of another State, to deliver a fugitive from justice who has committed a "treason, felony or other crime" to the State from which the fugitive has fled. 18USC§3182 sets the process by which an executive of a state, district or territory of the United States must arrest and turn over a fugitive from another state, district, or territory. In order for a person to be extradited interstate, 18USC§3182 requires: An executive authority demand of the jurisdiction to which a person that is a fugitive from justice has fled. The requesting executive must produce a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, and such document must charge the fugitive demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime. Such document must be certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory whence the person so charged has fled. The executive receiving the request must then cause the fugitive to be arrested and secured, and notify the requesting executive authority or agent to receive the fugitive. An agent of the executive of the State demanding extradition must appear to receive the prisoner, which must occur within thirty days from time of arrest or the prisoner may be released. (Some states allow longer waiting periods of up to 90 days before release). Cases of kidnapping by a parent to another state would see automatic involvement by the US Marshal Service.
1. In Kentucky v. Dennison (1860), the Supreme Court held that, although the governor of the asylum state had a constitutional duty to return a fugitive to the demanding state, the federal courts had no authority to enforce this duty. As a result, for more than 100 years, the governor of one state was deemed to have discretion on whether or not he/she would comply with another state's request for extradition. In Puerto Rico v. Branstad, (1987) the Court overruled Dennison, and held that the governor of the asylum state has no discretion in performing his or her duty to extradite, whether that duty arises under the Extradition Clause of the Constitution or under the Extradition Act under 18USC§3182, and that a federal court may enforce the governor's duty to return the fugitive to the demanding state. There are only four grounds upon which the Governor of the asylum state may deny another state’s request for extradition: (1) the extradition documents facially are not in order; (2) the person has not been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (3) the person is not the person named in the extradition documents; or (4) the person is not a fugitive. Furthermore, if the fugitive is under sentence in the asylum state, he need not be extradited until his punishment in the asylum state is completed. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State under the 11th Amendment to the US Constitution. Defendants, who do not want to be extradited to a trial by the demanding state, are entitled to a lawyer and trial in the state they reside, to prove the extradition documents are not facially in order.
§52 Postal Service
A. The United States Postal Service, also known as the Post Office, U.S. Mail, or Postal Service, often abbreviated as USPS, is an independent agency of the United States federal government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. Benjamin Franklin was appointed our first Postmaster General in 1775. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, Public Law 91–375, converted the Post Office Department into the U.S. Postal Service (Postal Service), an independent establishment within the executive branch. The Postal Service commenced operations July 1, 1971. This agency is charged with providing patrons with reliable mail service at reasonable rates and fees. The Postal Regulatory Commission is an independent agency that has exercised regulatory oversight over the U.S. Postal Service since its creation by the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. The Postal Service is governed by an 11-member Board of Governors, including nine Governors appointed by the President, a Postmaster General who is selected by the Governors, and a Deputy Postmaster General who is selected by the Governors and the Postmaster General. The USPS is the third largest employer in the nation after the federal government and Walmart. The USPS is the operator of the largest civilian vehicle fleet in the world. On a typical day, more than 600,000 men and women of the United States Postal Service ensure that hundreds of millions of pieces of mail are delivered to 156 million delivery points, including more than 43 million rural businesses and residences across the country. The Postal Service prides itself in being the largest law enforcement agency in the nation.
1. The USPS employed 617,254 workers (as of February 2015) and operated 211,264 vehicles in 2014. FY2016 had total revenue of $71.5 billion and total expenses of $77.1 billion, resulting in a net loss of $5.6 billion, nearly exactly equal to the legal mandate in the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (PSRHBF) pre-funding expense. USPS had a good year FY 16. The 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (P.L. 109–435) that must be repealed by final decision, reduced the Postal Services' $601 million to $2.7 billion FY 16 surplus, with which to pay $55 billion in debt, to a “controlling income”. The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s. Since the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–435) began robbing the postal service $5.5 billion annually for retiree health insurance contributions USPS has cut its expenses by $15 billion annually, but first-class mail volume has continued to drop and debt, termed net deficiency, has risen to $55.9 billion FY 16 and increases at around $5.5 billion annually. After the first Annual Report the USPS must train its canons on being refunded the entire amount deposited in the Retiree Health Benefit Fund.
Postal Service Budget Request FY17 - FY18
(millions)
| |FY 16 |FY 17 |FY 18 |
|Personnel Compensation |36,585 |37,013 |37,487 |
|Personnel benefits |13,775 |19,940 |16,282 |
|Benefits for former personnel |3,345 |2,249 |2,030 |
|Travel and transportation of |124 |134 |135 |
|persons | | | |
|Transportation of things |7,590 |7,766 |8,148 |
|Rental payments to GSA |31 |32 |33 |
|Rental payments to others |1,013 |1,041 |1,069 |
|Communications, utilities and |714 |805 |825 |
|misc. | | | |
|Printing and reproduction |69 |63 |62 |
|Other services from non-Federal|2,787 |2,995 |3,035 |
|sources | | | |
|Supplies and materials |1,592 |1,367 |1,385 |
|Equipment |925 |1,415 |1,097 |
|Land and structures |504 |519 |527 |
|Insurance claims and |151 |156 |160 |
|indemnities | | | |
|Interest and dividends |222 |181 |219 |
|Total Operating Expenses |69,427 |75,676 |72,494 |
|Total Revenue |71,498 |70,708 |71,599 |
|Surplus (controlled income) or |2,071 |-4,968 | |
|Deficit | | | |
|Retiree Health |5,800 |5,700 |5,600 |
|Adjusted total Operating |75,227 |81,376 |78,094 |
|Expenses | | | |
|Operating Expenses Reported |76,899 |77,152 |-3,035 |
|Total Revenue |71,498 |70,708 |71,599 |
|Interest on debt |-190 |-195 |-200 |
|Surplus or Deficit |-5,591 |-6,639 |-1,636 |
|Net Debt |55,982 |62,621 |64,257 |
Source. New York Times Nov. 6, 2013, 2012 + 2.5% annual growth; USPS FY 2016 Annual report to Congress: Brennan, Megan J. Postmaster General; Bilbray, James H. President of the Board of Governors. FY2016 Annual Performance Report and FY2017 Performance Plan FY2016; OMB Independent Agencies FY 16-18 est. Pgs. 1206-1208
2. On November 6, 2013 the New York Times reported; Last year, the Postal Service’s operating revenue was $65 billion, but its operating expenses were $81 billion = $16 billion deficit in 2012. A net loss of $41 billion is reported between 2007-12. The post office has seen revenue for first-class mail — the agency’s cash cow — decline by $2.4 billion. It has defaulted on three annual $5.5 billion payments into a health care fund for its future retirees. It has also exhausted its $15 billion borrowing limit from the Treasury Department. It has defaulted on three annual $5.5 billion payments into a health care fund for its future retirees. It has also exhausted its $15 billion borrowing limit from the Treasury Department. On November 15, 2013 the L.A. Time wrote; The USPS reported a $5 billion loss FY2013. It's the seventh-straight yearly net loss. Since 2006, the agency has cut its expenses by $15 billion annually, but first-class mail volume has continued to drop. While package and standard mail volumes increased, the agency's most profitable product, first-class mail, declined by 2.8 billion pieces. The USPS FY 2016 Annual report to Congress: FY2016 Annual Performance Report and FY2017 Performance Plan FY2016 Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations declares an incurable $5.5 billion deficit. This report satisfies the public reporting requirements contained under 39USC§2401(e), § 2402, §2803 and §2804, along with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006 Section 3652. In 2017 OMB Independent Agencies FY 18 Pgs. 1206-1208 cooked the books in a misguided, but fairly accurate, attempt to extort on-budget revenues, the Postal Service will have an annual operating deficit of $4.7 billion in 2018 and more than $5 billion in each subsequent year through 2027. For their part, the Postal Service states they had a remarkable 2016, delivering over 154 billion pieces of mail, growing revenue to $71.5 billion in FY16—a 3.7% revenue increase, these results helped achieve controllable income of $610 million, excluding the impact of a $5.8 billion mandated Retiree Health Benefits prepayment, the Postal Service would have recorded net income for the year. USPS must continue to produce an annual fiscal year report to congress, every year. The USPS Annual Report must make future estimates, so the USPS is not abused by OMB's fraudulent relationship with OPM outlays and the waste caused by the disastrous Retiree Health Benefit program is redressed.
3. Since 1971, there have been several Postal reforms. Notably, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (P.L. 101–239) moved the Postal Service "off-budget" so that, beginning in 1990, the receipts and disbursements of the Fund are not considered within the on-budget net spending totals, although they ostensibly included within the unified spending and deficit totals, but are not and should not be. More recently, the OPM owes the Postal Service and employees compensation for the disastrous 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (P.L. 109–435) that created the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund to put the Postal Service on a path that fully funds its substantial retiree (annuitant) health benefits liabilities. Since the Act's passage in 2006, the Postal Service contributed over $50 billion to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund but has defaulted on $34 billion in total required payments since FY 2012. Beginning in 2017, the Act also requires the Postal Service to begin a 27-year amortization to retire its unfunded liability under CSRS by paying for “actuarial costs of the unfunded liability for post-retirement health costs of current employees” = zero benefits. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) must reimburse the Postal Service Retiree Health Fund to pay off the >$55.9 USPS debt FY 17. The postal service has defaulted on this $5.5 billion obligation since 2007. The federal government has paid $0 in benefits from the Postal Service Retiree Health Fund which has a balance of $61.3 billion and zero outlays. OPM must disgorge this overpayment to payoff the USPS debt under 26USC§6401.
B. The United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) is the law enforcement arm of the United States Postal Service. Its jurisdiction is defined as "crimes that may adversely affect or fraudulently use the U.S. Mail, the postal system or postal employees." The mission of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service is to support and protect the U.S. Postal Service, its employees, infrastructure, and customers by enforcing the laws that defend the nation's mail system from illegal or dangerous use. There are approximately 1,200 Postal Inspectors stationed throughout the United States and abroad who enforce more than 200 federal laws covering investigations of crimes that adversely affect or fraudulently use the U.S. Mail and postal system. In fiscal year 2014, USPIS had 2,376 field employees, a decline of 44.7% from fiscal year 1995. (This figure excludes headquarters staff.) In 2008, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service had 2,288 full-time personnel with the authority to make arrests and carry firearms on duty. This represented a 23.1% drop over the previous five years. As fact-finding and investigative agents, Postal Inspectors are sworn federal law enforcement officers who carry firearms, make arrests and serve federal search warrants and subpoenas. Inspectors work closely with U.S. Attorneys, other law enforcement agencies, and local prosecutors to investigate postal cases and prepare them for court. The USPIS has responsibility to safeguard over 600,000 Postal Service employees and billions of pieces of mail transported worldwide yearly by air, land, rail, and sea.
1. USPIS was at one time the only investigative agency of the Postal Service; however, with the creation of the USPS Office of Inspector General in 1996, they assumed many duties previously carried out by the USPIS. The OIG primarily took over the Postal Inspection Service's audit function, as well as fraud (against the USPS) waste and abuse. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, the USPIS has also investigated several cases where ricin, anthrax, and other toxic substances were sent through the mail. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service first established a crime lab in 1940. In 2012, the entire U.S. Postal Inspection Service laboratory system had 65 employees (58 scientific staff and seven administrative staff), mostly based in the main Dulles lab. In the year 2000, the service had about 1,400 uniformed postal police officers. As of 2018 there are approximately 500 postal police officers nationwide. Inspectors ensure the safety of the mail with state-of-the-art equipment to identify hazardous substances and suspicious items. Inspectors responded to more than 2,500 incidents involving suspicious items, substances, powders, or liquids in the mail or at postal facilities. No injuries or fatalities resulted. 99% of suspicious mail reports are false alarms or hoaxes. Fewer than ten mail-pieces have tested positive for a biological or chemical agent in Postal Service history. The National Training Academy is recognized by Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation (FLETA) is a premier law enforcement educational facility. The academy offers a 12-week course of basic training for candidate Postal Inspectors and an eight- week course for incoming Postal Police Officers. Postal Inspector candidates receive instruction on investigative techniques, defensive tactics, firearms, search and seizure, arrest and court procedures, postal operations, and the federal laws enforced by the Postal Inspection Service. The academy also offers an in-service training program to develop and improve employee skill sets. In 2014, 47 Postal Inspectors graduated from the academy, along with 15 new Postal Police Officers.
Postal Service Investigative Statistics FY 2014
|Type of Investigation |Cases Initiated |Arrests |Convictions |
|Assaults and Threats (including|530 |206 |145 |
|those against on-duty postal | | | |
|employees) | | | |
|Burglary |130 |85 |65 |
|Child Exploitation, Mailing of |117 |89 |87 |
|Obscene Matter, and Sexually | | | |
|Oriented Advertisements | | | |
|Mail Fraud |565 |648 |662 |
|Mail Theft by Non-Employees and|1,525 |2,335 |2,195 |
|Contractors | | | |
|Mailing of Controlled |2,541 |2,223 |1,821 |
|Substances and paraphernalia | | | |
|Money Laundering |80 |82 |48 |
|Non-mailable, Restricted and |93 |91 |84 |
|Perishable Matter (includes | | | |
|firearms, weapons, intoxicants,| | | |
|extortion threats, misc) | | | |
|Revenue Fraud |141 |69 |49 |
|Robbery |106 |88 |73 |
|Security & Crime Prevention |1,232 |N/a |N/a |
|Suspicious Substances & Items |223 |53 |51 |
|(includes non-threatening | | | |
|items, bombs, threats, | | | |
|explosives or hazardous | | | |
|material, and hoax CBRNE | | | |
|Total |7,424 |6,038 |5,329 |
Source: Cottrell, Guy J. Chief Postal Inspector. United States Postal inspection Service Annual Report. FY 2014
C. In 2014, Postal Inspectors reported 6,000 arrests and 5,300 convictions related to criminal, security, and prevention investigations of postal crime. Postal Inspectors vigorously pursue mail fraud in all its forms from Ponzi schemes to newer scams that use the Internet, telephone, and the U.S. Mail. The Mail Fraud Statute, enacted in 1872, is the nation’s oldest consumer protection law. It is the government’s most effective defense against criminals who conduct fraudulent schemes involving the U.S. Mail. The tax fraud initiative, which prevented an estimated $150 million worth of fake returns from reaching the hands of criminals seeking to steal taxpayer money and identities. Inspectors also seized mail-pieces containing more than 42,000 pounds of illegal narcotics and $23 million in drug-trafficking proceeds. Investigations of the use of the mail to sexually exploit children resulted in 151 arrests and indictments, and the identification of 2,359 child victims. The Postal Service cooperates with the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), a multi-agency partnership of local, state, and federal law enforcement to share information and intelligence to identify, disrupt, and dismantle drug-trafficking and money- laundering rings. In 2014, the Postal Service initiated 1,525 cases involving drug trafficking and made 2,335 arrests. From these cases, 2,195 criminals were convicted of the charges brought against them. With the work of Inspectors from five divisions, we seized illegal assets valued at approximately $5.4 million, as well as more than 10,000 pounds of marijuana and 93 pounds of cocaine. In 2014, there were 530 cases of assaults and threats against employees. 206 people were arrested involved in these cases.
Article 3 Corruption
§53 Force Reduction
A. Corruption can be defined. (a) A person commits the alleged crime of bribing a witness, that might actually justify a civil trial or administrative proceeding, if the person offers, confers or agrees to confer any pecuniary benefit upon a witness in any official proceeding, with the intent that the testimony of the person as a witness will thereby be influenced under 18USC§201. (b) The person will avoid legal process summoning the person to testify and the person will be absent from any official proceeding to which the person has been legally summoned under 18USC§1512 and §1513. Civil or administrative trial of corruption must overrule the initial criminal request, to chiefly determine whether the innocent bribe of person (a) or criminal conspiracy of person (b) cause(d), or is likely to cause, murder to occur, biased against the first degree murder risk posed by poison, armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, surveillance, arson, torture and lying in wait, under 18USC§1111. Sanctions against civilian government constitute a grave breech of the Geneva Conventions under Art. 54 and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Times of War (1949).
2. Customarily when a significant number of employees are selected for release in a force reduction employees must be given 60 written notice regarding their eligibility for re-employment under 5CFR§351.803. They are due 40% to 80% of their current wages under 5USC§8339(f, g). An employee who completes 5 years of civilian service and has become disabled shall be retired on the employee’s own application or on application by the employee’s agency. Any employee shall be considered to be disabled only if the employee is found by the Office of Personnel Management to be unable, because of disease or injury, to render useful and efficient service in the employee’s position and is not qualified for reassignment and is therefore due disability retirement under 5USC§8337(a). A career appointee may be removed from the Senior Executive Service under 5USC§3592(a)(2). Unacceptable performance means performance of an employee which fails to meet established performance standards in one or more critical elements of such employee’s position under 5USC§4301(3). Error rates much greater than 30 percent frequency are due 'permanent disability' under 5USC§3504(b). Errors and offenses by law enforcement, that are particularly terrorist, that dangerously affect the conduct of government, by extortion, kidnapping and/or killing, are prioritized under 18USC§2331, §1512 and §1513 for 'permanent disability' under 5USC§3504(b) and support to fulfill the requirement that all law enforcement officers possess at least a Bachelor degree level of education under 34USC§12577.
B. Crime Control and Law Enforcement was transferred to Title 34 of the United States Code 34USC§10101 et seq. from Title 42 by P.L. 115–76 on November 02, 2017. Police Officers are supervised by a geographic law enforcement agency that defines the jurisdiction of the police officers. There are an estimated 1.5 million law enforcement officers employed in the United States. The Bureau of Justices Statistics reported that in 2000 the federal department of justice employed 88,496 full-time law enforcement officers authorized to make arrests and carry fire arms. 17,784 state and local law enforcement agencies employed 708,022 full time officers. 12,666 local police agencies employed 440,920 full time officers. 3,070 county sheriffs employed 164,711 deputies. 49 primary state agencies employed 56,348 officers. 1,376 special jurisdictions employed 43,413 officers. 623 Texas constable offices employed 2,630 law enforcement officers. In 2016 the Department of Homeland Security employed 37,211 law enforcement officers authorized to make arrests and carry fire arms. US Customs and Border Protection 16,388. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement 7,942. US Coast Guard 10,673. US Secret Service 2,208. Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics only estimates that there are 880,000 police officers and detectives, 1.5 million is a good estimate of the number of full-time civilian law enforcement officers employed in the United States, plus another 470,000 corrections officers, for a grand total of 2 million employees authorized to make arrests and carry a firearm in the United States.
1. Several state studies have shown that no one with a Bachelor degree was a recidivist under 34USC§60501. Recidivism, defined as re-incarceration within 3 years of release from prison, occurs in 66% of state offenders, 50% in those who earned vocational certificates, 35% in those with an Associates degree and 0% in those who earned a post-conviction Bachelor degree. Several state studies have shown that people who earn a post-conviction Bachelor degree are 100% free of recidivism. Crime is defined as an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government; especially: a gross violation of law, a grave offense especially against morality, or criminal activity, such as efforts to fight crime. Authorization to make arrests and carry a firearm conferred by 4-20 week long police and corrections academies burden the Court. It seems best to believe that 50% of arrests are false, no matter what level of educational attainment the prosecutor. It is however theoretically possible to eliminate all tortious criminal misconduct even under the most awful of lawful commands, and always be able obey orders for non-repetition of any newly discovered genuinely criminally offensive act, in the first instance, by requiring a Bachelor degree. Due to the serious threat of recidivism, tortious police misconduct by undereducated law enforcement officers must result in their immediate termination of employment by the police chief. Undereducated police officers must be swiftly terminated for misconduct and given disability insurance until they have achieved a Bachelor degree and are gainfully employed, without rush. As state employees, state highway patrol, local police and sheriff departments must pay the 12.4% Old Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance (OASDI) payroll tax to get better than $200 a month disability, probably more than $1,000 a month disability, and be eternally safe from random $666 a month retirement decisions and insufficient funds. Due process of the obsolescence of the 6% state employee retirement programs is needed under Title I of the Social Security Act.
2. As of 2016, there are 1,315,561 Licensed Lawyers in the United States of America. 35 years ago the population of attorneys in the United States had surpassed 450,000, and law schools were graduating 34,000 each year. By 2011, the annual production of law degrees was up to 44,000, and at 1.22 million, the number of lawyers in the country had nearly tripled. In 2011, the number of students entering law school dropped by 7%, an unprecedented fall. In 2012, the drop accelerated: Enrollment of first-year law students sank another 8.6%. It plunged still further in 2013. According to the American Bar Association, 39,675 new law students matriculated in fall of 2013 — an 11% decrease from 2012. To dispel rumors regarding 60% unemployment on graduation from law school, it is recommended that law schools include 4-20 week police and correctional programs, in their three year curriculum. Having saturated the courts with standing juries of public defenders, academy trained lawyers should be preferentially employed as police and corrections officers.
3. Among the special procedures of the Human Rights Council, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions holds unlawful killings by the police may occur in situations where the police are not pursuing law enforcement objectives, such as attempts at extortion that may escalate into extra- judicial killings; engaging in “social cleansing” operations and intentionally killing criminals or members of marginalized groups; or in even more extreme situations, where police are operating as a militia or death squad. With 515 justified homicides from legal intervention in 2016, the homicide rate of 1.5 million police officers is 38.6 per 100,000, seven times more than normal 5.3 per 100,000, or 8 per 100,000 for ex-convicts without gun rights, and more than twice the 15 per 100,000 risk of a law enforcement officer being killed in the course of duty, law enforcement is too dangerous and fundamentally criminal to continue to fail to require that all law enforcement and corrections officers have attained at least the Bachelor degree it takes to competently receive instruction from the Court. To participate in the study, prisons would correlate the success of their Bachelor degree programs with the elimination of recidivism. To theoretically eliminate the possibility of recidivism and increase Good Time credit, online Bachelor degree programs funded by student loans must be offered to all defendants, especially those sentenced to a lengthy period of incarceration in prison. Student loan collections must not bother the protected people, who will pay as their tax lawyer directs them.
C. The Justice Department budget can be reduced by $13 billion annually by abolishing the FBI, DEA and Interagency Drug and Crime Enforcement for tampering under 18USC§1512, OJP state and local law enforcement assistance and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) for retaliation under 18USC§1513. All the Justice Department needs to do is destroy the DEA drug stockpile, pay for Quantico Federal Police Academy with tuition and federal student loans, Forensic Laboratory with fees and Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) with the $488 million in off-budget revenues. Furthermore, the President must permanently decommission the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) under Art. 2 Sec. 3 of the US Constitution. The Federal Judiciary must abolish the US Sentencing Commission pursuant to Blakely v. Washington (2004). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) needs an injunction to abolish the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) for tobacco product adulteration under Sec. 302 of the FD&CA 21USC§332 and the Nuremberg Code. The State Department must reduce or terminate international narcotic control and law enforcement, foreign military education and foreign military finance. Reductions in force may be expressed as undistributed offsetting receipts by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and rescission by agency budget offices.
1. An estimated 46,055 of 114,408, 40.3% of the DOJ workforce must be laid-off leaving DOJ with an estimated 71,945 employees, about 50,000 of whom are authorized to make arrests and carry firearms in FY 2019. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employs 35,000 people, including special agents and support professionals such as intelligence analysts, language specialists, scientists, and information technology specialists. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) employs 11,055 people, including special agents and support staff. The Department of Justice employs 88,496 full-time law enforcement officers, including therefore these reductions might reduce DOJ forces to as little as 5,238 US Marshall headquartered near 94 federal courthouses. The FBI has 56 field offices located in major cities throughout the U.S., more than 350 satellite offices called resident agencies in cities and towns across the nation, and more than 60 international offices called legal attachés in U.S. embassies worldwide. The DEA has 221 Domestic Offices in 21 Divisions throughout the U.S., and 90 Foreign Offices in 69 countries. Laid off officers would receive between 40% to 80% of their current wage from permanent disability under 5USC§8339(f, g). The Attorney General must agree to joint custody with the Federal Court of 5,238 US Marshall's authorized to make arrests and carry firearms with the intention to reduce 36,000 FBI agents to staff Uniform Crime Report (UCR), Quantico Police Academy and Forensic Laboratory for the Justice Department and lay-off 11,000 DEA agents, without further notice.
Federal Prohibition of Terrorism Finance FY 16 – FY 19
(thousands)
| |FY 16 |FY 17 |FY 18 |FY 19 |
|Justice Department, |13,132,501 |13,296,281 |13,180,515 |12,964,337 |
|Forfeiture Total | | | | |
|Other Agency, Forfeiture |7,724,822 |8,321,527 |8,319,832 |7,935,062 |
|Total | | | | |
|Total Federal Forfeiture|20,857,323 |23,607,808 |21,499,847 |20,899,399 |
| | | | | |
|Interagency Crime and |512,000 |517,000 |513,489 |521,563 |
|Drug Enforcement | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Federal Bureau of |8,718,001 |8,995,779 |8,933,388 |8,775,915 |
|Investigation total | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Salaries & Expenses |8,489,786 |8,767,201 |8,707,663 |8,872,020 |
|Rescission of prior year |-80,767 |-140,000 |-191,600 |-148,000 |
|balance Direct and CJIS | | | | |
|Balances | | | | |
|Construction |308,982 |420,178 |417,325 |51,895 |
|Transfer from WCF |0 |[181,000] |0 |0 |
|Transfer to FBI | |-181,000 |-181,000 |0 |
|Construction | | | | |
| | | | | |
|DEA Total Appropriations |2,080,000 |2,090,884 |2,086,617 |2,187,459 |
|Salaries & Expenses |2,080,000 |2,102,976 |2,086,617 |2,187,459 |
|Rescission of Prior year |0 |-12,092 |0 |0 |
|Balances DEA | | | | |
|DEA Total Congressional |2,451,515 |2,473,546 |2,506,191 |2,608,162 |
|Budget Authority, w/o | | | | |
|forfeiture | | | | |
|DEA Office of Diversion |[8,900] |[9,123] |[9,351] |[9,584] |
|Control Appropriations | | | | |
|DEA Office of Diversion |[389,415] |[391,785] |[428,925 |[430,287] |
|Control Total | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Office of Justice |1,770,960 |1,582,800 |1,598,371 |1,405,300 |
|Programs Total | | | | |
|State and Local Law |1,408,500 |1,280,500 |1,263,618 |1,132,500 |
|Enforcement Assistance | | | | |
|Community Policing |202,000 |190,618 |208,000 |123,450 |
|(Includes OJP programs) | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Community Policing |212,000 |221,500 |175,403 |223,450 |
|COPS Salaries and |[37,374] |[37,374] |[37,120] |0 |
|Expenses | | | | |
|Rescission of prior year |-10,000 |-15,000 |-15,000 |0 |
|balance | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Other Agency Forfeiture, |7,724,822 |8,321,527 |8,319,832 |7,935,062 |
|Total | | | | |
| | | | | |
|U.S. Sentencing |17,570 |17,570 |17,570 |17,570 |
|Commission | | | | |
|White House Office of |379,135 |379,135 |368,587 |350,000 |
|National Drug Control | | | | |
|Policy | | | | |
|Food and Drug |564,117 |578,822 |592,675 |607,492 |
|Administration Center for| | | | |
|Tobacco Policy | | | | |
|State Department |1,292,000 |1,212,000 |1,212,000 |1,138,000 |
|International Narcotics | | | | |
|Control and Law | | | | |
|Enforcement (INCLB) | | | | |
|State Department |106,000 |108,000 |108,000 |108,000 |
|International Military | | | | |
|Education and Training | | | | |
|(IMET) | | | | |
|State Department Foreign |5,366,000 |6,026,000 |6,021,000 |5,714,000 |
|Military Financing | | | | |
Source: State Department FY 18, DOJ FY 19, Judiciary FY 17, FDA FY 17
1. Office of Justice Programs (OJP) federal finance for state and local enforcement and community policing gravely interferes with the independence of the judiciary, the extra-judicial killing finance needs to be abolished. Total OJP spending has gone down 30% from $1.8 billion FY 17 to $1.3 billion FY 18 with marginal cuts in all categories but salaries and expenses and a $500 million reduction in prohibited state and local law enforcement funding from $1.4 billion FY 17 to $940 million FY 18. Funding for state and local law enforcement needs to be totally abolished, while salaries and expenses, and statistical and juvenile justice programs could grow at 2.5%. Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) spending should be reduced from $218 million to $38 million for salaries and expenses FY 18. The $522 million FY 2017 for the Interagency Crime & Drug Enforcement and their international and local clones needs to be abolished, leaving $2.8 billion FY 2019 for more than 5,238 US Marshals. The $9.2 billion (FY 2017) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) needs to be abolished and transfer $141 million in Health Care Fraud reimbursements, Quantico Federal Police Academy, Forensic Laboratory and Uniform Crime Report (UCR) to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. The Federal Judiciary must also abolish the US Sentencing Commission ($17.5 million FY 2017) pursuant to Blakely v. Washington (2004). The President must permanently decommission the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) ($375 million FY 2017) under Art. 2 Sec. 3 of the US Constitution. The Department of Health and Human Services must abolish the Center for Tobacco Policy (CTP) and National Institute of Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) under the Nuremberg Code for tobacco product adulteration and murder respectively. The Department of Homeland Security must abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for perpetuating the unlawful methods of collective deportation employed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) under Art. 22 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families (1990). The State Department must terminate $6 billion international military assistance, international military education and international narcotic control and law enforcement grants under 18US§2339C. Without probable cause, at this time, no other federal lay-offs are warranted, except maybe the secretive National Security Administration (NSA) and Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.
§54 Federal Bureau of Investigation
A. In 2012 the FBI made 25,186 arrests, 14,807 indictments, 2,678 informations obtained, 15,274 convictions, 1,147 missing children located, $1.125 billion seizures of assets and drugs and $8.205 billion asset forfeiture orders. Its global presence is manifested by 56 field offices, 381 resident agencies and 78 legal attaches and sub-offices internationally. The FBI has trained a total of 60,400. In 2012 the FBI employed 36,074 employees. Subsequently. The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall report to the Attorney General on all its activities, as a matter of criminal justice policy coordination under 28CFR§0.85a. Each certificate for expense or unforeseen emergency made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall be approved by the Attorney General under 28CFR§0.88. To stop the bribery of witnesses under 18USC§201 the payment of awards (including those over $10,000) under 28USC§524(c)(2), and purchase of evidence (including the authority to pay more than $100,000) under 28USC§524(c)(1)(F) under 28CFR§0.85(k) by the FBI and DEA must be limited by Attorney General approval. Under 28CFR§0.89a the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to exercise the power and authority vested in the Attorney General under 31USC§3724, with regard to claims for damages by investigative officers of the Justice Department, not exceeding $50,000 in any one case under 28CFR§0.172. The primary finding is that if the J. Edgar Hoover Esq.'s political infringing FBI is to survive the abolition of the DEA first, the FBI must immediately repeal joint DEA drug prohibition duties from 28CFR§0.85(a) to reduce tampering under 18USC§1512 and adulteration of Sec. 301 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act under 21USC§331.
1. There are a number of police tactics used by the FBI that constitute unacceptable performance under 5USC§4301(3) that are evident in more than 30% of public FBI cases under 5USC§3504(b). By 1970, the FBI had gained some important new tools to go after mobsters—including court-authorized wiretaps, jurisdiction over mob-infiltrated businesses, and the ability to target entire crime families and their leaders instead of just bit players and isolated wise guys. In 1976, Attorney General Edward Levi and the FBI came up with a series of guidelines on how the FBI should conduct domestic security operations. The key change: to only investigate radicals breaking the law or clearly engaging in violent activity. The reforms had an immediate and far-reaching impact: the number of FBI domestic security cases fell from over 21,000 in 1973 to just 626 by September 1976. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks under Art. 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a consequence of this organized criminal investigative practice, without probable cause of any genuine crime, but that intrinsic to the police force, arbitrary interference with family, political organizations and civil law, continues to be a leading cause of arbitrary arrest, detention and exile prohibited by Art. 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, enslavement of free association and peaceable assemblies, and compulsory association with the multi-personality disorder of the organized crime intrinsic to police investigation by criminal justice system under Art. 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Organization means a person other than an individual under 18USC§18.
2. 28CFR§0.86 authorizes the agency to exercise the power and authority vested in the Attorney General to confiscate wire or oral communication intercepting devices under 18USC§2513. When prosecutors come into possession of evidence against suspects that they know or believe on reasonable grounds was obtained through recourse to unlawful methods, which constitute a grave violation of the suspect's human rights, especially involving false arrest, false imprisonment, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or other abuses of human rights, they shall refuse to use such evidence against anyone other than those who used such methods – 36,000 FBI and 50,000 NSA agents. Detainees and people whose lives were ruined by unjustified FBI wire fraud conviction under 18USC§1343 without clear and convincing evidence of probable cause that any criminal acts, but miscarriage of justice, had occurred, whereby the Attorney General must seize the unlawful investigators' wire or oral communication intercepting devices under 18USC§2513 and the wrongfully convicted are due compensation for “miscarriage of justice” by the Attorney General under 31USC§3724, with regard to claims for damages by investigative officers of the Justice Department, not exceeding $50,000 in any one case under 28CFR§0.172 pursuant to Art. 14 of the Convention against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Punishment or Treatment, Art. 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
B. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to exercise the authority conferred upon the Attorney General relating to the seizure of arms and munitions of war, and other articles, under 22USC§401 and 28USC§0.89. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall be a member of the committee which represents the Department of Justice in the development and implementation of plans for exchanging visits between the Iron Curtain countries and the United States and shall have authority to designate an alternate to serve on such committee under 28CFR§0.87. Cold War recidivism in the regulation and malicious prosecution of Russian owned Internet Research, regarding the 2016 Presidential elections, constitutes accessory after the fact in regards to concealing the FBI's own interference by armed forces 18USC§3, §593 justifying the wire fraud tampering against the Clinton for President campaign, to neutralize the up to five year sentence, for making a false statement with respect to the naturalization, citizenry, or alien registry in violation of section 1015 of title 18 under 52USC§21144(b). No more unlawful foreign interference with elections by Internet Research participants, no more false subpoenas, arrests, detentions or exiles of diplomats.
1. Under 28CFR§0.85 the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall: (a) Investigate violations of the laws, including the criminal drug laws, of the United States and collect evidence in cases in which the United States is or may be a party in interest, except in cases in which such responsibility is by statute or otherwise exclusively assigned to another investigative agency (Drug law conspiracy with DEA repealed). (b) Conduct the acquisition, collection, exchange, classification and preservation of fingerprints and identification records from criminal justice and other governmental agencies, including fingerprints voluntarily submitted by individuals for personal identification purposes; provide expert testimony in Federal, State and local courts as to fingerprint examinations; and provide fingerprint training and provide identification assistance in disasters and for other humanitarian purposes. (c) Conduct personnel investigations requisite to the work of the Department of Justice and whenever required by statute or otherwise. (d) Carry out the Presidential directive of September 6, 1939, as reaffirmed by Presidential directives of January 8, 1943, July 24, 1950, and December 15, 1953, designating the Federal Bureau of Investigation to take charge of investigative work in matters relating to espionage, sabotage, subversive activities, and related matters, including investigating any potential violations of the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act, the Trading with the Enemy Act, or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, relating to any foreign counterintelligence matter. (e) Establish and conduct law enforcement training programs to provide training for State and local law enforcement personnel; operate the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy; develop new approaches, techniques, systems, equipment, and devices to improve and strengthen law enforcement and assist in conducting State and local training programs, pursuant to section 404 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 204. (f) Operate a central clearinghouse for police statistics under the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, and a computerized nationwide index of law enforcement information under the National Crime Information Center. (g) Operate the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory to serve not only the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but also to provide, without cost, technical and scientific assistance, including expert testimony in Federal or local courts, for all duly constituted law enforcement agencies, other organizational units of the Department of Justice, and other Federal agencies, which may desire to avail themselves of the service. As provided for in procedures agreed upon between the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, the services of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory may also be made available to foreign law enforcement agencies and courts. (h) Make recommendations to the Office of Personnel Management in connection with applications for retirement under 5USC§8336(c). (i) Investigate alleged fraudulent conduct in connection with operations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other alleged violations of the criminal provisions of the National Housing Act, including 18USC§1010. (j) Exercise the power and authority vested in the Attorney General to approve and conduct the exchanges of identification records enumerated at § 50.12(a) of this chapter. (k) Payment of awards (including those over $10,000) under 28USC§524(c)(2), and purchase of evidence (including the authority to pay more than $100,000) under 28USC§524(c)(1)(F). (l) Exercise Lead Agency responsibility in investigating all crimes for which it has primary or concurrent jurisdiction and which involve terrorist activities or acts in preparation of terrorist activities within the statutory jurisdiction of the United States. Within the United States, this would include the collection, coordination, analysis, management and dissemination of intelligence and criminal information as appropriate. If another Federal agency identifies an individual who is engaged in terrorist activities or in acts in preparation of terrorist activities, that agency is requested to promptly notify the FBI. Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. (m) Carry out the Department's responsibilities under the Hate Crime Statistics Act. (n) Exercise the authority vested in the Attorney General under section 528(a), Public Law 101-509, to accept from federal departments and agencies the services of law enforcement personnel to assist the Department of Justice in the investigation and prosecution of fraud or other criminal or unlawful activity in or against any federally insured financial institution or the Resolution Trust Corporation, and to coordinate the activities of such law enforcement personnel in the conduct of such investigations and prosecutions. (o) Carry out the responsibilities conferred upon the Attorney General under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, Title I of Pub. L. 103-414 (108 Stat. 4279), subject to the general supervision and direction of the Attorney General.
C. The FBI was officially born with a short memo, dated July 26, 1908, and signed by Charles J. Bonaparte, Attorney General, describing a “regular force of special agents” available to investigate certain cases of the Department of Justice. This memo is celebrated as the official birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigation—known throughout the world today as the FBI. On March 16, 1909 Bonaparte’s successor, Attorney General George W. Wickersham, gave this band of agents their first name—the Bureau of Investigation. It stuck. At first, agents investigated mostly white-collar and civil rights cases, including antitrust, land fraud, banking fraud, naturalization and copyright violations, and peonage (forced labor). It handled a few national security issues as well, including treason and some anarchist activity. This list of responsibilities continued to grow as Congress warmed to this new investigative force as a way to advance its national agenda. In 1910, for example, the Bureau took the investigative lead on the newly passed Mann Act or “White Slave Traffic Act,” an early attempt to halt interstate prostitution and human trafficking. By 1915, Congress had increased Bureau personnel more than tenfold, from its original 34 to about 360 special agents and support personnel. Congress declared war on April 6, 1917, an quickly passed the Espionage and Sabotage Acts. The Bureau of Investigation had responsibility for counter-spy, rounding up army deserters and policing millions of “enemy aliens”—Germans in the U.S. who were not American citizens—as well as of enforcing a variety of other war-related crimes.
1. After the war the Bolsheviks had taken over Russia in 1917, and Americans soon became nervous about its talk of worldwide revolution, when anarchists launched a series of bombing attacks on national leaders in 1919 and 1920, a full-blown “Red Scare” was on. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer responded with a massive investigation, led by a young Justice Department lawyer named J. Edgar Hoover, who amassed detailed information and intelligence on radicals and their activities. The ensuing “Palmer Raids” were poorly planned and executed and heavily criticized for infringing on the civil liberties of the thousands of people swept up in the raids. In the early twenties, the agency was no model of efficiency. It had a growing reputation for politicized investigations. In 1923, in the midst of the Teapot Dome scandal that rocked the Harding Administration, the nation learned that Department of Justice officials had sent Bureau agents to spy on members of Congress who had opposed its policies. Not long after the news of these secret activities broke, President Calvin Coolidge fired Harding’s Attorney General Harry Daugherty, naming Harlan Fiske Stone as his successor in 1924. Hoover had joined the Department of Justice in 1917 and had quickly risen through its ranks. In 1921, he was named Assistant Director of the Bureau. Three years later, Stone named him Director.
2. The first trio of women known to serve as Bureau special agents and among the first women in federal law enforcement. All three women did well in training at the New York office and, in general, performed up to standard. Alaska Davidson and Jessie Duckstein were assigned to the Bureau’s Washington field office. Both were dismissed when newly appointed Director J. Edgar Hoover dramatically cut the Bureau rolls in the spring of 1924 to clean house following the Teapot Dome scandals. Lenore Houston (pictured) was hired after these initial cuts and served the longest of the three. She, too, was assigned to the Washington office. She was asked to resign in 1928. It would be nearly another half century—May 1972—before social mores would change and women special agents would become a regular and vital part of the FBI. At the outset, the 29-year-old Hoover was determined to reform the Bureau, quickly and thoroughly, to make it a model of professionalism. He did so by weeding out the “political hacks” and incompetents, laying down a strict code of conduct for agents, and instituting regular inspections of Headquarters and field operations. He insisted on rigorous hiring criteria, including background checks, interviews, and physical tests for all special agent applicants. In January 1928, he launched the first formal training for incoming agents, a two-month course of instruction and practical exercises in Washington, D.C. Under Hoover’s direction, new agents were also required to be 25 to 35 years old, preferably with experience in law or accounting. When Hoover took over in 1924, the Bureau had about 650 employees, including 441 special agents. In five years, with the rash of firings it had just 339 special agents and less than 600 total employees.
3. Hoover would go on to serve for nearly another half century. Hoover’s first year at the helm, when the Bureau was given the responsibility of consolidating the nation’s two major collections of fingerprint files. In the summer of 1924, Hoover quickly created an Identification Division (informally called “Ident” in the organization for many years to come) to gather prints from police agencies nationwide and to search them upon request for matches to criminals and crime evidence. In the late 1920s, the Bureau began exchanging fingerprints with Canada and added more friendly foreign governments in 1932; the following year, it created a corresponding civil fingerprint file for non-criminal cases. By 1936, the agency had a total reservoir of 100,000 fingerprint cards; by 1946, that number had swelled to 100 million. November 24, 1932, is considered the official birthday of the FBI Laboratory. By January 1940, the lab had a total of 46 employees. Before 1934, when the Bureau of Investigation killed and captured many of the extremely violent criminals of the time, “G-Man” was underworld slang for any and all government agents. In fact, the detectives in J. Edgar Hoover’s Bureau of Investigation were so little known that they were often confused with Secret Service or Prohibition Bureau agents. By 1935, though, only one kind of government employee was known by that name, the special agents of the Bureau. Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity became the FBI Motto in 1935.
4. In 1936, the President and Secretary of State tasked the Bureau with gathering intelligence on the potential threats to national security posed by fascist and communist groups. The FBI was ultimately given the lead in espionage cases and uncovered some 50 spies operating in America before the nation entered the war. By 1946, it had identified 887 Axis spies, 281 propaganda agents, 222 agents smuggling strategic war materials, 30 saboteurs, and 97 other agents. It had located 24 secret Axis radio stations and confiscated 40 radio transmitters and 18 receiving sets. And the FBI had even used some of these radio networks to pass false and misleading information back to Nazi Germany. The Special Intelligence Service was disbanded after the war, and the newly formed CIA was asked to take over its operations and expand U.S. intelligence activities worldwide, setting the stage for the FBI’s overseas Legal Attaché program. Under presidential order issued on the evening of December 7, the Bureau moved to arrest these enemies and present them to immigration officials for hearings (represented by counsel) and for possible deportation. Within 72 hours, more than 3,800 aliens had been taken into custody without incident. Hoover wanted nothing to do with the hysteria that called for rounding up Japanese-Americans on a much wider scale. But fear and prejudice prevailed, and in early 1942, some 120,000 Japanese—more than half U.S. citizens—were hastily detained and interred by the military under executive order. The FBI’s rolls swelled from just 2,400 agents and support employees in 1940 to a war-time peak of more than 13,000 in 1944.
5. Although the early FBI had included civil rights crimes and peonage from their start, in regards to the lynchings and attacks against civil rights protestors they did not have jurisdiction. In this period no specific guidelines for FBI agents covering national security investigations had been developed by either Congress or the Justice Department (and none would be until 1976). The FBI therefore addressed domestic terrorism threats from militant left-wing groups as it had from communists in the 1950s and the KKK in the 1960s—using traditional investigative and intelligence techniques. Approved by the National Security Council in 1956, Cointelpro initially focused on disrupting the activities of the Community Party of the United States. Five years later it was expanded to include the Socialist Workers Party. The KKK was added in 1964, the Black Panther Party in 1967, and other leftist groups in ensuing years. Though fairly limited in scope (about two-tenths of one percent of the FBI’s investigative workload over a 15-year period), Cointelpro was later rightfully criticized by Congress and the country for abridging first amendment rights and for other reasons. But the ensuing new processes and regulations also made intelligence gathering more difficult for the FBI going forward, ultimately creating an artificial wall between criminal cases and national security investigations. On January 27, 1967, the FBI launched the National Crime Information Center, or NCIC, an electronic clearinghouse of criminal justice information (mug shots, crime records, etc.) that can be tapped into by police officers in squad cars or by police agencies nationwide.
6. On June 17, 1972 a night guard at the Watergate Complex came across an exit door that had been taped open, five men were arrested by police a few minutes later for breaking into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters inside the Watergate. Police also found fake IDs, bugging equipment, and lookouts in the motel across the street. From the moment that police realized the Watergate break-in was no ordinary burglary, the FBI was on the case. But the timing couldn’t have been worse. It had been less than five weeks since J. Edgar Hoover—the only Director FBI employees had known—had died in his sleep. Soon afterwards, in 1973, the Drug Enforcement Administration was born to retaliate against Hoover's male chauvinist tainted law degree, and retaliate against equal opportunity employment for women in the FBI by continuing the subversive temperance movement in guise of enforcement of international psychotropic drug prohibition. There was increasing political disagreement over the Bureau’s tactics and techniques, and widespread unease over the chaos and violence of the late 1960s. During the Watergate scandal, the FBI faced political pressure from the White House and even from within its own walls—Acting Director L. Patrick Gray was accused of being too pliable to White House demands and resigned on April 27, 1973. And throughout, a high-ranking official—dubbed “Deep Throat” and ultimately identified in 2005 as FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt—was leaking investigative information to the press. Clarence Kelley, a former FBI agent and Kansas City, Missouri, Chief of Police, took office on July 9, 1973. He did an admirable job of restoring public trust in the agency, frankly admitting that mistakes had been made and leading a number of far-reaching and necessary reforms. By 1970, the FBI had gained some important new tools to go after mobsters—including court-authorized wiretaps, jurisdiction over mob-infiltrated businesses, and the ability to target entire crime families and their leaders instead of just bit players and isolated wise guys. In 1976, Attorney General Edward Levi and the FBI came up with a series of guidelines on how the FBI should conduct domestic security operations. The key change: to only investigate radicals breaking the law or clearly engaging in violent activity. The reforms had an immediate and far-reaching impact: the number of FBI domestic security cases fell from over 21,000 in 1973 to just 626 by September 1976.
7. President Ronald Reagan right after being shot by John Hinckley on March 30, 1981. Following the attack, the FBI investigation concluded that he had acted on his own. It was not until 1982, the FBI was given concurrent jurisdiction with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) over federal anti-narcotics laws. From 1981 to 1987 alone, more than 1,000 Mafia members and associates were convicted following investigations by the FBI and its partners. One major undercover operation, code-named “Abscam,” led to the convictions of six sitting members of the U.S. Congress and several other elected officials in the early 1980s. “Operation Greylord” put 92 crooked judges, lawyers, policemen, court officers, and others behind bars in the mid-1980s. The “Brilab” (Bribery/Labor) investigation begun in Los Angeles in 1979 revealed how the Mafia was bribing government officials to award lucrative insurance contracts, and a major case called “Illwind,” culminating in 1988, unveiled corruption in defense procurement. The dissolution of the Soviet Union ended the war in Afghanistan, but U.S. financed militants, namely Osama bin Ladin, redirected their international aggression against the U.S., when support for war with the Soviets ceased.
8. In 1993, the FBI had 21 offices in U.S. embassies worldwide; within eight years that number had doubled. During that time, legal attachés were opened in such strategic locations as Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia. And in the years that followed, this trend continued: by May 2008, the FBI had more than 200 special agents and support staff in over 60 international offices. During the 1990s—in case after case, from terrorist bombings to burgeoning cyber attacks—these legal attachés proved invaluable. These attacks were soon directly linked to bin Laden, who was indicted and placed on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list in June 1999. Robert Mueller walked in the door on September 4, 2001 with a mandate to reform and modernize the Bureau, but exactly one week later the suicide attacks of 9/11. Just days after 9/11, America experienced the worst biological attack in its history when letters laced with a highly potent strain of anthrax suddenly began appearing in the U.S. mail. By month’s end, five Americans were dead and many more sickened. The complex FBI-led investigation—code-named “Amerithrax”—grew into a massive operation and led to scientific advances that greatly strengthened the nation’s ability to prepare for and investigate biological attacks. In the summer of 2008, the FBI was preparing to indict anthrax researcher Dr. Bruce Ivins in connection with the mailings, but he took his own life before charges could be filed.
9. Following the attacks, thanks to new legislation and court decisions, the separation between national security and criminal investigations came down. The Bureau is now free to coordinate intelligence operations and criminal cases and to use the full range of investigative tools against a suspected terrorist. More agents and officers and analysts physically sit together, including in dozens of intelligence fusion centers nationwide and in the new multi-agency National Counterterrorism Center. Joint investigations and joint task forces are the norm, especially in the U.S. and increasingly overseas, and the FBI is working alongside U.S. forces in war zones overseas for the first time in history. Director Mueller decided that the Bureau’s role on the criminal side of the house had to shift to targeting the largest threats—the major national and international illicit enterprises and mega-crimes that the FBI is best suited to address. Its strategy, as in counterterrorism, has been to let intelligence lead the way and to leverage the expertise of its many partners. This strategy has been visible in just about every investigative program—from the new Law Enforcement Retail Partnership Network that tackles the burgeoning problem of organized retail theft…to the National Gang Intelligence Center that targets the most dangerous street gangs using integrated information from around the world…to the raft of new and improved cyber programs, initiatives, and multi-national alliances that tap into the collective wisdom of the public and private sectors. Because FBI rhetoric has ceased to incite wanton destruction, although organized criminal operatives continue to do so, the mandatory FBI reduction in force (RIF), for errors in excess of 30% of public actions, should be gradual, guided by dismissal of officers for misconduct in excess of 30% of their public actions, prioritizing killers, drug conspirators, food, drug and computer tamperers and use of prisoners to perpetrate crimes, with a 50/50 attitude regarding the inevitability of the total abolition of Hoover's Bureau of Investigation for their terrorist attacks against the United States government by Justice Department Quantico Police Training Academy and Forensic Laboratory.
D. Hoover's Bureau of Investigation had been regulated, early on, to prevent “politicized investigations”. One major undercover operation, code-named “Abscam,” led to the convictions of six sitting members of the U.S. Congress and several other elected officials in the early 1980s. “Operation Greylord” put 92 crooked judges, lawyers, policemen, court officers, and others behind bars in the mid-1980s. The “Brilab” (Bribery/Labor) investigation begun in Los Angeles in 1979 revealed how the Mafia was bribing government officials to award lucrative insurance contracts, and a major case called “Illwind,” culminating in 1988, unveiled corruption in defense procurement. The intimidation of public officials has continued unabated. The false arrest and 14 year sentence of Rod Blagojevich Esq., for the local custom of detaining their governors on non-violent and easily civilly redressed corruption charges, the alleged crime of selling Barack Obama's Senate seat that he did not commit, due to the process by a Chief Judge of his unethical behavior, under Rule 41 Fed. Crim. P. in 2008. The interference by armed forces with the “suffrage” of the 2016 elections regarding the diversion of Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's State Department emails to her private server constitutes 18USC§593, fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail under 18USC§1037 and intimidation of voters regarding whether or not they should vote for a Presidential candidate protected against such attacks under 18USC§594 and 52USC§10101(b) and (c) whereby the Attorney General is obligated to institute a civil action for preventive relief, because the press failed to exclude evidence under 18USC§2515 that has been unlawfully obtained by interception and disclosure of electronic communications under 18USC§2511 and the FBI agent responsible conspired to materially falsify the identity of the actual registrants of email address(es) blogging regarding the proper use the unlawfully obtained evidence against the FBI under 18USC§1037(a)(4). However, former FBI Director Mueller, has acted as an accessory after the fact under 18USC§3, to relieve the FBI suffrage offender and prevent his trial and punishment, to allege Russian Internet Research as the principal under 18USC§2 aggravated identity theft defendant when criminal penalties are in fact due for false information in regards to citizenship under 18USC§1015 and 52USC§21144 to justify the cessation of all further finance for Russian interference with US elections, that is perceived to have been unarmed, nonviolent, but unlawfully making false claims to citizenship to such a criminal degree, that despite propaganda regarding Citizens United v. FEC (2010) everyone should be aware that federal, state and local political campaign contributions and donations by foreign nationals are prohibited under 52USC§30121. The FBI conspiracy United States v. Internet Research et al. District of Columbia. Grand Jury Indictment. Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Feb. 16, 2018 is resolved by neutralizing the fines and up to five year sentence against the FBI interference with the suffrage of Clinton by the armed forces under 18USC§593, 18USC§594 and 52USC§10101 for being the equal of alleged Internet Research false statement regarding US citizenship by Russian nationals under 18USC§1015, 52USC§21144 and 52USC§30121 - Superceding dismissal.
1. Going forward, the drug conspiracy between the FBI and DEA, since 1982, codified under 28CFR§0.85(a and the Authority for Employment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Senior Executive Service under 5USC§3151-3152 and clause, 'or to a member of the Senior Executive Service or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration Senior Executive Service' at the end of 5USC§5301(b) must be repealed. To cease dishonoring the killers after the fact of Hoover's death, if the FBI acronym, is to survive the abolition of the DEA, the FBI must repeal the narcotic and dangerous drug bureau mandate from 28CFR§0.85(a). J. Edgar Hoover's FBI was not the Bureau of Prohibition, or political persecution, it was a bastion of cold war male chauvinism, that lost control of the often women led Prohibition shadow of Equal Suffrage when Hoover died, and was not officially drug addicted until 1982, when the prison population began to skyrocket. The DEA was not created until 1973 after the death of Hoover Esq., employment of women by the FBI in 1972 and impeachment of Nixon Esq. The Justice Department must abolish the DEA first, lay-off 11,000 hopelessly drug corrupted law enforcement employees with disability retirement, destroy their drug stockpile and transfer the license regime to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) who may choose to abolish the duplicitous program. Because FBI rhetoric has ceased to incite wanton destruction, although organized criminal operatives continue to tamper, the mandatory FBI reduction in force (RIF), for errors in excess of 30%, should be gradual, guided by dismissal of officers for misconduct in excess of 30% of their public actions, prioritizing killers, food, drug and computer tamperers and use of prisoners to perpetrate crimes, with a 50/50 attitude regarding the inevitability of the total abolition of the FBI acronym, in light of the portability of the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Quantico Federal Police Training Academy and Forensic Laboratory to the Justice Department.
2. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications is prohibited except under Sec. 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and Sec. 108 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement under 18USC§2511. 28CFR§0.86 authorizes the FBI to exercise the power and authority vested in the Attorney General to confiscate wire or oral communication intercepting devices under 18USC§2513. The performance of Microsoft case FBI occupiers is unacceptable under 5USC§4301(3). The economic damage that the FBI caused to Windows computers outweighs any good that agency has ever done, and it is more because of these hundreds of dollars of damage to every intellectual, than any other reason, that the FBI must be abolished. After reneging on the non-surveillance rhetoric of FBI Director Mueller, the purchase of computer surveillance and piracy equipment from Silk Road online dealer arrested at a public library, by the FBI, led to the wanton alteration of files and widespread killing of Windows 8 computers, with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding, often at the public library, after the false arrest of the Windows 8 whistleblower under 18USC§1512(a)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). FBI Director Comey dropped the charges, but the unlawful FBI occupation of Microsoft was able to evade legal process, and the FBI is unable stop their “Microsoft back door” fraud related to Windows computers under 18USC§1030, Microsoft electronic mail under §1037, and Microsoft stored documents under §2701. In the matter of search of information associated with email accounts in the United States District Court for Nevada No. 17-mg968-NSK the application for search warrants under 18USC§2703(a) and §2703(c)(1)(A) require Microsoft to disclose to the government records and other information in its possession, pertaining to the subscriber or customer associated with the Target Accounts. The Court had jurisdiction to issue the requested warrant because it is a court of competent jurisdiction over the offense being investigated. Probable cause is that more than 58 people were killed and 557 injured, on the evening of Sunday, October 1, 2017, Route 91 Harvest, a music festival was in progress in south Las Vegas. The gunman was found deceased in his hotel room with a gunshot wound to the head. On October 2, 2017 search warrants found over 20 firearms, over a thousand rounds of rifle ammunition and 100 pounds of explosives were found. Pursuant to 18USC§2703(g) the presence of law enforcement is not required for the service of this warrant.
3. A Court has the discretion to impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day for each day in violation after the issuance of the order comply with the requirements of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act under 18USC§2522 or fine the unwarranted wiretappers $10,000 under FISA 50USC§1809. Apple obviously pays $3,650,000 a year legal fees for their customer's privacy. Microsoft needs to pay for the prosecutor to dismiss their FBI occupation. Apple might agree to release device access information of a deceased person to their inheritors under 24USC§420, but to protect the privacy of hundreds of millions of computers, cannot participate in any crime or murder justified tampering under 18USC§1512. Apple is reportedly planning to launch a cheaper 13-inch MacBook Air during the second quarter, but while a new Windows computer can be purchased for as little as $300, new Apples currently don't sell for less than $999. Encrypted wifi is necessary to provide commercial customers a minimum of protection against unlawful interception. As encrypted wifi has extended into grocery stores the FBI Law Enforcement Retail conspiracy has extended into the organized criminal tampering of food and drugs under 18USC§1512(a)(2)(ii) & (iii) and Sec. 301 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&CA) under 21USC§331 that should be redressed by an injunction against the FBI Law Enforcement Retail Partnership Network infringement into $30 billion annual retail industry theft in Sec. 302 of the FD&CA under 21USC§331 to liberate commerce from this conspiracy with the National Gang Intelligence Center. The Hobbs Act prohibits robbery and extortion, and conspiracy, that interferes with interstate and foreign commerce under 18USC§1951 and Scheidler v. National Org. for Women, Inc., 547 U.S. 9, 23 (2006).
4. US v. Jerry Chung Shing Lee, aka Zhen Cheng Li Criminal No. 1: 18 – MJ – 18 Jan. 14, 2018, does not exhibit probable cause to believe that it was former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agent Lee who compromised Chinese CIA informants, many of whom have been killed or arbitrarily arrested by official Chinese state actions. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Officer negligently incriminates himself of unauthorized copying under 18USC§793 (e) he intimidates against the lawful owner under §793(f) and remains silent regarding who unlawfully disclosed the identity of informants to Chinese armed forces with the intent to injure the United States under §793(d). The FBI false arrest petition to a magistrate in violation of Rules 4 and 41 Fed. Crim. P. did not exhibit probable cause regarding the killing of CIA operatives and was an accessory after the fact, who summoned the victim of unwarranted searches to evade legal process, in violation of 18USC§3 and §1512(a)(2)(B)(iii). The FBI was grossly negligent in that they did not make any reference, or exhibit any professional concern regarding the killing and capturing of CIA operatives in China. From the final weeks of 2010 through the end of 2012, according to former American officials, the Chinese killed at least a dozen of the CIA’s sources. Still others were put in jail. CIA operations in China remain compromised. All told, the Chinese killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 of the C.I.A.’s sources in China, and no less than 6 unlawfully detained CIA operatives must be released pursuant to Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran) 24 May 1980. China has violated and is still violating obligations owed by it to the United States. These obligations engage China's responsibility under Art. 14 of the Convention against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Punishment or Treatment for unlawful killing and Art. 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for miscarriage of justice. The Government of China must immediately release CIA informants and respect the CIA as usually being more educated, with post-graduate degrees, than the US Foreign Service who are required only a secondary school education and to pass the Foreign Service exam, that is so filled with propaganda educated people must study extra-hard to pass because many of the lies conflict with the truth. Although the CIA is a member of the US intelligence community, the CIA should not tolerate its informants to libeled as spies. The CIA must be protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations of 1963 and by the compulsory settlement of disputes by the International Court of Justice under the Optional Protocol of 1963. The CIA world fact book is such an empirical online atlas, that they must be responsible for the random acts of violence incidental to infringements on their international correspondence and this time the CIA has been victimized by China under 18USC§1512(a) and the FBI under (2)(iii). If the US Ambassador to the UN declines to file this case, the Human Rights Council might sue for the publication of an advisory opinion, advocating for the release and compensation of CIA informants, no matter what nationality they are, if CIA informant is the true reason for their continuing unlawful detention in China, under Sec. 2 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of 1946.
5. The 192 criminal counts, 36 people and entities charged, seven people who have pleaded guilty, four people sentenced to prison and one person convicted at trial as a result of the Mueller probe. must be overruled on review of the corrupt police investigation. Mueller must be discharged from the federal government to maybe defend his civil cases, without pay, other than disability-retirement under current whistleblower protection policy. Government employees do not have protection from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution when they speak pursuant to their official job duties pursuant to Garcetti v. Ceballos, No. 04-473, (2006). By asking stupid questions, not under the law, Mueller is attempting to defend the continuing existence of the Office of Special Counsel and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by concealing the armed interference with 2016 Presidential elections under 18USC§593 with advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force under 18USC§2385 to obstruct any sort of clear message, for instance, regarding the prohibition of foreign political campaign contributions under 52USC§30121 after Citizen's United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) as an accessory after the fact under 18USC§3. Special Counsel is an agency responsible for hearing whistleblower complaints and it is false representation for Mueller to use it as the vehicle for his own whistle-blowing for which he must be fired 53 out of 56 cases by the Merit Systems Protection Board. As FBI Director under President Bush, Mueller did publicly criminalize surveillance on the local FBI website, thereby reducing idiocy, somewhat, for a while, after the unforgivable act of letting the 9-11 suicide pilots go. In the role of special counsel Mueller is a corrupt police investigator of the particular type that J. Edgar Hoover warned about – politicization. The current escalation in spying for China must be attributed due to the undiplomatic infringement of FBI whooping cough regarding an Iron Curtain under 28CFR§0.87 until repealed or publicly overruled to recuse the FBI slave traders from infringing on civil, political and diplomatic actions under 18USC§205. The Authority for Employment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Senior Executive Service 5USC§3151-3152 must be repealed to protect civil and political objects from unlawful sanctions by firing the corrupt police investigator(s) under Art. 54 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Times of War (1949) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976). The “fake” and “viral” news media and non-publishing Court can blamed on the injunction against the publication of Associated Press v. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
§55 Drug Enforcement Administration
A. The DEA drug stockpile must be destroyed and diversion control doctors who don't use the license are advised not to pay the $1,500 biannual fee, and optionally retain an attorney at +/-$200 hourly rate per year that would need to be pre-authorized for UN Controlled Substance prescription fillers offended by the DEA License. There has been a 1,000% escalation in fentanyl casualties since 2001 and now more than 50% of federal prisoners are non-violent drug offenders of a treasonous opium war, since the FBI became involved in 1982 under 28CFR§0.85. Prohibition-based drug control became an international conspiracy in the 20th century, at the insistence of the United States Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. The current legal and administrative framework for international drug control is laid out by the UN Office of Drugs and Crime, who needs to delete drugs from their name, and marijuana from the drug schedule, in three treaties: (a) Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, as amended in the 1972 Protocol (b) the International Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 and (c) the United Nations Convention Against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. Since its founding in 1973, commemorating the death of J. Edgar Hoover and impeachment of Richard Nixon Esq., the mission of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is to enforce the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and regulations of the United States against the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances in domestic and international markets. To reverse the fatal opiate overdose law enforcement, the President and Attorney General must immediately abolish the $2.2 billion DEA, both the odd Office of Diversion Control (ODC), generating $350 million in license fees annually, whose unprofessional tampering kills tens to hundreds of thousands of Americans annually, while the federal court is diverted with recreational drug possession and trafficking cases, to evade the legal process under 18USC§1512 for adulteration and false representation under Sec. 301 of the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FD&CA) 21USC§331. There is a prohibition of all federal interference with medicine under 42USC§1395. The Attorney General and Secretary General of the United Nations must rule that due to its acceptable medical uses, without overdose, including for non-severe pain and psychological addictive quality, marijuana should be listed as a Schedule III drug, in conjunction with more dangerous drugs smoked opium, alcohol and tobacco in Schedule II, or rightly removed from the list entirely under 21USC§811 in pursuit of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Marijuana (ATM) in the Treasury.
1. The DEA Office of Diversion Control (ODC) licenses health care practitioners to dispense drugs regulated under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) It makes $350 million license fees at a $9 million cost to the budget. To reduce wrongful death, the United States has no recourse but to abolish the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Office of Diversion Control (ODC) to prevent drug adulteration and false representation by the criminal justice system under Sec. 301 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act under 21USC§331. It is not advised for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center to sustain any special narcotic licensing and regulatory regime until after they have abolished expenses for the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), without losing legitimate non-corrupt licensing and general FDA health inspection fees, and then only after consultation with narcotic licensees and overdose statistics compared, with those of special, historically corrupt, era of narcotic regulation in violation of the Nuremberg Code. The Justice Department budget summary reports DEA expenditures of $2.2 billion FY 18 an unacceptably high increase of 3.7% from $2.1 billion FY 17 with 2.5% being the administrative spending growth limit. Controlled prescription drugs (CPDs) were the first opiates to suffer a 1,000% increase in fatal overdoses due to fentanyl and cofentanyl adulteration in 2001, followed by methadone in 2005 and the heroin, an estimated 4% of CPD consumers turned to, in 2013, whether or not the DEA is abolished for tampering under 18USC§1512.
2. The DEA drug stockpile and all drugs and food that have been seized by the police, must be destroyed. The odd Office of Diversion Control (ODC) needs to be abolished by, rather than transferred to, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is necessary to hold the DEA responsible for an estimated 20,0000 intentional of 52,000 poisoning deaths due to opiates laced with fentanyl and co-fentanyl in 2016. Fatal respiratory depression is reversed by Narcan injection of naloxone or naltrexone tablet. Furthermore, to reduce 2016 rates of 156,000 accidental deaths, 42,826 suicides and 15,872 conventional homicides due to the three day panic attack and up to six months of severe mental illness caused by topical exposure to water soluble dimethoxymethylamphetamine (DOM). Since 2001 opiate overdoses have increased 1,000%, first in prescription drugs such as Oxycontin, then by 2005 in methadone treatment, driving 4% of controlled prescription drugs (CPDs) consumers to heroin, that became contaminated by 2013. Opiate overdoses in children have doubled since 2005. Where there were around 1,000 prescription opiate overdose deaths annually before 2000, and less than 10,000 heroin overdoses, there were an estimated 22,000 opiate overdose deaths in 2016. To reduce justified homicide the United States may need to legalize uncontrolled heroin on equal terms with controlled prescription drugs (CPDs) to redress the common enemy of fentanyl tampering of regulated and unregulated opiate addicted populations. To reduce 156,000 accidental deaths, 42,826 suicides and 15,872 conventional homicides, it is essential that the United States abolish DEA - the H.
B. Fentanyl is available in a number of forms including by injection, as a skin patch, and to be absorbed through the tissues inside the mouth. Fentanyl was first synthesized by Paul Janssen under the label of his relatively newly formed Janssen Pharmaceutica in 1959. The widespread use of fentanyl triggered the production of fentanyl citrate (the salt formed by combining fentanyl and citric acid in a 1:1 stoichiometric ratio), which entered medical use as a general anaesthetic under the trade name Sublimaze in the 1960s. In the mid-1990s, Janssen Pharmaceutica developed and introduced into clinical trials the Duragesic patch, which is a formation of an inert alcohol gel infused with select fentanyl doses, which are worn to provide constant administration of the opioid over a period of 48 to 72 hours. After a set of successful clinical trials, Duragesic fentanyl patches were introduced into medical practice. Following the patch, a flavoured lollipop of fentanyl citrate mixed with inert fillers was introduced in 1998 under the brand name of Actiq, becoming the first quick-acting formation of fentanyl for use with chronic breakthrough pain. In 2016 more than 20,000 deaths occurred in the United States due to overdoses of fentanyl and its analogues.
1. The number of people reporting current heroin use nearly tripled between 2007 (161,000) and 2014 (435,000). Approximately 4 percent of CPD abusers initiate heroin use. About 450,000 used methamphetamine, 1.6 million used cocaine and 4.2 million used prescription pain pills. In 2014, 10,574 Americans died from heroin-related overdoses, more than triple the 3,000 who died in 2010, and 2,000 annually 1999-2006. Heroin, while used by a smaller number of people than other major drugs, is much more deadly to its users. The population that currently uses prescription pain relievers non-medically was approximately 10 times the size of the heroin user population in 2014; however, opioid analgesic-involved overdose deaths in 2014 were less than twice that of heroin-involved deaths. Current cocaine users outnumbered heroin users by approximately 3.5 times in 2014, but heroin-involved overdose deaths were twice those of cocaine. In 1999 an estimated 2,000 people died from heroin overdose, 4,000 from cocaine and 4,000 from opioid anaglesics. In 2014 that number of overdose deaths had increased to 10,500 for heroin, 5,800 for cocaine and 19,000 for prescription narcotic pills.
2. Starting in late 2013, several states reported spikes in overdose deaths due to fentanyl and its analog acetyl-fentanyl. Fentanyl is much stronger than heroin and can cause even experienced users to overdose. Between 2013 and 2014, there was a 79 percent increase in deaths related to synthetic opioids, the category under which fentanyl falls. There were 5,544 synthetic-opioid-related deaths in 2014, and the true number is most likely higher because of non-standardized reporting and because many coroners’ offices and state crime laboratories initially did not test for fentanyl or its analogs unless given a specific reason to do so. Most of the areas affected by the fentanyl overdoses are in the eastern United States, where white powder heroin is used, because fentanyl is most commonly mixed with white powder heroin or is sold disguised as white powder heroin. While pharmaceutical fentanyl (from transdermal patches or lozenges) is diverted for abuse in the United States at small levels, this latest rash of overdose deaths is largely due to clandestinely-produced fentanyl, not diverted pharmaceutical fentanyl. Hundreds of thousands of counterfeit prescription pills, some containing deadly amounts of fentanyl, have been introduced into U.S. drug markets, exacerbating the fentanyl and opioid crisis. Opioid painkillers such oxycodone tablets are the most commonly counterfeited medications; however, traffickers are also counterfeiting benzodiazepine medications such as Xanax®. Between January and March 2016, nine people in Pinellas County, Florida died after consuming counterfeit Xanax® pills containing fentanyl. In March 2016,32 overdoses and 10 deaths occurred in northern California in a two-week time span due to counterfeit Norco® pills containing fentanyl. Laboratory analysis indicated that the pills contained a variety of fentanyl doses; one sample of pills contained between 0.6 and 6.9 milligrams of fentanyl per pill (2 milligrams of fentanyl is a lethal dose for non-opioid users). Such wide disparity in dosing reveals that the producers were likely amateurs and new to pill production, as the fentanyl was not thoroughly mixed with the other powders before binding and pressing into pills. In response to increasing overdoses caused by the use of heroin and other opioids, many law enforcement agencies are training officers to administer naloxone, a drug that can reverse the effects of opioid overdose. Law enforcement officers are often the first responders in overdose cases. Naloxone can be nasally-administered and generally has no adverse effect if administered to a person who is not suffering from opioid overdose.
3. In 2014, 51,966 deaths occurred as the result of poisonings, 26.0% of all injury deaths. The age-adjusted death rate for poisoning increased significantly, 6.6%, from 15.2 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population in 2013 to 16.2 in 2014. The majority of poisoning deaths were either unintentional (80.9%) or suicides (13.1%). However, 5.8% of poisoning deaths were of undetermined intent. The age-adjusted death rate for unintentional poisoning increased 7.4%, from 12.2 in 2013 to 13.1 in 2014, and has nearly tripled since 1999. 1.6% of all deaths were suicide, 13.4 per 100,000 or 13.0 per 100,000 age adjusted. 50% of suicides were committed with a firearm. 63.7% of firearm deaths were suicide. Suicide is 3rd leading cause of death among 15 – 24 year olds. The highest suicide rates are found in white men over the age of 85. More than 90% of people who kill themselves have a diagnosable mental disorder. Four times as many men as women commit suicide although women attempt to commit suicide 2-3 times more often. Major depressive disorder is the leading cause of suicide, heightened by substance abuse, and conduct disorder. Suicide is the leading cause of violent death, outnumbering homicide or war related deaths. 6,808 suicides were committed with poison and another 3,014 were undetermined in 2014. Firearm—In 2014, 33,594 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States, accounting for 16.8% of all injury deaths in that year. The age-adjusted death rate from firearm injuries (all intents) did not change significantly in 2014 from 2013. The two major component causes of firearm injury deaths in 2014 were suicide (63.7%) and homicide (32.8%). The age-adjusted death rate for firearm homicide decreased 2.8%, from 3.6 in 2013 to 3.5 in 2014. The rate for firearm suicide did not change. The Las Vegas Rampage Shooting was the deadliest in history and 2017 was the second consecutive year with the highest number of rampage shooting deaths ever. Abolish DEA – First, repeal the drug tampering conspiracy with the DEA, from FBI statute 28CFR§0.85(a)
DEA Domestic Arrests 1986-2016
|Calendar Year |Number of Arrests |
|2016 |28,881 |
|2015 |31,611 |
|2014 |30,083 |
|2013 |31,012 |
|2012 |31,086 |
|2011 |32,519 |
|2010 |31,404 |
|2009 |31,844 |
|2008 |28,559 |
|2007 |29,844 |
|2006 |30,608 |
|2005 |30,355 |
|2004 |30,484 |
|2003 |28,718 |
|2002 |30,061 |
|2001 |34,040 |
|2000 |39,007 |
|1999 |39,460 |
|1998 |37,675 |
|1997 |33,503 |
|1996 |28,894 |
|1995 |24,908 |
|1994 |22,842 |
|1993 |21,409 |
|1992 |24,206 |
|1991 |23,384 |
|1990 |22,583 |
|1989 |24,905 |
|1988 |24,661 |
|1987 |22,390 |
|1986 |19,635 |
|Total |900,571 |
Source: DEA
C. In 2014 the DEA arrested 30,083 persons, roughly 8,200 for cocaine, 7,000 for meth, 4,200 for heroin, 4,000 for marijuana, 3,000 for Controlled Prescription Drugs (CPDs) and 3,683 hallucinogens. In 2015 the DEA arrests increased 5% to 31,611, and in 2016 declined – 8.6% to 28,881. Drugs seized by section 511 of the Controlled Substances Act under 21USC§881; in 2014 the DEA seized 33,770 kilograms of cocaine, 1,020 kg of heroine, 74,225 kg of marijuana, 2,946 kg of methamphetamine and 48,970 dosage units of hallucinogens. Heroin seizures in the United States increased 80 percent over the years, from 3,733 kilograms in 2011 to 6,722 kilograms in 2015. In 2014, Mexican heroin accounted for 79 percent of the total weight of heroin analyzed. In 2014 there were a total of 9,338 post-pot bust, meth lab incidents, steadily declining from 12,050 in 2013 and 15,220 in 2010.
DEA Domestic Drug Seizures 1986-2014
|Calendar Year |Cocaine (kgs) |Heroin (kgs) |Marijuana (kgs) |Methamphetamine |Hallucinogens (dosage|
| | | | |(kgs) |units) |
|2014 |33,770 |1,020 |74,225 |2,946 |48,970 |
|2013 |24,103 |1,044 |270,823 |4,227 |119,507 |
|2012 |36,736 |1,010 |388,064 |4,813 |872,366 |
|2011 |32,151 |1,077 |575,972 |2,561 |3,978,404 |
|2010 |30,061 |713 |725,862 |2,224 |2,605,997 |
|2009 |50,705 |622 |671,650 |2,129 |3,427,346 |
|2008 |50,461 |605 |662,137 |1,518 |9,311,715 |
|2007 |98,065 |623 |360,708 |1,112 |5,677,739 |
|2006 |71,604 |816 |328,275 |1,804 |3,745,560 |
|2005 |118,128 |622 |283,382 |2,161 |8,868,465 |
|2004 |117,844 |669 |266,088 |1,656 |2,196,988 |
|2003 |73,720 |788 |254,242 |1,680 |3,038,916 |
|2002 |63,513 |709 |238,646 |1,347 |11,824,798 |
|2001 |59,415 |747 |272,120 |1,634 |13,863,756 |
|2000 |58,674 |546 |331,964 |1,771 |29,293,957 |
|1999 |36,163 |351 |338,247 |1,489 |1,717,305 |
|1998 |34,447 |370 |262,180 |1,203 |1,139,524 |
|1997 |28,674 |399 |215,348 |1,147 |1,099,825 |
|1996 |44,735 |320 |192,059 |751 |1,719,239 |
|1995 |45,309 |876 |219,830 |876 |2,768,046 |
|1994 |75,031 |490 |157,181 |769 |1,368,437 |
|1993 |55,528 |616 |143,055 |560 |2,714,575 |
|1992 |69,322 |722 |201,483 |352 |1,308,018 |
|1991 |67,016 |1,174 |98,593 |289 |1,294,273 |
|1990 |57,021 |535 |127,792 |272 |2,832,084 |
|1989 |94,939 |758 |286,371 |896 |13,125,011 |
|1988 |60,951 |728 |347,305 |694 |10,467,864 |
|1987 |49,666 |512 |629,839 |198 |6,556,891 |
|1986 |29,369 |278 |490,607 |234 |4,146,711 |
Source: DEA
1. Analyses focusing on the growth of the prison population from FY 1998 to FY 2010 have shown that 42% of the growth in the federally sentenced population was due to an increase in the number of drug offenders, and the largest contributor to that growth was length of time served for drug offenses. Drug offenders comprise about half of federal prison population and sentence length for this subpopulation is the greatest source of federal prison population growth. A study based on 94,678 offenders in federal prison at fiscal yearend 2012 who were sentenced on a new U.S. district court commitment and whose most serious offense (as classified by the Federal Bureau of Prisons) was a drug offense. The average prison sentence for federal drug offenders was more than 11 years. More than half (54%) of drug offenders in the federal prison system had a form of cocaine (powder or crack) as the primary drug type. Methamphetamine offenders (24%) accounted for the next largest share, followed by marijuana (12%) and heroin (6%) offenders. Offenders convicted of crimes involving other drugs (including LSD, some prescription drugs, and MDMA or ecstasy) made up 3% of offenders. Pursuant of the release of all non-violent drug offenders detained in federal prison prophesied by Booker v. United States (2005), the primary finding is that food and drugs that have been seized by law enforcement must be swiftly destroyed to prevent tampering, diversion, bodily injury and death under 18USC§1512; the innocent must be compensated for their loss because “it is not in the interests of justice to initiate forfeiture ( = destruction) proceedings against the property” under 28CFR§101(c) unless the property is believed to be adulterated, ie. Fentanyl and water soluble topical dimethoxymethylamhetamine (DOM) causing a 3 day panic attack and up to 6 months of severe mental illness of most concern to law enforcement, under Sec. 301 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act under 21USC§331.
D. The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration shall be held responsible, for the termination of the involuntary biomedical experiment pursuant to the Nuremburg Code. Attorney General approval must be required for the DEA to make payments to drug informants under 28CFR§101(d), to eliminate the bribery of witnesses under 18USC§201, and prosecute tampering and retaliation under 18USC§1512 and §1513 to prevent adulteration under Sec. 301 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act under 21USC§331. The Administrator of DEA is prematurely authorized to release information obtained by DEA and DEA investigative reports to Federal, State, and local officials engaged in the enforcement and prosecution of laws related to controlled substances, and to testify in response to subpoenas under 28CFR§0.103. The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is excessively authorized to redelegate to any of his subordinates or any of the officers or employees of the Immigration and Naturalization Service any of the powers and functions vested in him under 28CFR§0.104. The Administrator of DEA is authorized to exercise the power and authority vested in the Attorney General under the Act of December 7, 1989, with regard to tort claims thereunder arising out of the lawful activities of DEA personnel in an amount not to exceed $50,000.00 in any one case under 31USC§3724 and 28CFR§0.172 and may delegate it to general counsel under 28CFR§0.103a. These unlawful intrusions into medical matters by the DEA, domestic law enforcement and customs conflict with the requirement that the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration shall report to the Attorney General, through the Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General, as directed by the Attorney General, to coordinate drug enforcement policy under 28CFR§0.102. The primary finding is that food and drugs that have been seized by law enforcement must be swiftly destroyed to prevent tampering and diversion; the innocent parties compensated for their loss because it is not in the interests of justice to initiate forfeiture (destruction) proceedings against (perishable) property under 28CFR§101(c) unless the property is believed adulterated under Sec. 301 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act under 21USC§331 whereby an injunction would be warranted under Sec. 302 of the FD&CA 21USC§332.
1. Whoever kills or attempts to kill another to prevent them from recovering from severe pain, or opiate addiction, as the result of fentanyl or cofentanyl tampering under 18USC§1512(a)(1)(A) shall be punished in the case of a killing, the punishment provided by murder §1111 and §1112. In the case of an attempt to murder; or the use or attempted use of physical force against any person; imprisonment for not more than 30 years, and in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 20 years under §1512(a)(3). Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds: Voluntary—Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, up to 15 years. Involuntary—In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death, up to 8 years under §1112. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree. Any other murder is murder in the second degree. Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life. Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life under §1111.
E. Congress called upon the President to reduce mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent drug offenses year-end 2018. The number of federally sentenced prisoners in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) increased 84% between fiscal year (FY) 1998 and 2012, and the number of drug offenders in federal prison grew 63% during this time. At fiscal yearend 2012, offenders whose most serious offense (as defined by the BOP) was a drug offense accounted for about half (52%) of the federally sentenced prison population. Drug offenders comprise about half of federal prison population and sentence length for this subpopulation is the greatest source of federal prison population growth. A study based on 94,678 offenders in federal prison at fiscal yearend 2012 who were sentenced on a new U.S. district court commitment and whose most serious offense (as classified by the Federal Bureau of Prisons) was a drug offense. Almost all (99.5%) drug offenders in federal prison were serving sentences for drug trafficking. Cocaine (powder or crack) was the primary drug type for more than half (54%) of drug offenders in federal prison. Race of drug offenders varied greatly by drug type. Blacks were 88% of crack cocaine offenders, Hispanics or Latinos were 54% of powder cocaine offenders, and whites were 48% of methamphetamine offenders. More than a third (35%) of drug offenders in federal prison at sentencing, had either no or minimal criminal history. Nearly a quarter (24%) of drug offenders in federal prison used a weapon in their most recent offense. The average prison sentence for federal drug offenders was more than 11 years. Across all drug types, crack cocaine offenders were most likely to have extensive criminal histories (40%), used a weapon (32%), and received longer prison terms (170 months). More than half (54%) of drug offenders in the federal prison system had a form of cocaine (powder or crack) as the primary drug type. Methamphetamine offenders (24%) accounted for the next largest share, followed by marijuana (12%) and heroin (6%) offenders. Offenders convicted of crimes involving other drugs (including LSD, some prescription drugs, and MDMA or ecstasy) made up 3% of offenders. Drug seizures constitutes the high crime of robbery (aka racketeering) prosecuted in United States v. Lettiere, 640 F.3d 1271, 1273 (9th Cir. 2011). Kidnapping the victim of drug seizures constitutes two grave breaches of the Geneva Convention. Congress may repeal the Authority for Employment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Senior Executive Service 5USC§3151-3152 pursuant to Fentanyl v. DEA Diversion Control under 18USC§1951, §1512 and §1111.
1. It is held, the defendant has a civil and political duty to shut down a recreational drug business if the Court can't guarantee that the police won't continue to falsely represent, misbrand, detain and potentially adulterate the commercial drug supply protected by Sec. 301 of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA) under 21USC§331. The 2018 reduction in prescription opiate industrial supply quota has so far been the only intervention successful at reducing opiate overdoses, ten times more common than in 2000. Due process of drug robbery victims who are counseled to stop dealing drugs, or subjected to legal punishment to that effect, is that they should be awarded Supplemental Security Income (SSI) because former drug dealers are unlikely to have paid any payroll taxes and are specifically not able to continue in their freely chosen career of recreational drug dealer. Their legal defense does not adequately protect the commercial supply of agricultural medical stuff from grave breeches of Arts. 55 and 147 of the 4th Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Times of War (1949) for free pursuant to Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) No. 175 3 October 2018. The term ''disability'' means the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months in Sec. 223 of Title II of the Social Security Act under 42USC§423 and insures incomes non-contributors by the least restrictive means test of the Supplemental Security Income Program for the Aged, Blind and Disabled in Sec. 1611 of Title XVI of the Social Security Act under 42USC§1382.
§56 Immigration and Customs Enforcement
A. In March 2003, the Homeland Security Act created U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as one of three DHS agencies charged with administering the nation's immigration system. ICE employs more than 20,000, with a presence in all 50 states and 48 foreign countries. ICE’S mission is to protect America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety. ICE special agents, officers and attorneys enforce more than 400 federal statutes, focusing on smart immigration enforcement, preventing terrorism and combating the illegal movement of people and goods. Immigration enforcement is the largest single area of responsibility for ICE. While certain responsibilities and close cooperation with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and others require significant ICE assets near the border, the majority of immigration enforcement work for ICE takes place in the country’s interior. ICE special agents strive to help businesses secure a lawful workforce and enforce immigration laws against those who encourage and rely on unauthorized workers, sometimes taking advantage of their situation to offer low pay and inadequate conditions. Multiple programs help ICE focus and improve on stated priorities to find and remove illegal aliens who are criminals, fugitives or recent arrivals. Immigration enforcement entails cracking down on those who produce fraudulent documents to enable unlawful activity. Additionally, several robust efforts seek to continue improving the safe and humane detention and removal of persons subject to those actions. Several offices identify dangerous persons before they enter the U.S. or finding them as they violate immigration or customs laws.
1. ICE consists of three directorates to accomplish the agency’s mission, including Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Management and Administration (M&A). The total ICE FY 12 enacted budget was $5.82 billion wth total salaries and expenses of $5.5 billion. $1.94 billion FY 12 went to ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) to enforce trade and immigration laws through the investigation of activities, persons and events that may pose a threat to the safety or security of the United States and its citizens. $1.71 billion for domestic investigations, $114.9 million for international investigations, $29.5 million for Visa Security Program, $81.5 million HSI intelligence. HSI's Domestic Investigations investigates illegal trafficking in weapons (including weapons of mass destruction), the smuggling of narcotics and other contraband, human smuggling and trafficking, money laundering and other financial crimes, fraudulent trade practices, identity and benefit fraud, child pornography, child sex tourism, employers that hire illegal and undocumented workers, and health and public safety dangers. HSI made more than 4,800 criminal arrests in national anti-gang operations. ICE seized approximately 7,000 pounds of heroin and more than 2,300 pounds of fentanyl, a drug so deadly, just a few grams can be lethal. HSI's Office of International Investigations conducts investigative efforts in 69 Attaché offices in 47 foreign locations. The office works with foreign counterparts to identify and combat criminal organizations before they can adversely impact the United States, including the Visa Security Program, which focuses on high-risk visa-issuance locations to identify and interdict potential threats before they enter the United States.
2. $2.9 billion went to ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) that are responsible for ensuring that every alien who has been ordered removed departs the United States through fair enforcement of the nation's immigration laws. ERO also coordinates with foreign governments to ensure destination countries will accept aliens removed from the United States. $2.02 billion went to custody operations, $154.6 million fugitive operations, $196.7 million criminal alien program, $72.4 million alternatives to detention, $276.6 million transportation and removal programs, and $184.1 million Secure Communities/ Comprehensive Identification and Removal of Criminal Aliens (SC/CIRCA). SC/CIRCA uses technology to share information between law enforcement agencies and by applying risk-based methodologies to focus resources on assisting all local communities in the removal of those criminal aliens representing the greatest threat to community safety.
3. $648.4 million FY 12 went to Headquarters Management & Administration (HQ M&A) Salaries and Expenses. ICE Management and Administration (M&A) resources provide for top-level agency-wide management in the following Offices: $237.8 million for the Office of the Director; State, Local, and Tribal Coordination (OSLTC) and the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO); Acquisition Management (OAQ); and Professional Responsibility (OPR). $194.7 million for the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). The Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), with an FY 12 budget of $215.9 million, provides the legal advice, training and services required to support the ICE mission. OPLA attorneys handle a variety of immigration-related issues that range from contested removals to custody determinations to applications for administrative relief, as well as legal advice in customs-related enforcement actions and matters involving commercial and administrative law. The DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) receive complaints and investigate allegations, each within their domain. $13.9 million was spent on the Automation Modernization Program that allows ICE to improve information sharing with DHS and other partner organizations.
4. In 2012 ICE collected immigration inspection user fees of $116.9 million. The ICE immigration user fee account is a repository for fees collected from passengers arriving on commercial aircraft and vessels at U.S. air and sea ports of entry. These fees are used to recover costs of ICE operations to deter, detect, detain, adjudicate and remove passengers who are inadmissible to the U.S. under the Immigration and Nationality Act or who attempt to avoid immigration inspection at air and sea ports of entry and enter the United States unlawfully. Most ICE programs receive some user fees. $75 million FY 12 was deposited into the Breached Bond Detention Fund are used by ICE ERO for expenses incurred in the collection of breached bonds, bond management, litigation activities to obtain compliance from surety companies found to be delinquent in meeting their obligations, and for expenses associated with the detention of criminal and illegal aliens. Monies deposited in the fund are used for detention beds and related costs such as healthcare and compliance oversight. $120 million FY 12 went into the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) enhances national security by collecting, maintaining and providing reliable information on foreign students, exchange visitors, and the schools and exchange programs that host them.
B. Over the past decade ICE has increase its presence on the southwest border and strengthened relationships with law enforcement partners, prioritizing criminal aliens and those who pose a threat to the nation. The Criminal Alien Program placed 239,523 detainers, made 219,477 arrests of which 123,457 were criminal aliens, and screened over 400,000 individuals. ICE also successfully removed 392,862 individuals, of which 195,772 were convicted criminal aliens.The number of convicted criminal alien removals increased by nearly 44 percent over FY 2009. The removal of criminal and other illegal aliens from the United States reached record levels. Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable. An alien may also voluntarily leave at their own expense. All aliens subject to detention under 8USC§1226(c) and §1231(a) whereby, when an alien is ordered removed, the alien shall be removes from the United States within a period of 90 days; All inadmissible or deportable aliens subject to proceedings under §1228. So many criminal aliens were removed that the national penal population went down without any legal reforms pertaining to 'no arbitrary arrest, detention or exile' and the federal Bureau of Prison accounts for immigration offenders detained. There was a disparity between Hispanics compared to white prison populations of 1.4 to 1.3 to 1 on average. Apprehensions for immigration violations peaked at 1.8 million in 2000 but dropped to 516,992 in 2010—the lowest level since 1972. The most common immigration offense charged in U.S. district court in 2010 was illegal reentry (81%), followed by alien smuggling (12%), misuse of visas (6%) and illegal entry (1%). Eighty-one percent of immigration defendants who were convicted in U. S. district court received a prison sentence in 2010. The median prison term imposed was 15 months. „„In 2012, five federal judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border accounted for 60% of federal arrests, 53% of suspects investigated, and 41% of offenders sentenced to prison. The questionable ICE custom of 'denaturalization' 2009-2014 seems to have corrupted identification documents with authentification fraud and legal fees in violation of freedom of movement and identification document at national price provisions of Common Articles 26-29 of the Conventions Relating to the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons of 1951 and 1954 respective of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 1961.
1. President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13,768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, on January 25, 2017, which set forth the Administration’s immigration enforcement and removal priorities. The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) February 20, 2017 memorandum, Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest(implementation memorandum) provided direction for the implementation of the policies set forth in the EO. The EO and implementation memorandum expanded ICE’s enforcement focus to include removable aliens who (1) have been convicted of any criminal offense; (2) have been charged with any criminal offense that has not been resolved; (3) have committed acts which constitute a chargeable criminal offense; (4) have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter before a governmental agency; (5) have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits; (6) are subject to a final order of removal but have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or (7) in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security. The Department has directed that classes or categories of removable aliens are no longer exempted from potential enforcement. In FY2017, ICE ERO conducted 143,470 overall administrative arrests, which is the highest number of administrative arrests over the past three fiscal years. Of these arrests, 92 percent had a criminal conviction, a pending criminal charge, were an ICE fugitive or were processed with a reinstated final order. With 143,470 administrative arrests in FY2017, ICE ERO recorded its greatest number of administrative arrests as compared with the past three fiscal years, there were 33,366 more administrative arrests in FY2017 than in FY2016, representing a 30 percent increase. An administrative arrest of a criminal alien is the arrest of an alien with a known criminal conviction. ICE remains committed to targeting such aliens for arrest and removal. ERO arrested 105,736 criminal aliens in FY2017, resulting in a 12 percent (10,985) increase over FY2016. Out of 143,470 total arrests, 105,736 had criminal convictions (73.7%), 22,256 pending criminal charges (15.5%) and 15,478 no known criminal charges or convictions (10.8%). Of non-criminal aliens arrested in FY2017, 59 percent had unresolved criminal charges at the time of their arrest, 57 percent were processed with a notice to appear, and 23 percent were ICE fugitives or subjects who had been previously removed and served an order of reinstatement.
2. A detainer is a request that the receiving law enforcement agency both notify DHS as early as practicable, at least 48 hours, if possible, before a removable alien is released from criminal custody, and also maintain custody of the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours beyond the time the alien would otherwise have been released to allow DHS to assume custody for removal purposes. ICE issues detainers to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies only after establishing probable cause to believe that the subject is an alien who is removable from the United States. Although not legally required, as a matter of policy, all detainers issued by ICE must be accompanied by either: (1) a properly completed Form I-200 (Warrant for Arrest of Alien) signed by a legally authorized immigration officer; or (2) a properly completed Form I-205 (Warrant of Removal/Deportation) signed by a legally authorized immigration officer. ERO issued 112,493 detainers in the time period beginning with the new Administration, as opposed to 62,192 during the same time period from the previous fiscal year, an 81 percent increase. The rise in detainers issued shows a more active approach to interior enforcement, particularly for those aliens involved in criminal activity, despite continued opposition from some state and local jurisdictions. ICE records a detainer as declined when a law enforcement agency fails to maintain custody of an alien for up to 48 hours, as requested on Form I-247A (Immigration Detainer – Notice of Action), and instead releases the alien into the community. In FY2017, law enforcement agencies declined 8,170 ERO detainers, a 67% increase, compared with 3,623 in FY2016. While ICE initial book-ins declined in FY2017, the proportion of those book-ins resulting from ICE’s interior enforcement efforts increased in FY2017. ICE book-ins since the new Administration were 42 percent higher in FY2017 than during the same time period in FY2016, rising from 75,946 to 108,077. Border enforcement book-ins dropped 25 percent in FY2017 compared to FY2016, while book-ins from ICE arrests increased 29 percent.
3. ICE’s detention capacity from fewer than 7,500 beds in 1995 to over 30,000 today. ICE operates the largest detention and supervised release program in the country. Every detention facility is required to provide four programs services in addition to medical care. They are 1) Law Library and Other Activities affording Access to the Court; 2) Recreation; 3) Family Contact including Visitation and Communication by Mail and Telephone; and 4) Religious Activities and Observances. A total of 378,582 aliens from 221 countries were in custody or supervised by ICE in FY 2008; activities in 2009 remain at a similar level. On September 1, 2009, ICE had 31,075 aliens in detention at more than 300 facilities throughout the United States and territories, with an additional 19,169 aliens in Alternative to Detention programs. The medical care at these locations is provided by the Division of Immigration Health Services (DIHS).
Of the aliens in detention on September 1, 66 percent were subject to mandatory detention and 51 percent were felons, of which, 11 percent had committed violent crimes. The majority of ICE detention capacity is located in the San Antonio (14%), Phoenix (9%), Atlanta (8%), Houston (7%), Miami (6%), and New Orleans (6%) field offices areas, and there is perceived to be shortage in California. 50 percent of the population is detained primarily in non-dedicated or shared-use county jails through IGSA. These facilities, approximately 240 in number, also house county prisoners and sometimes, other inmates. Fewer than 50 of these jails detain on average 100 or more aliens daily. Females are assigned to approximately 150 jails, with about half of the women in 18 locations. Currently, 38 families with minor children are detained in two family residential facilities (FRF); last month. Approximately 1,400 non-criminal asylum seekers are detained daily. The majority of the population is characterized as low custody, or having a low propensity for violence. As a matter of law, Immigration Detention is unlike Criminal Incarceration. With only a few exceptions, the facilities that ICE uses to detain aliens were originally built, and currently operate, as jails and prisons to confine pre-trial and sentenced felons. Although many aliens who enter illegally have committed a misdemeanor criminal offense in violation of 8USC§1325, ICE does not have authority to detain aliens for that criminal violation while criminal proceedings are pending. Instead, the Department of Justice holds that authority. Although ICE has no criminal detention authority, ICE has administrative authority pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act to detain aliens during the removal process. Immigration proceedings are civil proceedings and immigration detention is not punishment; see Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 609 (2001).
4. ICE removals include removals and returns where aliens were turned over to ICE for removal efforts. This includes aliens processed for Expedited Removal (ER) or Voluntary Return (VR) that are turned over to ICE for detention. While total removals declined from 240,255 in FY2016 to 226,119 in FY2017, the proportion resulting from ICE arrests increased from 65,332, or 27 percent of total removals in FY2016 to 81,603, or 36 percent of total removals in FY2017. Despite the 6 percent decline in overall removals as shown in Figure 14, ICE removed 25 percent more aliens arrested during interior enforcement activities in FY2017 compared to the previous year. This surge in interior removals nearly offset the 17 percent decline in border removals, which mirrored the trend of fewer book-ins of border apprehensions and expedited removal. The number of countries who do not cooperate in the return of their nationals was reduced from 12 in April 2017, to just nine by the end of the year. Furthermore, the number of countries who are at risk of being labeled uncooperative has fallen from 47 to 36.
C. In fiscal year 2017, ICE arrested 20,201 people across California. Of those, 81% had criminal convictions. Still, dozens had no criminal histories. Although the raids prioritized people who pose a threat, anyone violating immigration laws was subject to arrest. The Trump administration went to federal court to invalidate three California sanctuary laws. Administration officials say the three laws in question, all passed by the Legislature last year, blatantly obstruct federal immigration law and thus violate the Constitution's supremacy clause, which gives federal law precedence over state measures under Article VI Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. ICE sweeps are unconstitutional under Article IV and the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. ICE sweeps are are cruel and unusual because immigration laws do not constitute a crime, and the judges of courts of competent jurisdiction, where the crime occurred and the defendant resides, have not found for deportation. California sanctuary laws make it a crime for business owners to voluntarily help federal agents find and detain undocumented workers, prohibit local law enforcement from alerting immigration agents when detainees are released from custody, and create a state inspection program for federal immigration detention centers. For some cities, the sanctuary movement consists simply of encouraging people without legal status to get more involved in government. San Francisco declared itself a sanctuary city in 1989, and city officials strengthened the stance in 2013 with its Due Process for All ordinance. The law declared that local authorities could not detain immigrants for federal immigration officials if the immigrant had no violent felonies on their record and did not currently face charges. The inability of officers to go to local lockups to pick up immigrants who have been detained by local police agencies forces them to hunt down suspects in more dangerous settings. ICE might be trespassed more equitably if California judges maintained a record of mandatory deportations of some detainees and pay for the voluntary relocation of not guilty persons under Rule 4 Fed. Crim. P.
Article 4 US Courts
§57 Judicial Branch
A. The Judicial Branch is established in Article III of the US Constitution. Section 1 The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during the Continuance in Office. Section 2 The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity; arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; --to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. 2. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. 3. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed, but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State under the 11th Amendment to the US Constitution.
a. The Judiciary’s appropriation request for fiscal year 2019 totals $7,862,979,000 a 3.2% increase over fiscal year 2018. The FY 19 request invents mandatory appropriations to explain an increase in financial program level beginning FY 17. The $7.9 billion is composed of $638,749,000 in mandatory appropriations and $7,224,230,000 in discretionary appropriations, an increase of $245,549,000, in the absence of enacted full year fiscal year 2018 congressional budget justification. Of the total increase, $22,136,000 is for mandatory appropriations (3.6% increase) and $223,413,000 is for discretionary appropriations (3.2% increase). The federal Judiciary transmitted its fiscal year 2017 budget request to Congress, seeking $7.0 billion in discretionary appropriations, a 3.2 percent increase above fiscal year 2016 funding. Of that, $5.1 billion is for courts’ salaries and expenses, which fund the operating expenses of the regional circuit courts of appeals, district and bankruptcy courts, and probation and pretrial services offices. The Judiciary’s request also includes $1.1 billion for the defender services program, which provides court-appointed attorneys for criminal defendants who cannot afford counsel, $565.4 million for security costs at federal court facilities, and $43.7 million to pay juror fees. At the beginning of fiscal year 2016, probation offices nationwide received the largest increase in caseload in the system’s 90-year history due to sentencing reductions for offenders of certain drug offenses. An increase of $6.7 million in fiscal year 2017 will ensure a sufficient number of probation officers are available to properly supervise these offenders in the community. A $6 an hour above inflation rate increase from $131 to $137 is requested in fiscal year 2017 for Criminal Justice Act (CJA) attorneys in non-capital cases. A requested increase in the daily juror attendance fee from $40 to $50 for fiscal year 2017 would be the first rate increase since December 1990. The increase would alleviate some of the financial burden associated with jury duty for the approximately 40 percent of private sector workers who have no access to paid jury leave. Fiscal year 2018 funding level assumes that Congress will provide a full-year discretionary appropriation for the Salaries and Expenses account that is 0.5 percent above the fiscal year 2017 enacted level, a mid- point between a hard freeze at the fiscal year 2017 enacted level and the fiscal year 2018 House mark for the Defender Services and Court Security accounts, and a current services level for the Fees of Jurors account. The FY 19 Judiciary budget invents mandatory appropriations, does not add up right, the totals, described as Total Direct, are slightly too low, and the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund is counted twice, although the interagency trust fund only counts to estimate total congressional budget authority, or program level, and should not be counted at all to estimate federal outlays.
Judiciary Budget FY 16 – FY 20
(thousands)
|Appropriation |FY 2016 |FY 2017 |FY 18 |FY 19 |FY 20 |
|Account | | | | | |
|U.S. Supreme Court |75,838 |79,279 |83,320 |87,022 |89,198 |
|Salaries & Expenses | | | | | |
|Care of Building and|9,964 |14,868 |15,328 |15,999 |16,399 |
|Grounds | | | | | |
|Subtotal, U.S. |85,802 |94,147 |98,648 |103,021 |105,597 |
|Supreme Court | | | | | |
|U. S. Court of |30,872 |33,050 |33,347 |34,292 |35,149 |
|Appeals for the | | | | | |
|Federal Circuit | | | | | |
|U. S. Court of |18,160 |20,035 |20,583 |21,157 |21,686 |
|International Trade | | | | | |
|Courts of Appeals, |4,918,969 |5,395,707 |5,433,640 |5,551,824 |5,690,620 |
|District Courts & | | | | | |
|other Judicial | | | | | |
|Services (CADCOJS) | | | | | |
|Salaries & Expenses | | | | | |
|Direct | | | | | |
|Vaccine Injury Fund |6,050 |6,510 |8,221 |8,475 |8,687 |
|Subtotal, Salaries |4,925,019 |5,402,217 |5,441,861 |5,560,299 |5,699,307 |
|and Expenses | | | | | |
|Defender Services |1,004,949 |1,044,647 |1,077,511 |1,141,489 |1,170,026 |
|Fees of Jurors & |44,199 |39,929 |45,829 |51,233 |52,514 |
|Commissioners | | | | | |
|Court Security |538,196 |565,388 |569,990 |602,309 |617,367 |
|Subtotal, CADCOJS |6,512,363 |7,052,181 |7,135,191 |7,355,330 |7,539,215 |
|Administrative |85,665 |87,500 |87,920 |89,867 |92,114 |
|Office | | | | | |
|Federal Judicial |27,719 |28,335 |28,522 |29,064 |29,791 |
|Center | | | | | |
|Judicial Retirement |0 |168,300 |195,000 |211,700 |216,993 |
|Fund | | | | | |
|U.S. Sentencing |17,570 |18,100 |18,219 |18,548 |19,012 |
|Commission | | | | | |
|Total Congressional |6,778,151 |7,852,000 |7,902,000 |8,055,000 |8,165,154 |
|Budget Authority | | | | | |
|Vaccine Injury Fund |-6,050 |-6,510 |-8,221 |-8,475 |-8,687 |
|Total Federal |6,772,101 |7,589,285 |7,707,857 |7,957,525 |8,156,467 |
|Outlays | | | | | |
|OMB Judiciary |7,499,000 |7,569,000 |8,165,000 |8,015,000 |8,113,000 |
|outlays est. | | | | | |
Source: FY 2017 Judiciary Budget Summary, The Judiciary FY 2019 Congressional Budget Summary. Administrative Office of the US Courts. February 2018. OMB Historical Tables FY 19
B. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court under Art. 3 Sec. 3 of the US Constitution. The Judiciary can save nearly $1 billion annually by correcting OMB HistoricalTable 4.1 Outlays by Agency from the historical federal debt. The United States Sentencing Commission, costing $17.5 million, under 28USC§991-998 and other mandatory minimum sentencing must be repealed and abolished under Blakely v. Washington (2004). The name of the Court of International Trade of the United States (COITUS) needs to be changed to Customs Court (CC). The U.S. Court of International Trade was constituted by the Customs Court Act of 1980 and is codified at 28 U.S.C. Chapter 11 §251-258 to employ 12 presidential appointed judges who hear claims against the United States under 28 USC Chapter 95 §1581-1585. The 1930 Tariff Act, 1974 Trade Act and the Customs Courts Act of 1980 grant the Court a residual grant of exclusive subject matter jurisdictional authority to decide any civil action against the United States, its officers, or its agencies arising out of any law pertaining to international trade, tariffs and customs. The Court operates in accordance with the Rules of Court and in co-operation with the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. The acronym CoITUS is obscene and needs to be renamed to Customs Court (CC) to better respect the laws of nations. Chapter 11 of Title 28 on the Judiciary on the Organization of the Court of International Trade (COIT) needs to be amended to to Customs Court (CC), and reference to COIT needs to changed to Customs Court in 28USCI(11)§251(a&b), §252, §253(a), §254, §255(a), §257, and §258(a)(1), Chapter 55 on Court Officers in §871 and §872 to CC. d. Chapter 95 on the Jurisdiction and Venue in §1581(a-j), §1582, §1583, §1584, and §1585 to CC. e. Chapter 169 on Procedure in §2631(a-j), §2632(a-d), §2633(a-c), §2634, §2635(a-d), §2636(a-i), §2637(a-d), §2638, §2639(a&c), §2640(a,b,c&e), §2641(a&b), §2642, §2643(a-d), §2644, §2645(a-c), and §2646 to CC. f. Any other reference to COIT that might be discovered at a later date, such as 18USC§6001(4) to CC.
1. The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) consists of seven voting members and one nonvoting member under 28USC§991-998 that must be repealed and members of the US Sentencing Commission, fired, pursuant to the elimination of sentencing guidelines schemes and, 20 years of sentencing reform ordered by the US Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington No. 02-1632 June 24, 2004. Sentences imposed under such guidelines in cases currently pending on direct appeal, or in cold habeas petitions, are in jeopardy. In both legislative and litigate practice Criminal sentences must be adjusted downward rather upward, mandatory minimum schemes eliminated and acquittals the norm for most crimes where there are significant mitigating factors. The purpose of the United States Sentencing Commission was to establish sentencing policies and eliminate sentencing disparities under 18USC§3551. The judge, in making an authorized sentencing decision regarding probation, prison and fines may adjust downward the sentencing estimate introduced by the prosecutor and congress or nullify them completely. Mandatory minimum sentencing offends the international recognized legal concept that the statute provides guidelines for a maximum sentence. The legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws. Judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence that the legal system is representing liberty interests.
2. It is unlawful for anyone acting under the authority of state law to deprive another person of his or her rights under the Constitution or federal law under 42USC§1983. USCC corruptly endeavors to forcefully influence, intimidate, impede or injure the due process of the federal court under 18USC§1503. The best example of unfair mandatory minimum sentencing is that although the average prison sentence imposed during 2000 was 57 months, defendants convicted of weapons felonies (92 months), violent felonies (87 months), and drug felonies (76 months) received the longest prison terms, on average. In the statistical reckoning drug offenses, other than tampering, like vagrancy and public intoxication, account towards a 50% false arrest rate, because the Prosecutor should not conduct unlawfully obtained evidence, and hold that drug seizures by armed forces constitute the high crime of robbery (aka racketeering) under United States v. Lettiere, 640 F.3d 1271, 1273 (9th Cir. 2011). 49% of federal prisoners are detained for drug offenses, to the discredit of federal judges, who are evidently not any smarter than a law enforcement officer in the practice of summoning drug robbery victims to avoid legal process abolishing the DEA under 18USC§1512. The federal court similarly fritters away their arson conviction of the Forest Service under 18USC§81, 60 times more flammable than the National Park Service, by excessively punishing the Hammonds, who stopped burning years before they became due to be remitted under 18USC§3573(1) the $450,000 they paid for a $500 fine for un-permitted fire under 36CFR251.5 and 16USC§551, so long for the conditional threats of rural landowners, that the flagrante delicto is untried for the “order to destroy all slash piles to reduce forest fire risk” ie. for threatening social security administration staff in United States v. Bankoff, 613 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 2010), 27 months and 3 years probation in United States v. Wolff, 2010 WL 1049569 (10th Cir. Mar. 23, 2010), 168 months imprisonment in United States v. Bischof, 2010 WL 3010349 (10th Cir. Aug. 3, 2010), 24 months United States v. Zohfeld, 595 F.3d 740, 742 (7th Cir.2010), 120 months United States v. Carson, 2010 WL 1695635 (3d Cir. Apr. 28, 2010), without regard for the conditional language of Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).
C. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is not accurately accounted for twice, and because disbursements are much lower than reported outlays it is presumed that the entire VICP Trust Fund is being described as outlays, without making any notation to intra-governmental nature of the congressional budget authority, similar to the way the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) claims outlays for vaccines but offsets every penny. The VICP has experienced a steady increase in claims in recent years. In total, claims have doubled over FY 2009 levels and are projected to steadily increase through FY 2017 and beyond. At the same time as claims have increased, the appropriated reimbursement from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund has not significantly increased since FY 2009. In FY 2009, 400 cases were filed; VICP funded 41 FTE for an average caseload per attorney of 9.7. By 2015, the number of cases significantly increased to over 800 but, currently, the VICP only funds 36 FTE. Cases are expected to further increase to approximately 1,000 in FY 2016 and 1,200 in FY 2017. Without additional relief, the caseload per attorney will be 30 cases; however, with the additional reimbursement requested, the caseload will be 23.1 per attorney. To fully fund the Program in FY 2017 and to add staff to handle the increasing claims, an additional $2.6 million reimbursement from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund is required, bringing the total appropriated reimbursement from $9.4 million to $12.0 million. Payments are very high. Payments are so high, few of the many victims are compensated. Prescription information regarding, low cost, one-dose amantadine (Symmetrel) effective against human influenza type A and other diseases, or oseltamivir (Tamiflu), zanamivir (Relenza), or peramivir (Rapivab) treat influenza type A or B, that is particularly epidemic in schools and law enforcement, must be discussed in every publication regarding the flu.
D. The 2004 edition of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct is intended to establish standards for ethical conduct of judges. It consists of broad statements called Canons. It was adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association on August 16, 1972 and underwent three revisions. The Code replaced the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which had been formulated almost 50 years earlier. CANON 1 A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. CANON 2 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities. CANON 3 A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently. CANON 4 A judge shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations. CANON 5 A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.
1. The purpose of the Basic Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary of 6 September 1985, is to establish conditions under which justice can be maintained to achieve international co-operation in promoting and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines in particular the principles of equality before the law, of the presumption of innocence and of the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The fundamental premise is that the judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct as revised at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justice at Peace Palace, the Hague, 25-16 November 2002 explains, a judge shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of the judge's assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. A judge shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to a reasonable observer to be free there from.
2. The independence of tribunals is rooted in the separation of powers in a democratic society. The judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature. Protection of the independence of the judiciary requires that people are selected as judges on the basis of their legal training and experience. Judges should not be selected for "improper motives" and should be properly qualified. Promotion of judges should be based on objective factors, particularly ability, integrity and experience. States must provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to perform its functions, and to ensure adequate salaries and pensions for judges. As a procedural safeguards to protect individuals against any "misjudgments and professional lapses" Judges and lawyers may be subjected to disciplinary procedures and sanctions for misconduct, including suspension and removal. The state may also be liable to pay compensation for judicial misconduct. However, judges should enjoy personal immunity from civil suits for damages for improper acts or omissions in the exercise of their judicial functions. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behavior that renders them unfit to discharge their duties. The right to an impartial tribunal requires that judges and jurors have no interest or stake in a particular case and do not have pre-formed opinions about it. Judges must not harbor preconceptions about the matter put before them, and that they must not act in ways that promote the interests of one of the parties. Decisions about facts must be made solely on the evidence, and the facts must be applied to the applicable laws. There must be no interference, restriction, inducements, pressure, or threats from any quarter. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “the independence of the judges once destroyed, the constitution is gone, it is a dead letter; it is a vapor which the breath of faction in a moment may dissipate”.
E. There is a Congressional and a Senate Judiciary Committee. Any substantive legislation that carries a possibility for criminal or civil penalties can be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. In the Federalist Papers the founding fathers of the US Constitution foresaw a Judiciary Committee that would try the indiscretions of the criminal judges to protect the rights of the citizens from oppression. On June 3, 1813, a standing Committee on the Judiciary was established by the House of Representatives to consider legislation relating to judicial proceedings. The Committee on the Judiciary was first authorized on December 10, 1816. The Committee has one of the broadest jurisdictions. Senator Dudley Chase of Vermont, became the first Chairman of the Committee on December 13, 1816. The longest sitting chairman, before limits were established, was Senator James O. Eastland of Mississippi who served 22 years from 1956 through 1978. The Senate Judiciary Committee is responsible for the nomination and confirmation of Federal Judges. The Committee holds meetings when called by the Chairman. Witnesses are expected to report their intention to attend at least 48 hours in advance. At least 10 members are required for a quorum. Non debatable issues may be brought to a vote. The Committee Clerk keeps track of attendance. The House Committee on the Judiciary has been called the lawyer for the House of Representatives because of its jurisdiction over matters relating to the administration of justice in Federal courts, administrative bodies, and law enforcement agencies. Its infrequent but important role in impeachment proceedings has also brought it much attention. The legislative jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committees encompasses: (a) Civil liberties. (b) Federal courts & judges. (c) Local courts in the territories & possessions. (d) National penitentiaries. (e) Judicial proceedings generally.There is a five year period for the drafting of new statute under 1USC§202(c). The Judiciary Committee is entitled to $6,500 per year appropriation for the preparation of the code and supplement for the United States and the District of Columbia under 1USC§213.
§58 Federal Court
A. The Federal Judiciary was established by Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution and all federal judges are appointed by the US President and the Senate Judiciary Committee upon the recommendation of the US Department of Justice. There are a total of 875 authorized federal judgeships. 9 with the Supreme Court, 179 with the Circuit Courts of Appeals, 678 with the District Courts and 9 with the Court of International Trade. As of June 30, 2007 there were 51 vacancies. 13 on the Courts of Appeal and 38 in the District Court. The Chief Justice in the 2006 Year-End-Report of the Federal Judiciary of January 1, 2007 wrote, Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure… Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure, Federal judges rarely left the bench in the past but are now leaving at an increasing rate, 38 in the past six years, including 17 in the last two years. The United States is unique in giving their federal judges life tenure to the bench although this royalty is not written in either the Constitution or Code. By statute, federal district judges receive the same salaries as members of Congress, $174,200 a year in 2009, the last year Congress authorized a raise for themselves. Judges on the federal appeals courts received $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court, $203,000; and the chief justice $212,100. Their second to last substantial pay raise was a 25% increase provided by a 1989 law, the Ethics Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 101-94, 103 Stat. 1716 (1989), under which judges lost the right to earn most types of outside income in return for the raise and the promise of regular cost-of-living increases. A 2.5% annual payroll increase for government agencies translates to 2.5% annual pay-raise for the static population of federal judges.
1. In 1969, federal district judges earned slightly more than law school deans, $40,000 compared to $33,000, and substantially more than the $28,000 earned by senior law professors, the situation by 2002 was completely reversed. In that year, the judges were earning $150,000, compared to $250,000 for the professors and $325,000 for the deans. In 2000 the Federal Judiciary received $2.374 billion, only 0.23% of the $2.025 trillion federal budget. There were 35 judicial confirmations in fiscal year 2000 and 66 vacancies listed in the 2000 year-end report. In fiscal year 2000 there were 54,697 filings in the 12 regional courts of appeals. In the district courts there were 259,517 civil cases and 62,745 criminal cases filed, totaling 83,963 criminal defendants. Fiscal Year 2000 numbers are the highest since 1933, when the Prohibition Amendment was repealed. In 2006 there were an estimated 1.5 million cases filed with the Federal Judiciary. 8,521 cases were filed by the Supreme Court. The Circuit Courts of Appeals received 66,618 filing. 326,401 cases were filed with the District Courts. 1,112,542 cases were filed with Bankruptcy Court.
B. The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the US. The Court is framed by Article III §1 of the US Constitution, Title 28 US Code (1)1 and the Rules of the Supreme Court.
In co-operation with the Judiciary Committee of the US Congress, the US Supreme Court amends the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The chief justice and eight associate justices are appointed by the president of the United States, for a life term, with the consent of 2/3 of the Senate in accordance with Article II §2 of the U.S. Constitution. In the Amistad 40 US 518 (1841) the Court recognized that the government of the United States is based on the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, by the Congress of 1776; 'that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted.' Recollecting that there is among nations, as among men, a golden rule; let us do to them, as we wish them to do to us. Therefore be declared free and dismissed from the custody of the court. The landmark decision of the times is Blakely v. Washington No. 02-1632 of June 24, 2004 that eliminated sentencing guidelines schemes and, 20 years of sentencing reform. Sentences imposed under such guidelines in cases currently pending on direct appeal, or in cold habeas petitions, are in jeopardy. In both legislative and litigate practice Criminal sentences must be adjusted downward rather than upward, mandatory minimum schemes eliminated and acquittals the norm for most crimes where there are significant mitigating factors. As the source of unlawful mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines the US Sentencing Commission (USCC) needs to be abolished for unlawfully influencing the decisions of the federal court under 18USC§1503 due to their continuing obstruction of court order to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing under 18USC§1509. Injunctive relief against all mandatory minimum sentences, must result in the abolition of the USSC, and will result in either the convictions, reliant on mandatory minimum sentencing, especially drug offenses, being overturned or being sentenced anew, to a more reasonable sentence, in light of the crime(s) of the prosecution and defendant.
1. Cases are filed in accordance with the Rules of Practice. Writ of certiorari are granted by the grace of the Supreme Court when a federal question arises in the court of appeals [or state supreme court] in accordance with Art. III Rule 10. Original actions may be heard in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party in accordance with IV Rule 17. Extraordinary writs are also sparingly reviewed in accordance with IV Rule 20. The 2000 year end report shows the total number of cases filed in the Supreme Court in 1999 to be 7,377. 5,282 were in forma pauperis. 2,092 paid the $300 filing fee, only 83 cases were argued and 79 were disposed of in 74-signed opinions. The total number of cases filed in the Supreme Court increased from 7,496 filings in the 2004 Term to 8,521 filings in the 2005 Term–an increase of 13.7%. The number of cases filed in the Court‘s in forma pauperis docket increased from 5,755 filings in the 2004 Term to 6,846 filings in the 2005 Term–a 19% increase. The number of cases filed in the Court‘s paid docket decreased from 1,741 filings in the 2004 Term to 1,671 filings in the 2005 Term–a 4% decline. During the 2005 Term, 87 cases were argued and 82 were disposed of in 69 signed opinions, compared to 87 cases argued and 85 disposed of in 74 signed opinions in the 2004 Term.
2. The American Bar Association (ABA) was founded on August 21, 1878; in Saratoga Springs, New York, by 100 lawyers from 21 states. In 2005 membership to the ABA reached more than 400,000 including more than 350,000 lawyer members. The ABA has long served a dual role as advocate for the profession and for the public. With the growing complexity of society and our legal system, the ABA's public role has gained both emphasis and breadth. The 11 goals of the association are:
1. to promote improvement in the American system of justice
2. to promote meaningful access to legal representation and the American system of justice for all persons regardless of their economic or social condition 3. to provide ongoing leadership in improving the law to serve the changing needs of society 4. to increase public understanding of and respect for the law, the legal process and the role of the legal profession 5. to achieve the highest standards of professionalism, competence and ethical conduct 6. to serve as the national representative of the legal profession 7. to provide benefits, programs and services which promote professional growth and enhance the quality of life of the members 8. to advance the rule of law in the world 9. to promote full and equal participation in the legal profession by minorities, women, and persons with disabilities 10. to preserve and enhance the ideals of the legal profession as a common calling and its dedication to public service 11. to preserve the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary as fundamental to a free society.
C. There are 12 regional and a Federal circuit courts of appeals in accordance with Title 28 of the US Code, Chapter 3 §41-49. The Circuit Court hears appeals of right, by permission and by leave of the Court regarding the decisions of bankruptcy and district courts in their circuit. In 2002 the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal filed 57,555 cases- 18,272 from prisoners, 11,569 criminal cases, 5,789 administrative cases, and 21,925 civil cases – only 27,758 were terminated, leaving 40,965 cases pending before the Circuit Courts of Appeals. The average circuit court judge wrote 165 decisions in 2002. The number of appeals filed in the regional courts of appeals in fiscal year 2006 declined by 3% from the record level set in fiscal year 2005. The courts of appeals received 66,618 filings. All categories of appeals, except original proceedings, declined. Before 2006, the number of appellate filings had declined only twice since 1959. The past year‘s decline stemmed from decreases in criminal appeals and federal prisoner petitions following the filing deadline for cases affected by the Supreme Court‘s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), as well as a reduction in appeals from administrative agency decisions involving the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
1. Nationwide, the number of criminal appeals dropped by 5% to 15,246 filings, after rising by 28% in 2005 in response to the Booker decision. Despite that decline, the number of criminal appeals in 2006 surpassed by more than 25% the number of filings in the years before the Court‘s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
The number of administrative agency appeals fell by 4% to 13,102 because of a reduction in the number of cases that the BIA completed in 2005. Since 2002, the number of BIA appeals has soared by 168%. The number of civil appeals declined by 3% to 31,991 as the statute of limitations expired for the filing of Booker-related habeas corpus petitions. The number of prisoner petitions filed by state prisoners rose by 3% to 11,129 filings. The number of original proceedings climbed by 9% to 5,458 filings, as prisoners continued to file second or successive motions seeking permission to file habeas corpus petitions. The courts of appeals continue to receive petitions from the backlog of state prisoners affected by the Blakely decision, who must exhaust their state court remedies before seeking relief in federal court. Despite the year‘s overall decline, the total number of appeals increased by 16%, or 9,063 filings, from 2002 to 2006. The national prison population rose to a high of 2,307,504 (755 per 100,000) in 2008 before quietly going down to 2,217,947 (693 per 100,000) in 2014. It was not until 2014, when the Obama administration reviewed racial disparities in sentencing and the federal prison banned the smoking of cigarettes, except for religious reasons, that the federal prison population began to decline, at an accelerating rate, from a high of 219,298 in 2013 to 192,170 in 2016.
D. The United States district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system and are constituted in accordance with chapter 5 of 28USC§81-144. Within limits set by Congress and the Constitution, the district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all categories of federal cases, including both civil and criminal matters. There are 94 federal judicial districts, including at least one district in each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, three territories of the United States -- the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. In 2002 there were 344,546 cases filed in the US District Courts, 323,629 cases were terminated and 312,971 cases pending. The average district judge hears 518 cases every year- 413 civil, 84 criminal and 21 supervised release hearings. Over the past five years, the number of civil cases filed in the United States district courts has fallen by 6%, or 15,300 cases. The decline has occurred primarily in cases involving civil rights, personal injury, and Social Security claims. Nevertheless, the number of civil cases filed in 2006 increased by 2% to a total of 259,541 cases. That growth occurred primarily because of a sharp jump in asbestos-related diversity cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Excluding those filings, civil cases declined by 4% from 2005 to 2006, as federal question cases involving prisoner petitions and civil rights dropped significantly. The national median time from filing of a civil case to its disposition was 8.3 months, which reflected a decline from the 9.5-month median period in 2005. Cases in which the United States was a plaintiff or defendant declined by 15% to 44,294 cases, while those in which the United States was a defendant fell by 17%. The latter number declined because federal prisoner petitions decreased by 33% (down by 5,978 cases) as filings returned to levels consistent with the number of petitions filed before the Supreme Court‘s decision in Booker.
1. The number of criminal cases filed in 2006 decreased by 4% to 66,860 cases and 88,216 defendants. The decline stemmed from shifts in priorities of the United States Department of Justice, which directed more of its resources toward combating terrorism. The number of criminal cases filed in 2006 is similar to the number of cases filed in 2002, when criminal case filings jumped by 7% following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Although the number of criminal case filings declined in 2006, the median time for case disposition for defendants climbed from 6.8 months in 2005 to 7.1 months in 2006. The median time period, which was 27 days longer than in 2004, reflected an increase in the time that courts needed to process post-Booker cases. The number of drug-related criminal cases decreased by 4% to 17,429 filings. The number of defendants charged with drug crimes fell by 6% to 30,567 individuals. The number of immigration-related criminal cases, which rose to record levels in 2005, declined by 5% to 16,353 cases. The number of defendants charged in those cases decreased by 4% to 17,651 individuals. Most of the decline in immigration-related criminal cases is attributable to a decline in cases charging offenses involving improper first-time entry. Sex-related criminal cases climbed by 6% to 1,885 filings, and the number of defendants charged in those cases increased by 8% to 1,975 individuals. Criminal cases involving firearms and explosives cases declined by 6% to 8,678 filings, and the number of defendants charged in those cases dropped 5% to 9,800 individuals. For the second consecutive year, the number of criminal cases declined. The number of cases had risen in nine of the previous ten years. District judges continue to be reported to require their mandatory minimum sentencing be eliminated from their criminal cases, pursuant to Blakely, especially for the statistically significant, long sentencing for non-violent domestic drug felonies evading legal process of an injunction against the tampering of the DEA under 18USC§1512 and Sec. 302 of the FD&CA 21USC§332.
2. Psychiatry in federal pre-trial seems to be statistically helpful in reducing the federal prison population under 18USC§4243. However, the federal prison reports that the prosecutor of pre-trial has engaged in a new practice of involuntary antipsychotic drug consumption being accepted as competency to stand trial, and must terminate that particular experiment under the Nuremberg Code, rather than wait for a determination of mental competency to stand trial or undergo post-release proceedings under 18USC§4241. Antipsychotic drugs and sleep aids are lumped together, in reference to institutional psychiatry, as the second leading cause of fatal drug overdose after opiates. After it was found by the Attorney General in 2000, that certain combinations of traditional antipsychotic drugs could cause extra-pyramidal side-effect, potentially lethal facial tics, second generation antipsychotics were designed to be administered in gradually increasing doses whereas an unaccustomed, person taking one regular dose of an antipsychotic pill, would suffer hospital admission for potentially lethal extra-pyramidal side effects of antipsychotic drugs, the FDA indicates is cured by one dose of Amantadine (Symmetrel). Antipsychotic abuse in nursing homes has declined 30% since 2014. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense under 18USC§17. People who plead not guilty by reason of insanity are informed that they will serve the maximum sentence for the crime they are accused of until they admit to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against them and assist the court properly in their defense. Involuntary antipsychotic consumption as competency to stand trial, reduces time served. This sentence reduction is justified as compensation under Art. 14 of the Convention against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading, Punishment or Treatment. The practice of involuntary antipsychotic consumption as competency to stand trial must cease. For statistical comparison, the non-drug abuse finding is that pre-trial detainees must be informed, by psychiatric, legal or prison counsel at the law library, of the maximum sentence they can receive for the crime they are accused of, and that if they continue to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, they will serve all of it, if they cannot assist properly in their defense.
E. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy under 28USC§151-158. Bankruptcy cases cannot be filed in state court. Each of the 94 federal judicial districts handles bankruptcy matters in accordance with Title 11. The primary purposes of the law of bankruptcy are: (1) to give an honest debtor a "fresh start" in life by relieving the debtor of specific debts by prohibiting further collection actions, and (2) to repay creditors in an orderly manner to the extent that the debtor has property available for payment. In 2002 the number of bankruptcy proceedings was 1.5 million. The number of filings in the United States bankruptcy courts fell from 1,782,643 cases in 2005 to 1,112,542 cases in 2006. The past year‘s number, which reflects the lowest number of bankruptcy cases filed since 1996, was 38% below the record number in 2005, when filings soared as debtors rushed to file before the October 17, 2005, implementation date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The 2005 surge in filings accelerated until the implementation date, and more than half of the total 2006 filings occurred in the first month of the fiscal year. Non-business filings dropped by 38%, and business petitions fell by 20%. Chapter 7 and chapter 13 filings declined by 38% and 36%, respectively, and chapter 11 filings dropped by 10%. Chapter 12 filings rose by 3%, reflecting 12 more filings than the previous year. In the United States the average time it takes to litigate a bankruptcy is 1.5 years, the cost is 7% of the estate and the recovery rate 76.7%. Medical costs have become the leading cause of bankruptcy. In 1981 only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy did so in the aftermath of a serious medical problem. By 2001 that percentage had increased to 46.2% and by 2007 to 69.1%. While hospital costs loomed largest for all diagnostic groups, for about one third of patients with pulmonary, cardiac, or psychiatric illnesses, prescription drugs were the largest expense. The time, cost and recovery rate of bankruptcy proceedings vary widely amongst nations. Bankruptcy was devised in the 19th century when slavery for debt was outlawed around the world and was even successfully in the United States in 1850s shortly before the Civil War regarding African slavery. The United States Trustee Program is a component of the Department of Justice responsible for overseeing the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees under 28USC§586 and 11USC§101, et seq.
1. Bankruptcy law is federal statutory law contained in Title 11 of the United States Code. States are not allowed to legislate their own bankruptcy laws although they do frequently treat upon debtor creditor relations. Bankruptcy proceedings are supervised by and litigated in the United States Bankruptcy Courts. These courts are a part of the District Courts of The United States. The United States Trustees were established by Congress to handle many of the supervisory and administrative duties of bankruptcy proceedings. Proceedings in bankruptcy courts are governed by the Bankruptcy Rules which were promulgated by the Supreme Court under the authority of Congress. There are two basic types of Bankruptcy proceedings. A filing under Chapter 7 is called liquidation. It is the most common type of bankruptcy proceeding. Liquidation involves the appointment of a trustee who collects the non-exempt property of the debtor, sells it and distributes the proceeds to the creditors. Bankruptcy proceedings under Chapters 11, 12, and 13 involve the rehabilitation of the debtor to allow him or her to use future earnings to pay off creditors. Under Chapter 7, 12, 13, and some 11 proceedings, a trustee is appointed to supervise the assets of the debtor. A bankruptcy proceeding can either be entered into voluntarily by a debtor or initiated by creditors. After a bankruptcy proceeding is filed, creditors, for the most part, may not seek to collect their debts outside of the proceeding. The debtor is not allowed to transfer property that has been declared part of the estate subject to proceedings. Passage of the Bankruptcy Prevention and Consumer Protection Act P.L. 109-8 in April 2005 resulted in major reforms in bankruptcy law, outlining revised guidelines governing the dismissal or conversion of Chapter 7 liquidations to Chapter 11 or 13 proceedings. The law also expands the responsibilities of the United States Trustees Program to include supervision of random and targeted audits, certification of entities to provide credit counseling that individuals must receive before filing for bankruptcy, certification of entities that provide financial education to individuals before being discharged from debt, and greater oversight of small business Chapter 11 reorganization cases.
F. The U.S. Tax Court employs 19 presidential appointed judges who hear cases for $60 regarding the decisions of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenues Service that must be filed within 90 days. The jurisdiction of the Tax Court includes the authority to hear tax disputes concerning notices of deficiency, notices of transferee liability, certain types of declaratory judgment, readjustment and adjustment of partnership items, review of the failure to abate interest, administrative costs, worker classification, relief from joint and several liability on a joint return, and review of certain collection actions.
G. The U.S. Court of International Trade was constituted by the Customs Court Act of 1980 at 28 U.S.C. Chapter 11 §251-258 to employ 12 presidential appointed judges who hear claims against the United States under 28 USC Chapter 95 §581-1585. The 1930 Tariff Act, 1974 Trade Act and the Customs Courts Act of 1980 grant the Court a residual grant of exclusive subject matter jurisdictional authority to decide any civil action against the United States, its officers, or its agencies arising out of any law pertaining to international trade, tariffs and customs. The Court operates in accordance with the Rules of Court and in co-operation with the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. CoITUS is obscene needs to be changed to Customs Court (CC).
H. The US Court of Federal Claims was recreated pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution in October 1982, by the Federal Courts Improvement Act. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims is constituted under 28 USC Chapter 7 §171-179 and is subject to the jurisdiction and venue set forth in 28 USC Chapter 91§1491-1509. The Court consists of sixteen judges nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a term of fifteen years. The Court of Federal Claims is authorized to hear primarily money claims founded upon the Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or contracts, express or implied-in-fact, with the United States particularly those involving unjust imprisonment, declaratory judgment, treaties, accounts of officers, patents and copyrights. Approximately one-quarter of the cases before the Court involve tax refund suits, an area in which the court exercise concurrent jurisdiction with United States district courts. The cases tend to involve complex factual and statutory construction issues in tax law. After 1982, the Court retained all the original jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and continues, uninterrupted, a judicial tradition more than 140 years old. The Court has been given new equitable jurisdiction in the area of bid protests, as well as jurisdiction in vaccine compensation, civil liberties, product liability, oil spills, intellectual property, government contracts (10% of docket), civilian and military pay questions and various other areas of the law over the last sixteen years. The 2,200 plus pending cases involve claims currently estimated in the tens of billions of dollars, making the average claim well over one million dollars. The Court also efficiently handles numerous smaller claims. Its expertise, in recent years, has been seen as its ability to efficiently handle civil litigation in co-operation with the Civil, Environmental and Tax Divisions of the Department of Justice.
§59 State Courts
A. The Supreme Courts of the 50 states are the highest courts in their respective state and act in accordance with their state constitution and code that are drafted within the constraints of Federal Law. State Supreme Court Justices appoint many of the state administrators, review habeas corpus, prohibitions, mandamus, precedendo and have original jurisdiction in cases regarding the behavior of state officials. The Supreme Courts publish all rules and regulations governing attorneys and judges licensed by their state. State Supreme Courts are led by the Conference of Chief Justices. The National Center for State Courts represents the state courts nationally. As of 2005 Justices are paid an average of $150,000 per year who in turn pay Appeals Court Judges $125,000 per year, County Judges $100,000 per year and Municipal Judges $50,000. Judges and Justices are democratically elected for 3-15 year terms. Most states have a state court of claims to settle tort claims against the state. The appeals process in the state courts follows a hierarchical structure similar to the Federal Judiciary whereby municipal courts, county circuit courts or county common pleas courts appeal to circuit or district courts that in turn may petition the State Supreme Court from whence the US Supreme Court may be petitioned for a writ of certiorari.
1. The majority of the 93 million judicial cases filed in 2001 were processed by 15,555 state trial courts operating under the supervision of the county; 13,515 were of limited jurisdiction and 2,040 of general jurisdiction, operated by 29,266 judges. 6 states have developed what they call a unified jurisdiction rather than a general jurisdiction that permits these courts to hear 88% civil cases rather than 60% civil cases while dramatically reducing mental health cases. Municipal Courts are found in all but the smallest of towns. The Municipal Court enforces misdemeanor criminal and traffic offenses against city code and passes judgment in civil cases valued less than $1,000. The municipal court indicts felons with the grand jury for prosecution in a county court of general or unified jurisdiction. The County Courts are the trial courts of general jurisdiction, where defendants may contest their charges and the prosecution can make their case. The principal subdivisions of the County Court are the Criminal Division, Civil Division and Traffic Division. Traffic court is the most frequently filed of all courts. Most trials are heard in courts of general jurisdiction.
a. The Criminal Division detains, indicts, posts bond, holds jury trials, sentences, dismisses charges, confines, posts bail, and supervises state and county jails and releases prisoners in accordance with state criminal and correction statutes that are drafted under federal criminal law as set forth in Title 18U.S.C. In 2001 14.1 million criminal cases were filed. In the two tier court system misdemeanor cases are tried in the lower court while felonies are indicted in the lower court and tried in the higher court. In the unified jurisdiction cases are heard by one court. The number of criminal filings are directly correlated to the population of the state, the median number of filings per 100,000 is roughly 1,441. Only 3% of criminal cases are resolved in trial, guilty pleas dispose of 65% of cases and 25% of cases are dismissed or the prosecutor refuses to prosecute nolle prosequi. Felonies are the more serious crimes and usually come with more than 1 year of jail time, between 1987-2001 felony filings rose 49% to a yearly total of 2.5 million.
b. The Civil Division hears claims of a civil nature. Typically Small Claims Court hears cases involving sums of money less than $1,000, the county court hears cases involving sums less than $10,000, the state district or circuit court hears cases involving sums typically less than $25,000 and federal district court sums in private civil claims up to $50,000. In 2001 15.8 million cases were filed with the civil division. The majority of civil filings deal with tenant/landlord relations and small claims. Tort filings that are conducted roughly in accordance with 28USC§2671-2680 regarding medical malpractice, defamation, insurance premiums and claims against the state have hovered around 250,000 yearly. 57% of automobile insurance premium cases resulted in a +/-$18,000 settlement whereas on 27% of medical malpractice cases resulted in +/-287,000 compensation. There are roughly 250,000 contract cases in any given year that deal with breach of contract, such as debt collection. In 2001 the highest settlement was a $28 billion tobacco product liability tort.
B. Appellate Courts hear cases disposed of by the trial courts to guarantee fairness, constitutional trials and justice by providing for the judicial review of the decisions of the trial court. There are two types of appellate courts (1) intermediate courts of appeal and (2) courts of last resort. For the initial term 47% of judges are appointed and 53% are elected, only 43% are retained for a second term. Appellate Courts provide an important opportunity to remedy errors of the trial court. Only 11 small jurisdictions function without an appellate court. In 2001 276,408 cases were filed with the Appellate Courts. 68% of these cases were mandatory appeals by leave of the court and 32% were discretionary appeals of right.
C. Juvenile Courts are led nationally by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. They operate primarily in accordance with 42USC Chapter 72 The jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court can be subdivided into three major subdivisions:
1. juvenile delinquency proceedings to try juveniles for their crimes as set forth in 18USC Part IV Correction of Juvenile Offenders. In 2001 2 million criminal cases were filed in Juvenile Courts a decrease of 100,000 from 1998 primarily due to stricter pre-adjudication screening. 61% of these cases involve criminal charges that are treated as juvenile delinquency proceedings, 20% are child victim cases where the state prosecutes the parents and removed the child into the custody of the state, 16% were status offenses such as runaways and truants who are typically sent to foster care, counseling or placed on probation. Of the 1,673,042 delinquency offenders 23.1% were regarding personal offenses, 42.2% property, 11.4% drugs and 23.2% for public order offenses. An alternative Juvenile Court is called Children Court.
D. Domestic Relations and Family Courts conduct divorce proceedings. As divorce involves the separation two people who have become financially and psychologically dependent upon each other the Family Court is also responsible for: 1. Child custody determinations make arrangements for visitation, housing and care of the child as defined by 28USC§1738A and in accordance with the wishes and best interest of the child. 2. Interstate family support cases to provide for the support of single parents by billing the absentee parent in accordance with 42USC§666 unless the father (or absent mother) is too poor to afford child support requiring the court to request Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) from the state under 42USC§601 if the caregiver is in need of assistance to pay for their basis subsistence as the result of time involved in child care. 3. Alimony is a consideration in divorce proceedings where on spouse faces a decrease in their standard of living and their former spouse can afford to make some payments. 4. Adoption of children is conducted under 42USC Chapter 67 Subchapter II.
a. To accommodate the high divorce rates in the United States where more than 50% of marriages end in divorce the Domestic Relations and Family Courts processed 5.3 million cases in 2001. Despite the prevalence of divorce, as of 2001 the parental makeup of families is 7% single father, 23% single mother and 70% married couples. 935,000 filings in 2001 were regarding the custody of children, 88,928 of cases filed were regarding Interstate Family Support, 800,000 regarding divorce, 250,000 paternity and 73,000 regarding Adoption. Between 1996 and 2001 filings of domestic violence rose 16% from 521,000 to 602,000 in reporting states. Divorce, Domestic Relation and Family Courts must cope with slightly abated, yet high, rates of divorce, by prioritizing the redress of permanent child welfare cuts, to avoid participating in the statistical increase in violent crimes since 2014.
E. Probate is a court-supervised legal procedure that determines the validity of a will. As a verb “probate” is also used to mean the process of settling an estate (e.g. probating the estate). In this sense, probate is the process by which assets are gathered, applied to pay debts, taxes, and expenses of administration, and distributed to those designated as beneficiaries in the will. The purpose of probate, put bluntly, is to take the ownership of your assts out of your dead hands and put them into those of a living person or institution. Even more than most law, probate law varies by state. Probate court administration of an estate is the legal procedure by which the state ensures that after death creditors collect all lawful debts, state and federal governments collect all taxes due to them and rightful beneficiaries will be identified and distributed according to the terms of a will, or in the absence thereof. The administration is supervised by a county court, usually called a probate court but in some states referred to as a surrogate, orphan’s or chancery court.
Probate Court was typically the first court to be established in colonial and frontier communities and is still the official compiler of vital records in many states where the job is not done by the County Clerk. The National College of Probate Judges was founded in 1968 to exchange information regarding Probate Courts to Probate Judges in the United States.
F. There are currently 1,200 specialized Drug Courts in operation or planned in the United States eligible for drug court grants under the 1994 Omnibus Crime and Safe Street Act 42USC§3789d upholding Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation 21USC Chapter 16. Since the inception of drug courts in 1989 drug court programs have treated 300,000 drug addicts and 71% of them have either quit or continue to participate in programs. Drug courts have been proven to reduce recidivism to 4-21% rather 49% for drug offenders who are not professionally treated. Drug offenders continue to account for 21% of state sentencing and 57% of sentenced federal inmates. Severe drug addiction and crime are distinctly related and the average severe addict commits 63 crimes a year, 16% of prison inmates report to have committed crimes to support their drug addiction. The drug court provides a much less expensive and more effective method of treating people for their drug addiction both reducing the cost of correctional care, usually +/-25,000 a year to +/-$4,000 a year and greatly decreasing recidivism.
G. Mental Health Courts are administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to make systemwide improvements to the way the needs of adult offenders with mental disabilities or illnesses are addressed. The Mental Health Courts Program was created by "America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project" (Public Law 106-515). Support also comes through the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004 (MIOTCRA) (Public Law 108-414). Continuing judicial supervision—including periodic review—over preliminarily qualified offenders with mental illness, mental retardation, or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders who are charged with misdemeanors and/or nonviolent offenses. BJA should support, without funding, or financing psychiatric drug abuse: The coordinated delivery of services, which includes: Specialized training of criminal justice personnel to identify and address the unique needs of offenders who are mentally ill or intellectually disabled. Voluntary outpatient or inpatient mental health treatment, in the least restrictive manner appropriate as determined by the court, that carries with it the possibility of dismissal of charges or reduced sentencing on successful completion of treatment. Centralized case management involving the consolidation of cases that involve mentally ill or mentally disabled defendants (including probation violations) and the coordination of all mental health treatment plans and social services, including life skills training, placement, health care, and relapse prevention for each participant who requires such services. Continuing supervision of treatment plan compliance for a term not to exceed the maximum allowable sentence or probation for the charged or relevant offense and, to the extent practicable, continuity of psychiatric care at the end of the supervised period. The justice system needs emphasize the need for a Bachelor degree to completely cease recidivism.
H. Traffic Courts hears cases under the supervision of the National Highway Traffic Safety Commission regarding the traffic tickets, driving under the influence under 23USC§408 makes decisions regarding points on a persons license under 23 CFR§1327, fines, the roadworthiness of vehicles and compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices under 23CFR§655.601. In 2001 there were 55.7 million traffic cases filed, roughly half of them were heard in traffic courts because the defendant wished to contest the case or had difficulty paying. Traffic court is the most frequently filed of all courts. Driving infractions are ticketed and risk of arrest is low.
§60 Employees
A. The American legal system is reported to employ a total of 2,290,520 people in 2016 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). There were 1.2 million lawyers, 1.3 million law enforcement and corrections officers, 2.2 million detainees and 4.7 million adults under community supervision. BLS estimates there were 1,075,520 Americans employed in legal occupations in 2016 including: lawyers, judicial law clerks, administrative law judges, adjudicators and hearing officers, arbitrators, mediators and conciliators, judges, magistrate judges and magistrates, paralegals and legal assistants, court reporters, title examiners, abstractors and searchers, legal support workers and others, earning a median wage of $105,980 per year, $50.95 an hour. There were 807,000 police and detectives earning $61,600 per year, $29.62 per hour. There were 468,000 corrections officers and bailiffs earning $42,820 per year, $20.59 per hour. Law enforcement employment grew 7% while corrections declined 7%. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimates there were 1,348 potential arrest related fatalities, with an average of 135 a month, 64% of the deaths were homicides, 18% were suicides, and 11% were accidents in 2016. The justified homicide rate on the police force can be estimated at 107 per 100,000 officers. In 2014, the last year for which deaths in detention are estimated, a total of 4,385 inmates died in custody - 1,053 in local jails, 3,297 in state and federal prison, and 35 executed by lethal injection. Suicide was the leading cause death during arrest and in jail while illness was in state and federal prison.
1. The International Association of Chiefs of Police standardizes police practices around the world in accordance with the 1979 Law Enforcement Code of Conduct that ensures that police protect the populace from illegal acts and refrain from the excessive use of force themselves. Interpol conducts international policing operations in co-operation with National Departments of Justice whose statistics are data-based by the United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network. The primary purpose of law enforcement is to keep the peace by apprehending criminals and patrolling the streets under the supervision of courts who ensure that people apprehended enjoy their constitutional right to a fair trial and rehabilitation. Policing is one of the integral responsibilities of the government. Most police officers attend a police academy for 6 months before being employed however many officers are merely hired and trained on the job as long as they have no felony convictions on their record. Funding for the police in the USA has risen 244% since 1982 from $20 billion to $65 billion in 1999.
1. The major trend in police funding has been to demilitarize the police force by advocating for collaboration with other public safety officials to provide Community Oriented Policing Services. Police Officers are supervised by a geographic law enforcement agency that defines the jurisdiction of the police officers. The Bureau of Justices Statistics reported that in 2000 the federal government employed 88,496 full-time law enforcement officers authorized to make arrests and carry fire arms. 17,784 state and local law enforcement agencies employed 708,022 full time officers. 12,666 local police agencies employed 440,920 full time officers. 3,070 county sheriffs employed 164,711 deputies. 49 primary state agencies employed 56,348 officers. 1,376 special jurisdictions employed 43,413 officers. 623 Texas constable offices employed 2,630 law enforcement officers.
B. The Clerk or Registrar of the Court monitors all the activities of judiciary by indexing the decisions and judgments of the court, information provided by deputies and the transportation to and from correctional facilities. The County Clerk is an elected office that publishes all of the decisions of the Common Pleas and Appeals Judges and manages many of the licensing accounts of the county including, in many states, the election of county officials. Although the judges do the decision-making, the Clerk supervises all the judges and deputies in their jurisdiction and is the Clerk is holder of county funds allotted to the judiciary that are dispensed in accordance with the approval of the judges and the budgets of county organizations. Under 28USC§951 each clerk of court and his deputies shall take the following oath or affirmation before entering upon their duties: ''I, _ _ _ _ _ _, having been appointed _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of such court, and will faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God.''
C. Judges are responsible for the adjudication of criminals, the settlement of civil disputes and claims against the state that suit the authorization of their office. (a) Municipal Judges are typically authorized to disburse funds up to $1,000, ie. For the grand jury. (b) County Judges are authorized to settle funds up to $10,000 for a felony trial. (c) State Appeals Judges are authorized to settle up to $25,000 for the state.(d) Federal Judges are authorized to settle $75,000 private matters and may authorize all cases, great and small. (e) The Supreme Courts and Court of International Trade have no limit. (f) murder trials often cost $1 million. The duties of judges and justices are simple…(a) employ a staff competent to respond to all petitioners in a civilized and human manner. (b) Obey the law. (c) Issue summons, and pay, attorneys, witnesses, educators and jurists. (d) Hold trials to hear arguments regarding the merits of the laws. (e) Remain certified to practice law by the Supreme Court of their state and nation. (f) Publish decisions at the Clerk’s Office. 4. Judges are typically served by several assistants, a representative to the Clerk’s Office, a bailiff and as many deputies as is required to hear the defendants. These assistants typically are not licensed attorneys and make between $25,000 and $50,000. 5. Magistrate Judges are licensed attorneys who are appointed by the local Jury of Judges to serve the court in the capacity of Magistrate Judge.
1. The premise of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary of 1985 is that the judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct as revised at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justice at Peace Palace, the Hague, 25-16 November 2002 explains, a judge shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of the judge's assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. A judge shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to a reasonable observer to be free there from.
D. The District Attorney oversees the prosecution of felony defendants in a specific prosecutorial district such as a court, county or group of several counties. 1. In 2000 there were 2,341 state court prosecutors most of whom are democratically elected in county elections and employ 79,000 attorneys, investigators and support staff who prosecuted a total of 928,000 adults and 36,000 juveniles in 1998, 68% of whom were sentenced to incarceration. 2. The prosecution was funded approximately $4 billion in 2000. As a rule the prosecutor’s offices are over funded and overstaffed. The Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors of 27 August-7 September 1990 explain. 1. The office of prosecutors shall be strictly separated from judicial functions. 2. Prosecutors carry out their functions impartially and avoid all political, social, religious, racial, cultural, sexual or any other kind of discrimination. 3. When prosecutors come into possession of evidence against suspects that they know or believe on reasonable grounds was obtained through recourse to unlawful methods, which constitute a grave violation of the suspect's human rights, especially involving torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or other abuses of human rights, they shall refuse to use such evidence against anyone other than those who used such methods, or inform the Court accordingly, and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that those responsible for using such methods are brought to justice.
E. The purpose of lawyers is to establish conditions under which justice can be maintained. International treaties obligate lawyers exclusively in the role of defending the criminally accused. 1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the principles of equality before the law, the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, and all the guarantees necessary for the defense of everyone charged with a penal offence. 2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights proclaims, in addition, the right to be tried without undue delay and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. 3. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recalls the obligation of States under the Charter to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms. 4. The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides that a detained person shall be entitled to have the assistance of, and to communicate and consult with, legal counsel. 5. The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners recommend, in particular, that legal assistance and confidential communication with counsel should be ensured. Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers 27 August to 7 September 1990.
1. The Public Defender’s Office represents criminally accused people who are too poor to afford legal counsel to uphold the 6th Amendment right to counsel. Assigned counsel program and open contracts to local defense attorneys. 1. Among the Nation's 100 most populous counties in 1999, public defender programs were operating in 90 counties, assigned counsel programs in 89 counties, and contract programs in 42 counties. In 1999 an estimated $1.2 billion was spent to provide indigent criminal defense in the Nation's 100 most populous counties. About 73% of the total was spent by public defender programs, 21% by assigned counsel programs, and 6% on awarded contracts. This $1.2 billion represents an estimated 3% of all local criminal justice expenditures used for police, judicial services, and corrections in these counties. County governments provided 60% of all funds for indigent criminal defense services in the largest 100 counties followed by State governments providing 25%. 2. Public defender offices in the largest 100 counties employed over 12,700 individuals during 1999, including over 6,300 assistant public defenders, 1,200 investigators, 300 social workers, 2,700 support staff, and nearly 400 paralegals. 3. Over 30,700 private attorneys were appointed through assigned counsel programs to represent indigent defendants in the largest 100 counties during 1999. Over 1,000 contracts for indigent defense services were administered by contract attorney programs.
2. Conviction rates for indigent defendants and those with their own lawyers were about the same in Federal and States courts. About 90% of the Federal defendants and 75% of the defendants in the most populous counties were found guilty regardless of the type of their attorneys. Of those found guilty, however, those represented by publicly financed attorneys were incarcerated at a higher rate than those defendants who paid for their own legal representation 88% compared to 77% in Federal courts and 71% compared to 54% in the most populous counties. On average, sentence lengths for defendants sent to jail or prison were shorter for those with publicly-financed attorneys than those who hired counsel. In Federal district court those with publicly financed attorneys were given just under 5 years on average and those with private attorneys just over 5 years. In State courts those with publicly financed attorneys were sentenced to an average of 2½ years and those with private attorneys to 3 years.
3. 35 years ago the population of attorneys in the United States had surpassed 450,000, and law schools were graduating 34,000 new ones each year. By 2011, the annual production of law degrees was up to 44,000, and at 1.22 million, the number of lawyers in the country had nearly tripled. Over the same period, the population of the United States had risen just 40 percent. There has been reported to be a 60% unemployment rate for recent law school graduates. In 2011, the number of students entering law school dropped by 7 percent, an unprecedented fall. In 2012, the drop accelerated: Enrollment of first-year law students sank another 8.6 percent. It plunged still further in 2013. According to the American Bar Association, 39,675 new law students matriculated in fall of 2013 — an 11 percent decrease from 2012. As of 2016, there are 1,315,561 Licensed Lawyers in the United States of America. It would raise the bar for law enforcement officers to go to law school. It would expand employment opportunities for a growing educated population of lawyers to include 6 week to 6 month police and correctional academy, along with the essential first year of law school – constitutional law. Law enforcement officers, with a minimum of high school plus 6 week to 6 month police academy, do not necessarily possess even the Bachelor degree, several state studies have shown is needed to prevent recidivism and stop offending civil society, 100% of the time. If law schools included official vocational police and correctional training in their curriculum, the educated population of 1.3 million lawyers would begin their careers employed as one of 2 million law enforcement and correctional officer, currently subject to reduction in force re-education, and re-employment of Bachelors of Law, in the United States, under 28USC§569(b) and 34USC§12577.
G. Pre-Trial supervises the administration of bonds and bails to guarantee that felony defendants go to court, have an opportunity for pretrial release and can post bail. In 1998 Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that 64% of defendants were released by the court prior to the disposition of their case. Thirty-six percent were detained until case disposition, including 7% who were denied bail. Released defendants were most likely to be released on commercial surety bond (34%) or their own recognizance (30%). Murder defendants (13%) were the least likely to be released prior to case disposition, followed by defendants whose most serious arrest charge was robbery (38%), rape (47%), burglary (50%), or motor vehicle theft (50%). Less than half of defendants with an active criminal justice status, such as parole (18%) or probation (43%), at the time of arrest were released, compared to 71% of these with no active status. About a third of released defendants were either rearrested for a new offense, failed to appear in court as scheduled, or committed some other violation that resulted in the revocation of their pretrial release. Of the 24% of released defendants who had a bench warrant issued for their arrest because they did not appear in court as scheduled, about a fifth, representing 5% of all released defendants, were still fugitives after 1 year.
1. The number of federal defendants activated in pretrial services, including pretrial diversion cases, dropped by nearly 3% from 99,365 cases in 2005 to 96,479 cases in 2006. As a result, the number of pretrial services reports prepared by Pretrial Services officers declined by more than 2%. The number of cases opened in 2006, including pretrial diversion cases, was nearly 6% greater than the 91,314 cases opened in 2002. During that same period, the number of persons interviewed grew by 1% from 63,528 to 64,018 individuals.
2. The US Correctional population has increased 357.9% between 1980 and 2002 at an average annual growth rate of 3.6%. At year end 2002 6.7 million people were in jail or on probation or parole, 3.2% of the adult population. A total of 2,178,577 people were detained - 1,440,665 were in prison, 1,277,127 in state prisons and 163,528 in federal prison, another 737,912 were held in local jails awaiting trial or serving a misdemeanor sentence of less than a year. By year end 2002 4.7 million people were on probation and 753,100 were on parole. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has published the new total of 2,131,180 from the Census of 30 June 2004. 726 prisoners per 100,000 people. At midyear 2004 there were 4,919 black male prison and jail inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,717 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 717 white male inmates per 100,000 white males. The correctional census needs to be done every year, preferably in January, Jail month, while promoting the goal of a dramatic reduction to only 1 million detention beds. 50% of the increase in prison population is attributed to a 340% increase in violent offenses from 173,300 in 1980 to 589,100 in 2000. The incarceration of drug offenders increased 1,322% from 19,000 in 1980 to 251,100 in 2000 and is attributed with more than half of the federal inmates and 27% of state inmates. The number of prisoners on death row has dramatically increased since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978 from 134 to 3,593 in 2001 when 71 people were executed. The United States has the largest prison population in the world as the result of mandatory minimum sentencing legislation. Since 2013 the prison population has declined to around 2.2 million, 675 per 100,000, and should continue to decline with increasing legal education.
3. Jails and Prisons are expected to meet the safety and civility of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Federal Bureau of Prisons statutes are set forth in Title 18 US Code Part 3 Chapters 301-319 and Title 28 CFR Chapters 3&5 . State departments of corrections manage prisons and local jails in accordance with applicable state and federal laws. Prisoners are entitled to fair trial and treatment under the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishments inflicted. Under the Thirteenth amendment they may not be incarcerated except for a crime for which they have been duly convicted. In 1970 the US Supreme Court remanded Hurtado v. United States 410 US 578 (1973) to the United States Congress requiring and raising the fee awarded to pre-trial detainees from $20 to $21 a day. Inflation has caused the current witness fee for prisoners to rise to $40 per day of pre-trial detention, the same as witnesses, but a lower hourly rate under 28USC§1821(d)(4). 1. People should not be jailed for misdemeanor offences that should ticketed and tried, if misdemeanor offenders are incarcerated, they should be released by the jail within 24 hours. 2. The Court shall appoint counsel for the defense if the prisoner cannot afford it on his own.
I. Probation officers and correctional treatment specialists who counsel criminal offenders as they reenter society held about 84,000 jobs in 2002 according to the American Probation and Parole Association. Many people who are convicted of crimes are placed on probation, instead of being sent to prison. During probation, offenders must stay out of trouble and meet various other requirements. Probation officers, who are called community supervision officers in some States, supervise people who have been placed on probation. Correctional treatment specialists, who may also be known as case managers, counsel prison inmates and help them plan for their release from incarceration. Probation officers supervise offenders on probation or parole through personal contact with the offenders and their families. Instead of requiring offenders to meet officers in their offices, many officers meet offenders in their homes and at their places of employment or therapy. 2. Probation and parole agencies also seek the assistance of community organizations, such as religious institutions, neighborhood groups, and local residents, to monitor the behavior of many offenders. 3. Some offenders are required to wear an electronic device so that probation officers can monitor their location and movements. 4. Officers may arrange for offenders to get substance abuse rehabilitation or job training.
1. The number of persons under federal post-conviction supervision in 2006 increased by less than 1% to 114,002 individuals. As of September 30, 2006, the number of persons serving terms of supervised release after their release from a correctional institution totaled 85,729 individuals. That number constituted 75% of all persons under post-conviction supervision, compared to 73% in the previous year. 1. Persons on parole declined by nearly 10% from 3,183 individuals in 2005 to 2,876 individuals in 2006. The parole cases accounted for less than 3% of post-conviction cases. Because of a continuing decline in the imposition of sentences of probation by both district court judges and magistrate judges, the number of persons on probation decreased by 5% to 25,178 individuals. That figure represented 22% of all persons under post-conviction supervision. 2. Proportionately, the number of individuals under post-conviction supervision for a drug-related offense remained unchanged from a year ago at 44%. From 2002 to 2006, the number of persons under post-conviction supervision grew by 5%, an increase of 5,210 individuals. The number of persons released from correctional institutions who served terms of supervised release increased by 17% over the same time period.
J. A witness is entitled to the payment of $40 per diem when they attend trial under 28USC§1821(b). The FY 2017 Judiciary budget hopes to raise the fee to $50. Deference should be given to the defense attorney to authorize the payment of witness fees for the family and friends who have come to counsel the defense. Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information to a Court, Agency or Congress of the United States, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order under 18USC§6002.
1. A Court under 18USC§6003, Agency under §6004 or Congress under §6005 may issue an order granting immunity when, (1) the testimony or other information from such individual may be necessary to the public interest; and (2) such individual has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide other information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination. Witness anonymity and protection are an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country’s constitutional goal (Pointer v Texas 380 US 400, 405 (1965)) and as one of the fundamental guarantees of life and liberty (Kirby v United States 174 US 47, 55 (1899)). The practical significance of this right was explained in a majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Smith v Illinois 390 US 129, 131 (1968) where the petitioner was denied the right to ask the principal prosecution witness either his name or where he lived, R. v. Davis [2008] UKHL 36 June 18. The Attorney General may provide for the relocation and other protection of a witness or a potential witness and/or their family for the Federal Government or for a State government in an official proceeding concerning an organized criminal activity or other serious offense, if the family or person may be endangered on account of the participation of the witness in the judicial proceeding. The Attorney General may provide, (A) suitable documents to enable the person to establish a new identity or otherwise protect the person; (B) housing and moving costs; (D) payment to meet basic living expenses under 18USC§3521.
J. Since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of such laws. Commissioners of jurors are appointed by a judge and shall be officers of the courts of record in such county and shall attend upon each term of such courts for which a jury is drawn. Compensation is made at regular or special term of the court. Issues of facts and law are triable by jury. Jurists are sworn under the voir dire, “to tell the truth”. Claims for actual damages may be assessed by the jury in each case, as instructed by the court. When the jury cannot agree or the parties to the proceeding do, the jury may be discharged. R. v. Spencer, SCC 11 2007.
1. There are two kinds of juries, grand to issue indictments, and petit or trial juries. There are approximately 60,000 criminal jury trials in the United States every year and another 20,000 that are not carried to a verdict. In the rest of the world, there are about 10,000 jury trials a year with England and Wales accounting for half of that number. Also, in the United States there is a great diversity between states. Connecticut has three criminal jury trials a year per 100,000 persons of population and Georgia has 144, while the national average is 35. In 1945, of all criminal felony charges, 75 percent of those charged pleaded guilty, 10 percent were tried to the bench and 15 percent were tried to a jury. One seventh of all felony prosecutions end in a jury trial. Trial by jury is an expensive and cumbersome method of trying a case. Judges work faster than juries and jury trials are 60 percent longer than court trials. Juries cause delays in civil litigation and constitute an unfair tax on the time of underpaid jurors. A juror shall be paid an attendance fee of $40 per day for actual attendance at the place of trial or hearing. A juror shall also be paid the attendance fee for the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from such place at the beginning and end of such service or at any time during such service under 28USC§1871(b)(1). Jurists are insured against work related injury under title 5 of the United States Code, subchapter 1 of chapter 81, title 5, United States Code, that applies to a Federal grand or petit juror, except that entitlement to disability compensation payments does not commence until the day after the date of termination of service as a juror. (b) In administering this section with respect to a juror covered by this section - (1) a juror is deemed to receive monthly pay at the minimum rate for grade GS-2 of the General Schedule unless his actual pay as a Government employee while serving on court leave is higher, in which case monthly pay is determined in accordance with section 8114 of title 5, United States Code, and (2) performance of duty as a juror includes that time when a juror is (A) in attendance at court, (B) in deliberation, (C) sequestered by order of a judge, or (D) at a site, by order of the court, for the taking of a view under 28USC§1877.
2. Domestic law enforcement is divided into two subcategories: voluntary service (there is no draft for police officers) and mandatory service (e.g. jury duty). If we conducted domestic law enforcement on our current military model, we’d have what might be called the “All-Volunteer Jury” in which we’d essentially buy the number of jurors necessary for the law enforcement system to function, from a pool of volunteers. At the time of the American Revolution, the colonies restricted jury duty to white male property holders. No African-American served on any trial jury in the United States, North or South, until 1860 during a criminal trial in Worcester, Massachusetts. Women were ineligible for jury service in every state until 1898, when Utah allowed them to be jurors. Up until 1968, federal jury selection in the United States openly worked to limit jury service to supposedly elite individuals recommended by community leaders. That year, Congress officially abandoned the “blue-ribbon” jury in favor of the “cross section of the population” jury for the federal system. The Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, or "Jury Act," provides; it is the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is further the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose at 28USC§1861. No citizen shall be excluded from service as a grand or petit juror in the district courts of the United States or in the Court of International Trade on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status under 28USC§1862. No citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and whoever, being an officer or other person charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors, excludes or fails to summon any citizen for such cause, shall be fined not more than $5,000 under 18USC§243
3. Random selection however did not do away with the violation of the 13th Amendment ban on involuntary servitude imposed by the compulsory summons to jury duty. Random jury selection imposed a new cost on labor. The Jury System Improvement Act of 1978(a) provides; No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any permanent employee by reason of such employee’s jury service, or the attendance or scheduled attendance in connection with such service, in any court of the United States under 28USC§1875. A Juror bill of rights could include the right to volunteer, right not to be purposely excluded from service on grounds related to race, sex, religion, or country of origin; the right to be free from harassment by employers or other parties, including the press; the right to reasonable privacy; the right to discuss the trial with the press, the attorneys, jury researchers, and the parties in the case after the verdict has been delivered; and the right to be free of reprisals after the verdict.
4. Once they have been summoned under the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, potential jurors may be eliminated by three methods: (1) excuses; (2) exemptions; and (3) disqualifications. A 1974 study in Chicago, showed that 23% of those who were sent the questionnaire by the state courts didn’t return it. In the same district, only 2% of prospective jurors for federal court cases didn’t answer, because that system followed up on those who didn’t reply to the first notice. About 60% of all people whose names have been pulled from the master wheel and who have received a questionnaire seeking to determine their qualifications for jury service return the document requesting to be excused. It is much easier administratively to summon someone else from the list than to bother keeping track of those who have been excused for illness. Five factors affect the group of individuals likely to be excused form jury service at both the federal and state levels: (1) economic hardship, (2) lack of child care, (3) age, (4) the distance traveled and transportation, and (5) illness. Those groups of individuals performing vital functions for society, such as elected officials, public officers in the federal and state government, clergy, doctors, lawyers, police officers, firefighters and members of the military are exempted from jury duty.
5. Voir dire literally means “to speak the truth”. The voir dire process is a fundamental guarantee of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by a fair and impartial jury. Voir dire examination is designed to elicit information about each prospective juror that will indicate her or his ability to serve in an impartial and unbiased manner. During voir dire, lawyers on both sides are permitted to remove from the panel of prospective jurors, known as a venire (“you are called to come”), any they think may be biased. The challenges issued are of two kinds: peremptory for which a lawyer doesn’t have to give a reason, and cause, for which a basis must be stated and approved by a judge. A ground for a cause challenge, for example, would be an admission by a venireman that he or she has personal knowledge of one of the parties in the case or displays prejudice of some sort. The voir dire can be conducted several ways. All the veniremen may be questioned at once, or only the number that will ultimately be required (six, eight, ten, twelve) enter the jury box at one time, with new ones added as eliminations take place. An alternative is the so-called “struck” jury. In it, after challenges for cause are completed, the panel consists of the number of jurors that will eventually be chosen plus as many more as there are peremptory challenges permitted. Thus, if there are to be 12 jurors and each side is permitted seven challenges, the size of the panel will be 26, so that the jury consists of those left over when the 14 peremptory challenges have been exhausted. In Batson v. Kentucky (1986) the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors could no longer use race-based peremptory challenges to keep members of the defendant’s race off the jury. Georgia v. McCollum (1992) similarly barred defense lawyers from using peremptory challenge to exclude members of the plaintiff’s race from the jury. J.E.B. v Alabama declared that lawyers could not exercise gender-based peremptory challenges. Typically, state law establishes the right to peremptory challenges and prescribes the numbers – ranging from as low as two or three per side in civil cases to as many as 25 in capital cases.
6. The twelve-person unanimous jury was extended to the American colonies during the period of British rule, continued after independence as a feature of the American legal system, and was further copied by new states as the Union grew. From the fourteenth century until recently the twelve-person unanimous jury in England and America was never successfully challenged. In 1966 England reduced its jury’s decision rule to 10- of-12. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Williams v. Florida (1970) that juries as small as six were constitutionally acceptable and in Johnson v. Louisiana (1972) and Apodaca et al. v. Oregon (1972) that unanimity was not required, that decision rules as thin as 9-of-12 and perhaps thinner, were sufficient. The very first juries – the ancient Greek assemblages of 500 or more persons called dicasteries – decided disputes by majority vote. English courts, however, adopted a rule by the 14th century requiring jury verdicts to be unanimous. The unanimity requirement moved to America and became a central element of the U.S. jury system. James Madison wrote the Sixth Amendment to include a requirement for unanimous verdicts, but Congress deleted that provision before sending the Bill of Right to the states of ratification. The reason: four of 13 states did not require unanimity and Congress was disinclined to force them to do otherwise. The Supreme Court in 1972, however, upheld laws in two states, Oregon and Louisiana, permitting criminal verdicts by 10-2 or 9-3 votes, respectively. Today, about half the states allow juries to decide civil cases by a less-than-unanimous vote. Oregon’s super-majority jury system has worked well for half a century. At least 10 jurors must agree to a felony verdict. There are fewer hung juris and fewer retrials, and nobody has seriously claimed that guilty defendants are culled from the innocent less accurately in Oregon than elsewhere. Similarly, England and most of Australia allow super-majority verdicts and Scotland has traditionally required only 8 out of 15 jurors to reach a verdict. A study by the University of Chicago Law School showed that the ratio of convictions and acquittals was about the same under either system, but that the number of hung juries was reduced by more than 40% where 10 or 11 jurors could decide. Even the Supreme Court, deciding matters of life and death, is seldom unanimous.
7. Juries protect society from dangerous individuals and also protect individuals from dangerous government. Juries must take into account the facts of the case, mitigating circumstances, the merits of the law, and the fairness of its application in each case. The power of the jury to judge the justice of the law and to hold laws invalid by a finding of "not guilty" for any law a juror felt was unjust or oppressive, dates back to the Magna Carta, in 1215. Chief Justice Vaughan issued a historically-important ruling: that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts in Bushell's Case (1670) one of the most important developments in the common-law history of the jury. Colonist William Penn had been freed of charges that he had preached an illegal religion (Quakerism) in London in 1670, by jurors who had stood their ground for acquittal despite being detained without food, water, or toilet facilities for days. All were then fined for delivering a not guilty verdict, and four were imprisoned for refusing to pay the fine. Their release by the high court of England established not only that jurors have the power to find the verdict as they see fit, with impunity but also established our freedoms of speech, peaceable assembly and religion. The witch trials in Salem ceased following fifty-two jury acquittals.
8. John Hancock, the wealthy Massachusetts patriot and smuggler who as President of the Continental Congress affixed his familiar bold signature to the Declaration of Independence was prosecuted via this admiralty jurisdiction in 1768 and fined £9,000 – triple the value of the goods aboard his sloop "Liberty" which had been previously forfeited. John Adams eloquently argued the case, chastising Parliament for depriving Americans of their right to trial by jury. Adams later said of the juror, "it is not only his right, but his duty – to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court. Jury nullification of law is a traditional right that was rigorously defended by America's Founding Fathers. Each enactment of law must pass all these hurdles before it gains the authority to punish those who may choose to violate it. US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, writing in Georgia v. Brailsford (1794), concluded: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Until the middle of the 1800s, federal and state judges often instructed the juries they had the right to disregard the court's view of the law. Northern jurors began to refuse to convict abolitionists who had violated the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law. Modern treatments of abolitionism praise these jury-nullification verdicts for the role they played in helping the anti-slavery cause. In Sparf and Hansen v. U.S 1895, the Supreme Court, under pressure from large corporations, rendered in a bitter split decision that courts no longer had to inform juries they had the power to veto an unjust law. Courts began concealing jurors' rights from American citizens and falsely instructing them that they may consider only the facts as admitted by the court. Researchers in 1966 found that jury nullification occurred only 8.8 percent of the time between 1954 and 1958, and suggested that "one reason why the jury exercises its very real power [to nullify] so sparingly is because it is officially told it has none."
9. In Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) the U.S. Supreme Court held that the purpose of trial by jury is to prevent oppression by the Government by providing a “safeguard against the corrupt overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased or eccentric judge”. The essential feature of a jury obviously lies in the interposition between the accused and his accuser of the common-sense judgment of a group of laymen. Three general guidelines and principles have emerged from the selection and the makeup of the jury. First, the jury must be drawn from a representative cross section of the community. Second, the trial should be held in the district in which the crime has been committed. Third, the jurors must be impartial; that is, potential jurors unable to judge the facts with an impartial mind may be rejected from the jury. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized consistently that the “purpose of the jury trial…is to prevent oppression by the government”. Essential to the operation of the laws of the United States is the existence of a small group of lay-people with unreviewable power to find a criminal defendant innocent of a crime. Congress can pass a criminal statute, and the courts can find it constitutional. The executive can spend millions of dollars on its enforcement, but only a jury comprised of lay-people can convict. The jury has the constitutional and non-reviewable right to acquit a defendant in a criminal trial. Not only were juries given the final power to convict or acquit a criminal defendant, but they were also vested with the power to ignore the law and acquit a defendant despite the fact that the defendant broke the law. The famous legal thinker and former dean of the Harvard University School of Law, Roscoe Pound, spoke of this power: Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual administration. The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant community, the will of a majority imposed on vigorous and determined minority, find the same obstacle in the local jury. The judge’s right to refuse to inform the jury of its nullification powers in war resistance trials was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in U.S. v. Dougherty. In that decision the court recognized the power of the jury to ignore the law, but the court upheld the trial judge’s refusal of a defense request that the jury be informed of these constitutional powers. The majority opinion states that allowing such an instruction might lead to anarchy and burden jurors with overwhelming moral responsibility that would create an extreme burden for the jurors psyche. Justice David Bazelon strongly dissented. He felt that juries had a right to be informed of their constitutional powers. The very essence of the jury’s function is its role as spokesman for the community conscience in determining whether or not blame can be imposed.
10. In U.S. v. Simpson the defendant had destroyed draft board files as a protest against the Vietnam War, and his attorney asked the judge to instruct the jurors that they could acquit him, regardless of whether the violated the law, if they decided he shouldn’t be punished. The judge refused. When the case got to the Court of Appeals, the panel gracefully noted “how well our society’s interests have been served by acquittals resulting from application by the jurors of the collective conscience and sense of justice. The court went on to say that the judge was right in not giving the requested instruction because jurors already knew they could return a conscience verdict without an instruction. In another Vietnam War protest case, U.S. v. Anderson, et al (1973), known as the Camden 28 trial. There was no doubt that the defendants had violated the law. They were caught while destroying records at the Camden, New Jersey, selective service office, encouraged to do so by a government informant, with the FBI secretly supplying the tools to help them commit the act. The federal district judge allowed the defendants to make statements about their motives, but warned the jurors they did not have the right to “nullify” the law. The defendants lead counsel succeeded in convincing the judge he was wrong. The judge informed the jurors in his charge on the law that they should ignore his earlier comment that they could not give a conscience verdict, adding that “if you find that the overreaching participation by Government agents or informers in the activities as you have heard them here was so fundamentally unfair to be offensive to the basic standards of decency and shocking to the universal sense of justice, then you may acquit”, which is what the jury did. If a law is unjust or will create injustice when applied to a particular case, then the jury’s right to reach a conscience verdict can protect us from it. Jurors take an oath before a trial to consider only the presented evidence and the judge’s instructions. Enforcing democratically enacted laws is one of the basic purposes of government. In cases involving violent malum in se (inherently bad crimes, such as murder, rape and assault, jurors should consider the case strictly on the evidence presented, and if they believe the accused person is guilty, they should so vote. In cases involving non-violent, malum prohibitum (legally proscribed) offenses, including “victimless” crimes such as narcotics possession, there should be presumption in favor of nullification. Finally, for nonviolent, malum in se crimes, such as theft or perjury, there need be no presumption in favor of nullification, but it ought to be an option the juror considers.
11. The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is a public policy nonprofit, tax-exempt educational foundation under Section 501 (c) 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. The FIGA mission is to educate Americans regarding the power of jury nullification. Jury nullification allows jurors the ability to rely on personal conscience, to judge the merit of the law and its application, and to nullify bad law, when necessary for justice, by finding for the defendant. Jurors are often not informed of these rights because court officers have such a vested interest in a conviction that attorneys are often threatened if they attempt to educate the jury of the power of jury nullification. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is dedicated to the primacy, coherence and implementation of international law and principles that promote human rights through the rule of law. The ICJ provides legal expertise at both the international and national levels to ensure that developments in international law adhere to human rights principles and that international standards are implemented at the national level. The Commission was founded in Berlin in 1952 and its membership is composed of sixty eminent jurists who are representatives of the different legal systems of the world. Based in Geneva, the International Secretariat is responsible for the realization of the aims and objectives of the Commission.
12. The optional use of one-step summoning and qualification procedure under 28USC§1878 fails to specifically suggest that all the names of prospective jurors in the Jury Master Jury be volunteers, but does not prevent a district from creating an All-Volunteer Jury. Domestic law enforcement is currently divided into two subcategories: voluntary service (there is no draft for police officers) and mandatory service (e.g. jury duty). 66% of blacks believe the U.S. criminal justice system is racist. America leads the world in the percent of its population behind bars, and a substantial fraction of these inmates (as high as half of them) are “harmless”. Many of them may have violated the letter of the law, but had good moral reasons for doing soDomestic law enforcement is currently divided into two subcategories: voluntary service (there is no draft for police officers) and mandatory service (e.g. jury duty). 66% of blacks believe the U.S. criminal justice system is racist. America leads the world in the percent of its population behind bars, and a substantial fraction of these inmates (as high as half of them) are “harmless”. Many of them may have violated the letter of the law, but had good moral reasons for doing so. If we conducted domestic law enforcement on our current military model, we’d have what might be called the “All-Volunteer Jury” in which we’d essentially buy the number of jurors necessary for the law enforcement system to function, from a pool of volunteers. It might be nice to wait for jury duty in the court law library, without Internet or battery in cell-phone, charging the computer, taking notes and maybe get paid that day.
13. There are an infinite number of reasons for an All-Volunteer Jury. In his court-martial in 1918 when he was sentenced to several months in prison Roger Nash Baldwin, a founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote, “I am opposed to any service under conscription”. Jacob Wortsman who was sentenced to 20 years in prison wrote “I cannot accept military service in any capacity or perform work of any sort under compulsion”. The voter list is the most commonly used mechanism for assembling citizens for jury duty, though this has been declared illegal in California. Studies estimate that voter lists automatically exclude about one-third of the adult population, tipping the prospective juror pool toward the elderly, the relatively affluent, self-employed and government workers and away from minorities, including women, blacks and Hispanics. The majority of people who are “randomly” included in the jury master wheel object to compulsory jury duty. About 60% of all people whose names have been pulled from the master wheel and who have received a questionnaire seeking to determine their qualifications for jury service return the document requesting to be excused. It is much easier administratively to summon someone else from the list than to bother keeping track of those who have been excused for illness. To limit exposure volunteer jurists should be courted in a single procedure by the district court under 28USC§1878 to nullify the random selection method prescribed in the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 at 28USC1863 and nullify the penalties incurred by the illegal imposition of the summons in 28USC§1864. Sufficient numbers of prospective volunteer jurists for the Jury Master Wheel might be provided from a single source – the Federal Work-Study (FWS) program that provides part-time employment to students attending institutions of higher education who need the earnings to help meet their costs of postsecondary education and participate in community service activities under 34CFR§675.1 and the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part C; 42USC§2751-2756b.
Article 5 Conduct
§61 American Legal System
A. The American Legal System is a unique balance of the civil and common law systems. Civil law is the dominant legal tradition today in most of Europe, all of Central and South America, parts of Asia and Africa, and even some discrete areas of the common-law world (e.g., Louisiana, Quebec, and Puerto Rico). The common law follows an “adversarial” model which gives most responsibility to the supreme court while civil law is “code-based”, written and is much more effective at avoiding jury trials through agreements. Common Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 23 March 1976 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 3 January 1976 provide (1) All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. (2) All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provides Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. By reason of attitude not in accordance with the Geneva Conventions the government is under obligation to make good to consequence of injury. Thus every wrong creates a right for the court to rectify pursuant to the Case Concerning the Factory of Chorzow Permanent Court of Justice A. No. 9 (1927).
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The State shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation under Art. 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 26 June 1987. When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offense and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him under Art. 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 23 March 1976. Damages incurred to claimants regards their property, rights and interest and person. It was held that the essential principle contained in the actual trial of an illegal act is non-repetition and that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed Interpretations of Paragraph 4 of the Annex following Article 179 of the Treaty of Neuilly of 29 November 1919 (Greek Republic v. Kingdom Bulgaria) by the Permanent Court of Justice in No. 3 (12/9/1924) cited by Advisory Opinion regarding the Legal Consequences of Constructing a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory No. 131 on 9 July 2004.
2. UN Compensation pays:
1. People forced to relocate as the result of military action $2,500 -$4,000 for an individual and $5,000-$8,000 for a family;
2. People who suffered serious bodily injury or families reporting a death as the result of military action are entitled to between $2,500 and $10,000;
3. After being swiftly compensated for relocation, injury or death an individual may make a claim for damages for personal injury; mental pain and anguish of a wrongful death; loss of personal property; loss of bank accounts, stocks and other securities; loss of income; loss of real property; and individual business losses valued up to $100,000.
4. After receiving compensation for relocation, injury or death an individual can file a claim valued at more than $100,000 for the loss of real property or personal business.
5. Claims of corporations, other private legal entities and public sector enterprises. They include claims for: construction or other contract losses; losses from the non-payment for goods or services; losses relating to the destruction or seizure of business assets; loss of profits; and oil sector or heavy industry losses.
6. Claims filed by Governments and international organizations for losses incurred in evacuating citizens; providing relief to citizens; damage to diplomatic premises and loss of, and damage to, other government property; and damage to the environment.
3. A refugee is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. A stateless person is someone who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law. Common Articles 26-29 to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 and the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of 1954 protect refugees and stateless people against discrimination, provide for the freedom of movement, requires States to provide them with identity papers and travel documents at the same price as nationals, for which 'denaturalized' citizens are due compensation for the extortionate fees paid to restore their documents, and prohibits the expulsion, refoulment, of stateless persons and refugees who are lawfully on the territory of a State Party. Art. 26 freedom of movement: Each Contracting State shall accord to stateless persons (refugees) lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence and to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances. Art. 27 identity papers: The Contracting States shall issue identity papers to any stateless person (refugee) in their territory who does not possess a valid travel document. Art. 28 travel documents: The Contracting States shall issue to stateless persons (refugees) lawfully staying in their territory travel documents for the purpose of travel outside their territory. Art. 29 fiscal charges: 1. The Contracting States shall not impose upon stateless persons (refugees) duties, charges or taxes, of any description whatsoever, other or higher than those which are or may be levied on their nationals in similar situations. 2. Nothing in the above paragraph shall prevent the application to stateless persons of the laws and regulations concerning charges in respect of the issue to aliens of administrative documents including identity papers. The Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 1961 establishes safeguards against statelessness in several different contexts. A central focus of the Convention is the prevention of statelessness at birth by requiring States to grant citizenship to children born on their territory, of foreign parents, or born to their nationals abroad, who would otherwise be stateless. Art. 8 (1) A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless without due process under Arts. 2-4. Art. 32: Costs: Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of stateless persons. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.
B. United States governments spent an estimated $192 billion on the justice system in 2004. The federal government spent more than $34 billion on direct expenditures for criminal and civil justice in fiscal year 2004. State governments spent over $61 billion and local governments spent over $97 billion. Per capita expenditure across the three government types and criminal justice functions was approximately $660 in 2004. Between 1982 and 2004 justice spending increased 467%, an average of 22.2% annually. By 2012, the last year for which key national justice employment and expenditure statistics are available, total justice system spending had increased at an average annual rate of 4.75% from 2004 to $265 billion $56.2 billion federal, $86.3 billion state and $132.5 billion local. In 2012 $126 billion was spent on police, $57.9 billion on the judiciary and $80.8 billion on corrections, and increase of 4.6%, 5.1% and 4.1%, respectively, from the previous year.
Administration of Justice by type of Government, fiscal 2012
| |Amount (thousands of dollars) | |Percent distribution | |
| | | | | | | | |
|Activity | |Federal |State |Local |Federal |State |Local |
|Total justice |265,160,340 |56,267,000 |86,266,232 |132,500,445 |- |- |- |
|system | | | | | | | |
|Direct expenditure|265,160,340 |51,941,000 |80,929,314 |132,290,026 |19.6 |30.5 |49.9 |
|Intergovernmental |- |4,326,000 |5,336,918 |210,419 |- |- |- |
|expenditure | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
|Police protection |126,434,125 |31,395,000 |14,815,502 |84,053,185 |- |- |- |
|Direct expenditure|126,434,125 |28,977,000 |13,411,966 |84,045,159 |22.9 |10.6 |66.5 |
|Intergovernmental |- |2,418,000 |1,403,536 |8,026 |- |- |- |
|expenditure | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
|Judicial and legal|57,935,169 |15,894,000 |22,770,081 |22,049,483 |- |- |- |
|Direct expenditure|57,935,169 |14,670,000 |21,256,019 |22,009,150 |25.3 |36.7 |38 |
|Intergovernmental |- |1,224,000 |1,514,062 |40,333 |- |- |- |
|expenditure | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
|Corrections |80,791,046 |8,978,000 |48,680,649 |26,397,777 |- |- |- |
|Direct expenditure|80,791,046 |8,294,000 |46,261,329 |26,235,717 |10.3 |57.3 |32.5 |
|Intergovernmental |- |684,000 |2,419,320 |162,060 |- |- |- |
|expenditure | | | | | | | |
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics
1. Uniform Crime Report 2016 estimates there were a total of 10,662,252 arrests made for 9,167,220 crimes known to law enforcement agencies, 7,919,035 property crimes and 1,248,185 violent crimes. 10 million people are reported to be released and around 2.2 million remain incarcerated in jails and prisons in the United States, any given day. It can be estimated that about 50% of all arrests are somehow false and are dismissed not guilty, 40% are misdemeanor and 10% are felonies of whom about 30% are dismissed leaving about 600,000 convicted felons to replace those released from 2.2 million prison 2016. The American legal system can be estimated to process about $1 trillion, and employ 1.3 million people in legal occupations, 2 million law enforcement officers, releases more than 10 million people arrested and detains 2.2 million in 2016. In the United States there are an estimated 1.5 million police officers, 480,000 corrections officers, 1.3 million lawyers and 75,000 probation officers. The majority of the 93 million judicial cases filed in 2001 were processed by 15,555 state trial courts operating operated by 29,266 judges. 14.1 million criminal cases were filed. 15.8 million cases were filed with the civil division. Tort filings regarding medical malpractice, defamation, insurance premiums and claims against the state have hovered around 250,000 yearly. 57% of automobile insurance premium cases resulted in a +/-$18,000 settlement. 27% of medical malpractice cases resulted in +/-287,000 compensation. There are roughly 250,000 contract cases in any given year that deal with breach of contract. In 2001 the highest settlement was a $28 billion tobacco product liability tort. The ABA Kennedy Commission Recommendations of 2003-2004 made great progress admitting to the prison overpopulation problem. The recommendations led directly to the US Supreme Court to redress the prison overpopulation problem in the decision Blakely v. Washington No. 02-1632 of June 24, 2004 that “eliminated sentencing guidelines schemes and 20 years of sentencing reform. Sentences imposed under such guidelines in cases currently pending on direct appeal, or in cold habeas petitions, are in jeopardy. In both legislative and litigate practice Criminal sentences must be adjusted downward rather than upward, mandatory minimum schemes eliminated and acquittals the norm for most crimes where there are significant mitigating factors”.
C. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile under Art. 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the result of mandatory minimum sentencing and their unfair application to drug seizure arrests beginning in 1984 the national prison population rose to a high of 2,307,504 (755 per 100,000) in 2008 before quietly going down to 2,217,947 (693 per 100,000) in 2014. It was not until 2013, when racial disparities in sentencing were reviewed and the federal prison population began to decline, at an accelerating rate, from a high of 219,298 in 2013 to 192,170 in 2016. The American Legal System must safely reduce the U.S. incarceration rate below the arbitrary legal limit of 250 detainees per 100,000 residents pursuant to Blakely v. Washington No. 02-1632 of 24 June 2004 as applied by Brown, Governor of California, et al v. Marciana & Plata et al USSC No. 09–1233 of May 23, 2011 when the Court ordered 40,000 prisoners to be released and qualified the mentally and physically disabled parolees for Eligibility for SSI Benefits in Sec. 1611 of Title XVI of the Social Security Act 42USC§1382 (E)(1)(A). The courts of appeals continue to receive petitions from the backlog of state prisoners affected by the Blakely decision, who must exhaust their state court remedies before seeking relief in federal court. The new prison rumor regarding a federal practice of involuntary antipsychotic consumption as competency to stand trial must cease. People who plead not guilty by reason of insanity must be informed that they will serve the maximum sentence for the crime they are accused of until they admit to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against them and assist the court properly in their defense. Under psychiatric rules the guilty remain to gentrify community, the not guilty move on.
1. The Commissioner of Social Security has been ordered to develop a Pre-release procedure for institutionalized persons under which an individual can apply for supplemental security income benefits prior to the discharge or release of the individual from a public institution under Sec. 1631 of Title XVI of the Social Security Act 42USC§1383(m). Martinez et al v. Astrue No. Cal. No 08-CV-48735-CW of August 11, 2009, led to the passage of No Social Security Benefits for Prisoners Act of 2009, Public Law 111-115 which clarifies the prohibition of retroactive payments to individuals during periods for which such individuals are prisoners, probation or parole violators, or fugitive felons written in Eligibility for SSI Benefits in Sec. 1611 of Title XVI of the Social Security Act 42USC§1382(E)(1)(A) and OASDI in Sec. 202 of Title II of the Social Security Act 42USC§402(x)(1)(a). Eligibility for SSI Benefits may continue while a person is detained in public institution if such person needs to continue to maintain and provide for the expenses of the home or living arrangement to which he or she may return upon leaving the institution or facility, usually for a period not to exceed 3 months in Sec. 1611 of Title XVI of the Social Security Act 42USC§1382 (E)(1)(G). If their conviction is ultimately overturned back payments to the date their social security benefits were terminated are due Bloom v. Social Security Administration (10th Cir.) No. 02-3362 (2003). In 2017, when the Secretary of State, attempted to cut United Nations and Related Organization contributions from $1.4 billion to $950 million, it was estimated that the United States owed $600 million arrears to UNESCO. plus another $500 million for the shortfall, $1.1 billion FY 18, to stabilize United Nations (UN) spending at $1.6 billion FY 19 plus 2.5% annual growth under Art. 19 of the UN Charter.
D. Crime Control and Law Enforcement was transferred to Title 34 of the United States Code 34USC§10101 et seq. from Title 42 by P.L. 115–76 on November 02, 2017. Bachelor degree for all law enforcement, civil foreign and internal revenue services officers, because several state studies have shown that no one with a Bachelor degree was a recidivist under 34USC§60501. Recidivism, defined as re-incarceration within 3 years of release from prison, occurs in 66% of state offenders, 50% in those who earned vocational certificates, 35% in those with an Associates degree and 0% in those who earned a post-conviction Bachelor degree. Several state studies have shown that people who earn a post-conviction Bachelor degree are 100% free of recidivism. Law enforcement officers, with a minimum of high school plus 6 week to 6 month police academy, do not necessarily possess the Bachelor degree, several state studies have shown is needed to prevent recidivism and stop offending civil society, 100% of the time. It would raise the bar for law enforcement officers to go to law school. A civil law system would be achieved by lowering law school entrance to high school graduates and the bar exam to the Bachelor of Law - education, social work, international relations and criminal justice, inc. first year of law school, plus police academy for law enforcement officers. All there is to know is taught in the first year constitutional law. Law school graduate unemployment is higher than 60%. The principal finding is that to reduce unacceptably high rates of recidivism, unauthorized use of force, false arrest, torture and wrongful death, a Bachelor degree, including the first year of law school, plus police academy, must be required of all law enforcement officers employed in the United States. Secondarily, it is advised that law schools include police and correctional academy as a mandatory part of their curriculum, and law enforcement agencies employ law students and graduates, especially. Prison libraries need Internet access so that prisoners may participate in online university programs, all other activities might be censured by staff opinion, because a Bachelor degree is the cure for crime under 34USC§1257.
1. Conduct unbecoming an officer. It is unlawful for anyone acting under the authority of state law to deprive another person of his or her rights under the Constitution or federal law under 42USC§1983. The most common claims brought against police officers are malicious prosecution, false arrest (or false imprisonment) and unreasonable/excessive force. The claim that is most often asserted against police is false arrest. Persons bringing malicious prosecution and false arrest claims assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search, seizure and arrest without probable cause, and that the officer was unwarranted without the signature of a judge under Rule 4 Fed. Crim. P. Excessive force claims receive the most publicity, perhaps because the results of excessive force seem the most outrageous, involving serious physical injury or death. Whether the officer's use of force was reasonable depends on the surrounding facts and circumstances. The officer's intentions or motivations are not controlling. If the amount of force was reasonable, it doesn't matter that the officer's intentions were bad. The reverse is also true: if the officer had good intentions, but used unreasonable force, the excessive force claim will not be dismissed. Officers must take care to avoid fighting and committing territorially aggressive acts of violence. Officers have a duty to protect individuals from constitutional violations by fellow officers. Tampering with victim, witness or informant under 18USC§1512 and Obstruction of justice define most police misconduct under Rule 96 of the Manual for Court-Martial in Article 134, as wrongfully influencing, intimidating, impeding, or injuring a witness, a person acting on charges under this chapter, an investigating officer under R.C.M. 406, or a party; and by means of bribery, intimidation, misrepresentation, or force or threat of force delaying or preventing communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States to a person authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations or prosecutions of such offenses; or endeavoring to do so. Maximum punishment - dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.
2. There are about 1,000 police shootings each year in the United States. In 2016 there were 515 deaths categorized as being the result of legal intervention ICD-10 Y35,Y89. Among external causes, rates of homicide appear to be a bigger problem in prisons in the Americas (57 per 100,000 prisoners), than in Europe (2 per 100,000 prisoners), where suicide appears to be the main non-natural cause of death of inmates. the homicide rate per 100,000 prisoners is three times higher than the homicide rate in the general population. With 515 justified homicides from legal intervention in 2016, the homicide rate of one million police officers is 51.5 per 100,000, ten times more than normal. Killings in self-defense and those deriving from legal interventions, are distinguished from intentional homicide because they are considered justifiable due to mitigating circumstances, while non-intentional homicides are considered a separate offense due to the lack of intent to kill another person. killings by the police or other law enforcement agents in the course of arresting or attempting to arrest lawbreakers, while maintaining order, or during other legal actions where they are caused by use of force by law enforcement acting in accordance with the United Nations (1990) Basic principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials (A/ CONF.144/28/Rev.1). Killings resulting from the excessive use of force in law enforcement or through the excessive use of force in self-defense are either considered intentional homicides or non-negligent non-intentional homicide and should therefore be counted as such. For example, some counties in the Americas record deaths due to legal interventions and homicides committed in self- defense as “intentional homicide”; other countries may include deaths which are not part of the standard definition, such as those related to armed conflict and non-intentional homicides (i.e. accidental or non-voluntary homicides, or “collateral” deaths). The notion of “intentional homicide” is broad enough to encompass deaths caused by terrorist acts, and whilst perpetrators may face additional charges, such as acts of terrorism (kidnapping), acts against the State, or even crimes against humanity, the core act still concerns the intentional killing of other persons. Among the special procedures of the Human Rights Council, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions holds unlawful killings by the police may occur in situations where the police are not pursuing law enforcement objectives, such as attempts at extortion that may escalate into extra- judicial killings; engaging in “social cleansing” operations and intentionally killing criminals or members of marginalized groups; or in even more extreme situations, where police are operating as a militia or death squad.
§62 Crime
A. Crime is defined as an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government; especially: a gross violation of law, a grave offense especially against morality, or criminal activity, such as efforts to fight crime. When a society and its government decide that certain conduct is dangerous to citizens, or damaging to the society as a whole, such conduct is labeled a "crime" and is made punishable by sanctions such as fines and imprisonment under 18USC§3551. Most crimes are identified in statutes that have been enacted by federal, state, and local government legislatures, in response to issues that affect the jurisdiction. Under the traditional common law, the guilt or innocence of a person relied upon whether he had committed the crime (actus reus), and whether he intended to commit the crime (mens rea). Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal under 18USC§2; see United States v. Hodorowicz, C. C. A. Ill. 1939, 105 F. 2d 218, certiorari denied, 60 S. Ct. 108, 308 U.S. 584, 84 L. Ed. 489. Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an “accessory after the fact” and shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment under 18USC§3, see Skelly v. United States C. C. A. Okl. 1935, 76 F. 2d 483, certiorari denied.
1. 18USC§1 that classified offenses into felony, misdemeanor and petty was repealed. Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 218(a)(1), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2027. The term crime of violence”means an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense under 18USC§16. Felonies are deemed the most serious class of offense. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the crime,felonies are generally punishable by a fine, imprisonment for more than a year, or both. A misdemeanor is a criminal offense that is less serious than a felony and more serious than an infraction. Misdemeanors are generally punishable by a fine and incarceration in a local county jail, unlike infractions which impose no jail time. Many jurisdictions separate misdemeanors into three classes: high or gross misdemeanors, ordinary misdemeanors, and petty misdemeanors. Petty misdemeanors usually contemplate a jail sentence of less than six months and a fine of $500 or less. The punishment prescribed for gross misdemeanors is greater than that prescribed for ordinary misdemeanors and less than that prescribed for felonies, which customarily impose state prison. An infraction, sometimes called a petty offense, is the violation of an administrative regulation, an ordinance, a municipal code, and, in some jurisdictions, a state or local traffic rule. In many states an infraction is not considered a criminal offense and thus not punishable by incarceration. Instead, such jurisdictions treat infractions as civil offenses. Even in jurisdictions that treat infractions as criminal offenses, incarceration is not usually contemplated as punishment, and when it is, confinement is limited to serving time in a local jail. The term organization means a person other than an individual under 18USC§18.
B. The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics. Today, four annual publications, Crime in the United States, National Incident-Based Reporting System, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, and Hate Crime Statistics are produced from data received from over 18,000 city, university/college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. The crime data are submitted either through a state UCR Program or directly to the FBI’s UCR Program. The UCR estimated a total U.S. Population of 323,127,513 in 2016. In 2016 there were estimated to be a total of 10,662,252 arrests made for 9,167,220 crimes known to law enforcement agencies, 7,919,035 property crimes and 1,248,185 violent crimes. 10 million people are reported to be released and around 2.4 million remain incarcerated in jails and prisons in the United States, any given day. In 2016 is can be estimated that about 50% of arrests were false, assault or torture, 2 million arrests for drugs, drunkenness and 24,000 for vagrancy. Arrests by law enforcement agencies can be estimated to be only about 50% effective at protecting all persons from illegal acts as required by Art. 1 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, nonetheless, so much relief from crime can be achieved when principals are arrested the practice of arresting offenders continues. The concept of offenses known was adopted in 1929 by the International Chiefs of Police as the data that would be collected in the UCR Program. The aim was to get a true sense of crime in the nation, not just how many arrests were made. The Hierarchy Rule, requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident be counted.
1. Property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is the taking of money or property, but there is no force or threat of force against the victims. In 2016 there were estimated to be 7.9 million property crimes known to law enforcement, a rate of 2,500.5 per 100,000 residents. There is a long term trend reducing the number of property crimes known to law enforcement by about 2-3% annually, across all categories of property crime, except motor vehicle theft, that has been increasing since low of 686,803. In 2010, there were an estimated 9,082,887 property crime offenses in the Nation. The 5-year trend, comparing 2010 data with that of 2006, showed a 9.3% drop in property crime, a average of 1.9% annually. In 2010, the rate of property crime was estimated at 2,941.9 per 100,000 inhabitants, a 3.3% decrease when compared with the rate in 2009. The 2010 property crime rate was 12.1% lower than the 2006 rate and 19.6% below the 2001 rate. Larceny-theft accounted for 68.1% of all property crimes in 2010. Burglary accounted for 23.8% and motor vehicle theft for 8.1%. Property crimes in 2010 resulted in losses estimated at $15.7 billion. The UCR does not include any estimates for vandalism or arson because the degree of reporting arson offenses varies from agency to agency, and property destruction is not compensated federally, although stolen property is returned or otherwise accounted for and is duly processed by law enforcement.
Property Crimes Known to Law Enforcement 1997-2016
|Year |Total |Property Crime |Property Crime |Burglary |Burglary Rate |Larceny-theft |Larceny-theft rate|
| |Population | |Rate | | | | |
|Total |48,619 |100.0 | |$17,612 |9,076 |19.5 |33.6 |
|Total |21,122 |45.5 |17.9 |33,658 |4,966 |23.5 |32.5 |
|structure: | | | | | | | |
|Single |10,170 |21.9 |18.8 |27,671 |2,284 |22.5 |23.3 |
|occupancy | | | | | | | |
|residential | | | | | | | |
|Other |3,329 |7.2 |12.8 |26,170 |867 |26.0 |20.9 |
|residential | | | | | | | |
|Storage |1,395 |3.0 |16.6 |30,866 |286 |20.5 |42.3 |
|Industrial/manu|186 |0.4 |28.5 |133,717 |32 |17.2 |34.4 |
|facturing | | | | | | | |
|Other |1,743 |3.8 |18.3 |113,186 |335 |19.2 |26.9 |
|commercial | | | | | | | |
|Community/publi|2,262 |4.9 |19.0 |21,680 |745 |32.9 |68.3 |
|c | | | | | | | |
|Other structure|2,037 |4.4 |20.3 |13,815 |417 |20.5 |40.0 |
|Total mobile: |12,411 |26.0 | |7,084 |1,214 |10.0 |10.8 |
|Motor vehicles |11,392 |24.5 | |6,744 |1,102 |9.7 |9.7 |
|Other mobile |709 |1.5 | |12,554 |112 |15.8 |21.4 |
|Other |13,250 |28.5 | |1,647 |2,896 |21.9 |45.1 |
Source: UCR
C. The term “crime of violence” means an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense under 18USC§16. Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses that involve force or threat of force. In 2013, the UCR Program initiated the collection of rape data under a revised definition and removed the term “forcible” from the offense name. The UCR Program now defines rape as follows: Rape (revised definition): Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. (This includes the offenses of Rape, Sodomy, and Sexual Assault with an Object as converted from data submitted via the National Incident-Based Reporting System). Rape (legacy definition): The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. The total number of violent crimes known to law enforcement tends to fluctuate, however except in 2016 the violent crime rate has consistently gone down. In 2010, an estimated 1,246,248 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 6.0 percent from the 2009 estimate. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2010 estimated violent crime total was 13.2% below the 2006 level and 13.4% below the 2001 level. There were an estimated 403.6 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.5% of violent crimes reported to law enforcement, robbery comprised 29.5%, forcible rape accounted 6.8%, and murder 1.2%. Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.5% of the Nation’s murders, 41.4% of robberies, and 20.6% of aggravated assaults. From a low of 1,153,022, or 361.6 violent crimes reported to law enforcement per 100,000 in 2014 the number of violent crimes known to law enforcement has not only increased, to 1,199,310 in 2015 to 1,248 in 2016 as sometimes happens, but that increase is proportionally greater than the increase in population and the rate of all types of violent crime per 100,000 has increased, from 361.6 in 2014, to 373.7 in 2015 to 386.3 in 2016.
Violent Crimes Known to Law Enforcement 1997-2016
|Year |Violent Crime |
|Murder and non-negligent manslaughter |11,788 |
|Rape |23,632 |
|Robbery |95,754 |
|Aggravated Assault |383,977 |
|Burglary |207,325 |
|Larceny-theft |1,050,058 |
|Motor vehicle theft |86,088 |
|Arson |9,812 |
|Violent Crime, subtotal |515,151 |
|Property Crime, subtotal |1,353,283 |
|Other Assaults |1,078,808 |
|Forgery and Counterfeiting |56,661 |
|Fraud |128,531 |
|Embezzlement |15,937 |
|Stolen property, Buying, Receiving, Possessing |93,981 |
|Vandalism |195,951 |
|Weapons; Carrying, Possessing, Etc. |156,777 |
|Prostitution and Commercialized Vice |38,306 |
|Sex Offenses (Except Rape and Prostitution) |51,063 |
|Drug Abuse Violations |1,572,579 |
|Gambling |3,705 |
|Offenses Against the Family and Children |88,748 |
|Driving Under the Influence |1,017,808 |
|Liquor Laws |234,899 |
|Drunkenness |376,433 |
|Disorderly Conduct |369,733 |
|Vagrancy |24,851 |
|All Other Offenses |3,254,871 |
|Suspicion |576 |
|Curfew and Loitering Law Violation |34,176 |
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program Table 18
1. Police protect the populace from illegal acts under the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979) and must themselves refrain from the excessive use of force under the Basic principles on the use of force and firearms (1990). The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1977) provide for the circumstances in which prison officials may use force in the course of their duties, but does absolutely nothing to provide any laws, whatsoever, that are necessary for police and corrections officers to themselves redress the 50% false arrest rate, and in fact remorselessly recognizes the detention of civil prisoners, prisoners without charge, etc. Art. 3 of the Law Enforcement Code of Conduct provides that law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty. Unfortunately, the performance of their duty does not extend to the unlawful detention of innocent persons and reference to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1977) provides no defense against slave trade in healthy innocent persons who have been falsely arrested. Principle. 5 of the Law Enforcement Code of Conduct provides: No law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor may any law enforcement official invoke superior orders or exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, a threat to national security, internal political instability or any other public emergency as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Principle 24 Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that superior officers are held responsible if law enforcement officials under their command have resorted to the unlawful use of force and firearms...Torture is defined: Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
2. Neither the Law Enforcement Code of Conduct (1979) or Basic principles on the use of force and firearms (1990) pays any attention to Art. 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976) when a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offense and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him. No wonder the chief of Interpol is either dead or falsely arrested and imprisoned, probably in China but also maybe in Canada. The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988) does provide law enforcement and corrections officers with several legal principles to redress false arrests. Principle 27 Inadmissibility of Evidence Improperly Acquired. Non-compliance with these principles in obtaining evidence shall be taken into account in determining the admissibility of such evidence against a detained or imprisoned person. Principle 2 only under the law, holds prosecutors accountable for the accuracy of their legal citation. Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners (1990) finally recognized the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976). The term "enforced disappearance" is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty in Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (1992) that respects Commons Articles 1 and 3.
3. Arts. 3-12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: Art. 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Art. 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.Art. 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Art. 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Art. 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Art. 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Art. 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Art. 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Art. 11 (1) Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed. Art. 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
4. The Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (1990) provides. Guideline 14. Prosecutors shall not initiate or continue prosecution, or shall make every effort to stay proceedings, when an impartial investigation shows the charge to be unfounded. Guideline 15. Prosecutors shall give due attention to the prosecution of crimes committed by public officials, particularly corruption, abuse of power, grave violations of human rights and other crimes recognized by international law and, where authorized by law or consistent with local practice, the investigation of such offenses. Guideline 16. When prosecutors come into possession of evidence against suspects that they know or believe on reasonable grounds was obtained through recourse to unlawful methods, which constitute a grave violation of the suspect's human rights, especially involving torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or other abuses of human rights, they shall refuse to use such evidence against anyone other than those who used such methods, or inform the Court accordingly, and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that those responsible for using such methods are brought to justice. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Held: The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. The right to non-self incrimination is grounds for legal assistance under the Convention on Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases (1993). Law colleges have advised the public to retain a lawyer to have the prosecutor drop the charges instead of being invariably arrested responding to a request to come to the police station for questioning.
C. Conduct unbecoming an officer - Officer ex.. rel. v. Police Chief i.e.– Motion for Dismissal. Discipline usually involves re-assignment, paid leave, unpaid leave. Termination of employment requires consideration for the insurance and education benefit claim. Rarely, officers are incarcerated. The most common claims brought against police officers are malicious prosecution, false arrest (or false imprisonment) and unreasonable/excessive force whereas: It is unlawful for anyone acting under the authority of state law to deprive another person of his or her rights under the Constitution or federal law under 42USC§1983. It shall be unlawful for law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States under 34USC§12601. Most police misconduct can be described as Tampering with victim, witness or informant under 18USC§1512 or Obstruction of justice as defined by Rule 96 of the Manual for Court-Martial Art. 134, as wrongfully influencing, intimidating, impeding, or injuring a witness, a person acting on charges, an investigating officer of a Court-Martial under Rule 406, or a party; and by means of bribery, intimidation, misrepresentation, or force or threat of force delaying or preventing communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States to a person authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations or prosecutions of such offenses; or endeavoring to do so. Maximum punishment - dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.
1. The claim that is most often asserted against police is false arrest. Persons bringing malicious prosecution and false arrest claims assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search, seizure and arrest without probable cause, and that the officer was unwarranted without the signature of a judge under Rule 4 Fed. Crim. P. Excessive force claims receive the most publicity, perhaps because the results of excessive force seem the most outrageous, involving serious physical injury or death. Whether the officer's use of force was reasonable depends on the surrounding facts and circumstances. The officer's intentions or motivations are not controlling. If the amount of force was reasonable, it doesn't matter that the officer's intentions were bad. The reverse is also true: if the officer had good intentions, but used unreasonable force, the excessive force claim will not be dismissed. Officers must take care to avoid fighting and committing territorially aggressive acts of violence. Officers have a duty to protect individuals from constitutional violations by fellow officers.
2. Types of misconduct include coerced false confession, intimidation, false arrest, false imprisonment, falsification of evidence, spoliation of evidence, police perjury, witness tampering, police brutality, police corruption, racial profiling, unwarranted surveillance, unwarranted searches, and unwarranted seizure of property. Others include: Bribing or lobbying legislators to pass or maintain laws that give police excessive power or status. Similarly, bribing or lobbying city council members to pass or maintain municipal laws that make victim-less acts ticket-table (e.g. bicycling on the sidewalk), so as to get more money. Selective enforcement ("throwing the book at" people who one dislikes; this is often related to racial discrimination). Sexual misconduct. Off-duty misconduct. Unlawful discharge of firearms. Killing of animals unjustly. Littering. Arson. Stalking. Noble cause corruption, where the officer believes the good outcomes justify bad behavior. Using badge or other ID to gain entry into concerts, to get discounts, etc. Influence of drugs or alcohol while on duty. Violations by officers of police procedural policies. Police officers often share a code of silence, 'Omerta', which means that they do not turn each other in for misconduct. Defense attorneys representing a police officer for any of these claims will raise a defense of qualified immunity. This defense exists to prevent the fear of legal prosecution from inhibiting a police officer from enforcing the law. The defense will defeat a claim against the officer if the officer's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. In other words, the specific acts the officer prevented the individual from engaging in must be legally protected, otherwise there is no civil rights violation.
3. In order to win a civil rights claim, an individual bringing a police misconduct claim must prove that the actions of the police exceeded reasonable bounds, infringed the victim's constitutional rights, and produced some injury or damages to the victim (such as wrongful death by police). Killings in self-defense and those deriving from legal interventions, are distinguished from intentional homicide because they are considered justifiable due to mitigating circumstances, while non-intentional homicides are considered a separate offense due to the lack of intent to kill another person. Among the special procedures of the Human Rights Council, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions holds unlawful killings by the police may occur in situations where the police are not pursuing law enforcement objectives, such as attempts at extortion that may escalate into extra- judicial killings; engaging in “social cleansing” operations and intentionally killing criminals or members of marginalized groups; or in even more extreme situations, where police are operating as a militia or death squad.
§64 Detention
A. The United States has the highest number (2.2 million) and concentration of prisoners (746 per 100,000 residents) in the world. The detainee population must go down to the international norm of less than 250 per 100,000. Mandatory minimum sentences, and any sentencing regime but the statutory maximum, must abolished under Blakely v. Washington (2004). US Prison population quintupled from 503,586 detainees (220 per 100,000) in 1980 to a high of 2,307,504 (755 per 100,000) in 2008 before quietly going down to 2,217,947 (696 per 100,000). A considerable amount of the increase is the result of the sentencing for drug crimes. From 1995 to 2003, inmates in federal prison for drug offenses have accounted for 49% of total prison population growth. Mid-year 2014 there were 744,592 people detained in local jails, and 1,473,355 in state or federal prisons at year-end. The prison population rate was 693 detainees per 100,000 residents at year-end 2014 based on an estimated national population of 320.1 million at end of 2014. In 2013 20.4% of people behind bars were pre-trial detainees. 9.3% were female. 0.3% were juveniles. 5.5% were foreign prisoners. There are estimated to be a total of 4,575 penal institutions - 3,283 local jails at 2006, 1,190 state confinement facilities at 2005, 102 federal confinement facilities at 2005. The official capacity of the penal system was 2,157,769 with a occupancy level of 102.7% (2013). The Commissioner of Social Security has been ordered to develop a Pre-release procedure for institutionalized persons under which an individual can apply for supplemental security income benefits prior to the discharge or release of the individual from a public institution under Sec. 1631 of Title XVI of the Social Security Act 42USC§1383(m). Congress has requested the President to reduce disproportionately long mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses. Mandatory minimum sentencing obstructs the principle of a statutory maximum sentence.
US Prison Population 1980 - 2014
|Year |Detainees total |Per 100,000 Residents |
|1980 |503,586 |220 |
|1985 |744,208 |311 |
|1990 |1,148,702 |457 |
|1995 |1,585,586 |592 |
|2000 |1,937,482 |683 |
|2002 |2,033,022 |703 |
|2004 |2,135,335 |725 |
|2006 |2,258,792 |752 |
|2008 |2,307,504 |755 |
|2010 |2,270,142 |731 |
|2012 |2,228,424 |707 |
|2014 |2,217 947 |693 |
Source: World Prison List 2016
1. There are estimated to be a total of 4,575 penal institutions - 3,283 local jails, 1,190 state confinement facilities, and 102 federal confinement facilities in the United States. The official capacity of the penal system was 2,157,769 with a occupancy level of 102.7% in 2013. The United States prison population quintupled from 503,586 detainees (220 per 100,000) in 1980 to a high of 2,307,504 (755 per 100,000) in 2008, as the result of mandatory minimum sentencing, before quietly going down to 2,217,947 (696 per 100,000) in 2014 without actually abolishing mandatory minimum sentencing as directed by the American Bar Association and United States Supreme Court in Blakely v Washington (2004). Mid-year 2014 there were 744,592 people detained in local jails, and 1,473,355 in state or federal prisons at year-end. The prison population rate was 693 detainees per 100,000 residents at year-end 2014 based on an estimated national population of 320.1 million at end of 2014. In 2013 20.4% of people behind bars were pre-trial detainees. 9.3% were female. 0.3% were juveniles. 5.5% were foreign prisoners. At yearend 2014, an estimated 4,708,100 adults were under community supervision down by about 45,300 offenders from year end 2013. Approximately 1 in 52 adults in the United States was under community supervision at year end 2014. Between yearend 2013 and 2014, the adult probation population declined by about 46,500 offenders (down 1.2%), falling to an estimated 3,864,100 offenders at year end 2014. Entries onto probation decreased about 1.3% during 2014, and exits declined about 1.0% to an estimated 2,130,700. The adult parole population increased by about 1,600 offenders (up 0.2%) between yearend 2013 and 2014, to an estimated 856,900 offenders at yearend 2014. Both entries to and exits from parole decreased about 1.5% in 2014.
2. There are over 3,200 jails throughout the United States, the vast majority of which are operated by county governments. Each year, these jails will release in excess of 10,000,000, 3.3% of the population, back into the community. Nearly 650,000 people are released from incarceration to communities each year. In 2005, the total correctional population was 7,055,600 of which 304,500 were federal offenders. The total community supervision population was 4,946,600 of which 117,900 were offenders under federal community supervision. Eighty percent of the approximately 43,000 offenders who were placed on federal community supervision in 2005 were male. More than a third (41%) were white and nearly a third (31%) were black, 20% were Hispanic. Approximately 30% were age 29 or younger and about 40% were age 40 or older, the peak age of incarceration was 16.7% for ages 30-34. 79.7% were male and 20.3% were female. The average criminal history of these offenders included approximately five prior arrests. More than a third (38%) of the federal offenders were sentenced to community supervision for a drug offense.
3. Nearly two thirds of released State prisoners are rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within three years after release. The re-incarceration rate among federal parolees at risk of violating their conditions of supervision remained stable at about 9% in 2013 and 2014. Nonfederal (i.e., state and local) law enforcement agencies were responsible for approximately three-quarters (76%) of prior arrests of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005. Nonfederal charges accounted for more than two-thirds (68%) of all arrests that occurred during the 5 years following placement on federal community supervision. Within 1 year following placement in 2005 on community supervision, 18% of the federal offenders had been arrested at least once. Among those conditionally released from federal prison, nearly half (47%) were arrested within 5 years, compared to more than three-quarters (77%) of state prisoners released on community supervision. About 3 in 10 federal prisoners released to a term of community supervision returned to prison within 5 years, while nearly 6 in 10 state prisoners conditionally released returned in 5 years. On average, offenders released from federal prison had fewer prior arrests (5) than those released from state prison (10). Across demographic characteristics or extent of prior criminal offending, state prisoners consistently had higher rates of recidivism than federal prisoners within 5 years after release. The Justice Department's Inspector General found that more than 4,300 federal inmates were kept in prison beyond their scheduled release dates from 2009 to 2014 some of them for an extra year or more. The Bureau of Federal Statistics reports a regular decline in prison population and density since 2009.
4. The Obama administration has assailed what it says are unfair and unduly harsh sentences for many inmates, particularly minorities and nonviolent offenders. Black Americans were incarcerated in state prisons at an average rate of 5.1 times that of white Americans, and in some states that rate was 10 times or more. The US is 63.7% non-Hispanic white, 12.2% black, 8.7% Hispanic white and 0.4% Hispanic black, according to the most recent census. In five states, the disparity rate was more than double the average. New Jersey had the highest, with a ratio of 12.2 black people to one white person in its prison system, followed by Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Vermont.
Overall, Oklahoma had the highest rate of black people incarcerated with 2,625 black inmates people per 100,000 residents. Oklahoma is 7.7% black. Among black men in 11 states, at least 1 in 20 were in a state prison. Hawaii, which is 2.5% black, had the lowest incarceration rate among black people (585 per 100,000), and the lowest ratio – 2.4 black Americans to 1 white – in its prisons. The Obama administration has helped to reduce the high rates of incarceration however racial disparities among prisoners persist. In the 25-29 age group, 8.1% of black men - about one in 13 – were behind bars, compared with 2.6% of Hispanic men and 1.1% of white men. It's not much different among women. In 2005 the female population in state or federal prison increased 2.6 percent while the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7% of all inmates were women. That percentage has increased to 9.3% of all inmates in 2013. The number of females incarcerated has increased from 55.6 detainees per 100,000 residents in 2000 to a high of 66 per 100,000 in 2006 before declining to 63.5 per 100,000 in 2010 and then increasing to 64.6 per 100,000 in 2013. For Hispanics, there was also a disparity compared to white prison populations. The average ratio for all states was 1.4 to 1. 3. Apprehensions for immigration violations peaked at 1.8 million in 2000 but dropped to 516,992 in 2010—the lowest level since 1972. The most common immigration offense charged in U.S. district court in 2010 was illegal reentry (81%), followed by alien smuggling (12%), misuse of visas (6%) and illegal entry (1%). Eighty-one percent of immigration defendants who were convicted in U. S. district court received a prison sentence in 2010. The median prison term imposed was 15 months. In 2012, five federal judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border accounted for 60% of federal arrests, 53% of suspects investigated, and 41% of offenders sentenced to prison.
B. In 2006 an estimated 69% of all persons convicted of a felony in state courts were sentenced to a period of confinement–41% to state prison and 28% to local jails. State prison sentences averaged 4 years and 11 months in 2006. Men (83%) accounted for a larger percentage of persons convicted of a felony, compared to their percentage (49%) of the adult population (not shown in table). Most (94%) felony offenders sentenced in 2006 pleaded guilty. Persons convicted of a violent felony received the longest prison sentences in 2006, compared to property, drug, weapon, and other felonies. Felony sentences to jail averaged 6 months. Among felons who were sentenced in state courts to probation and no incarceration, the average probation sentence was 3 years and 2 months. Life sentences accounted for less than 1% (0.3%) of the 1.1 million felony sentences in state courts during 2006. However, among the estimated 8,670 persons sentenced for murder or non-negligent manslaughter that year, 23% received life in prison. Among the estimated 460,000 persons sentenced to prison via state courts, 0.8% received life sentences. In 2006 an estimated 38% of persons sentenced for a felony in state courts were ordered to pay a fine as part of their sentence. Approximately 1 in 4 property offenders was ordered to make restitution and 23% of offenders convicted of drug possession were sentenced to treatment. Approximately 1 in 5 rape offenders was sentenced to treatment.
1. State by State detention statistics were compiled by the International Centre for Prison Studies in 1999 and again in 2005. 2013 state by state statistics are from wikipedia. In 1999 Washington DC, with 8,226 detainees and a population of about 600,000, had the highest rate of incarceration in the world of 1,594 detainees per 100,000 residents. By 2005 that rate is reported to have been reduced to 3,553 detainees (645 per 100,000 residents) and in 2014 to have gone down to 2,040 detainees (369 per 100,000 residents) There appears to have been a political hack by the author of uncongressional Bush v. Gore (2000) to make it appear that Washington DC and Texas had reduced their incarceration rate between 1999 and 2005 although reductions did not begin until 2009 with some increased accountability for 'federal immigration offenders' that only partially explains the reductions. Nonetheless, the District of Columbia and Texas seem to be making an effort to reduce their penal populations to within the legal limit of 250 detainees per 100,000 or national norm of less than 500 detainees per 100,000. The penal population in the state of Louisiana, with the arbitrary detention of Hurricane Katrina Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin in 2014 as an example, is reported to have increased from 1995 to 2005 and to have decreased from 2005 to 2013. In 1999 Louisiana held 44,934 detainees (1,025 per 100,000), in 2005 51,458 detainees (1,138 per 100,000), and in 2014 50,100 detainees (1,082 per 100,000 residents of all ages) the last remaining state or territory with a penal population over 1,000 detainees per 100,000 residents of all ages.
State by State Detention 1999, 2005, 2013
| Jurisdiction |1999 In prison |1999 rate per |2005 In prison |2005 rate per |2013 In |2013 |2013 |
| |or jail |100,000 of all |or jail |100,000 of all |prison |rate per |rate per |
| | |ages | |ages |or jail |100,000 |100,000 |
| | | | | | |adults |of all ages |
|State |1,714,931 |666 |2,007,434 |679 |2,012,400 |830 |636 |
|Federal |173,059 |58 |179,220 |58 |215,100 |90 |68 |
|U.S. total |1,887,990 |724 |2,193,798 |737 |2,227,500 |910 |704 |
| | | | | | | | |
|Alabama |33,157 |757 |40,561 |890 |46,000 |1,230 |951 |
|Alaska |2,837 |459 |4,678 |705 |5,100 |940 |691 |
|Arizona |36,412 |761 |47,974 |808 |55,200 |1,090 |831 |
|Arkansas |15,022 |588 |18,693 |673 |22,800 |1,010 |770 |
|California |239,206 |721 |246,317 |682 |218,800 |750 |569 |
|Colorado |21,043 |520 |33,955 |728 |32,100 |790 |608 |
|Connecticut |16,776 |511 |19,087 |544 |17,600 |620 |488 |
|Delaware |5,958 |792 |6,916 |820 |7,000 |960 |756 |
|District of |8,226 |1,594 |3,552 |645 |2,400 |450 |369 |
|Columbia | | | | | | | |
|Florida |119,679 |790 |148,521 |835 |154,500 |990 |788 |
|Georgia |74,500 |956 |92,647 |1,021 |91,600 |1,220 |916 |
|Hawaii |3,479 |291 |5,705 |447 |5,600 |510 |397 |
|Idaho |6,634 |531 |11,206 |784 |10,200 |860 |632 |
|Illinois |61,235 |506 |64,735 |507 |69,300 |700 |537 |
|Indiana |30,025 |506 |39,959 |637 |45,400 |910 |690 |
|Iowa |10,229 |356 |12,215 |412 |12,700 |530 |410 |
|Kansas |12,864 |484 |15,972 |582 |16,600 |760 |573 |
|Kentucky |21,651 |546 |30,034 |720 |32,100 |950 |729 |
|Louisiana |44,934 |1,025 |51,458 |1,138 |50,100 |1,420 |1,082 |
|Maine |2,745 |220 |3,608 |273 |3,800 |350 |285 |
|Maryland |33,650 |650 |35,601 |636 |32,700 |710 |550 |
|Massachusetts |21,796 |353 |22,778 |356 |21,400 |400 |318 |
|Michigan |61,882 |628 |67,132 |663 |60,200 |790 |608 |
|Minnesota |10,765 |226 |15,422 |300 |15,700 |380 |289 |
|Mississippi |18,416 |664 |27,902 |955 |28,800 |1,270 |962 |
|Missouri |32,300 |591 |41,461 |715 |44,500 |950 |736 |
|Montana |3,998 |453 |4,923 |526 |6,000 |760 |591 |
|Nebraska |5,740 |344 |7,406 |421 |8,500 |600 |454 |
|Nevada |14,057 |774 |18,265 |756 |19,900 |930 |712 |
|New Hampshire |3,830 |320 |4,184 |319 |4,800 |460 |362 |
|New Jersey |43,777 |536 |46,411 |532 |37,600 |540 |421 |
|New Mexico |10,330 |590 |15,081 |782 |15,500 |980 |742 |
|New York |104,341 |574 |92,769 |482 |81,400 |530 |413 |
|North Carolina |43,243 |564 |53,854 |620 |55,300 |730 |561 |
|North Dakota |1,520 |239 |2,288 |359 |2,700 |470 |373 |
|Ohio |63,444 |565 |65,123 |559 |69,800 |780 |603 |
|Oklahoma |27,926 |825 |32,593 |919 |37,900 |1,300 |983 |
|Oregon |15,425 |464 |19,318 |531 |22,900 |740 |582 |
|Pennsylvania |63,490 |529 |75,507 |607 |85,500 |850 |668 |
|Rhode Island |3,176 |321 |3,364 |313 |3,400 |400 |322 |
|South Carolina |30,000 |772 |35,298 |830 |32,600 |880 |683 |
|South Dakota |3,581 |485 |4,827 |622 |5,300 |820 |626 |
|Tennessee |35,884 |655 |43,678 |732 |48,100 |960 |740 |
|Texas |204,110 |1,014 |223,195 |976 |221,800 |1,130 |836 |
|Utah |9,239 |433 |11,514 |466 |12,500 |620 |430 |
|Vermont |1,205 |203 |1,975 |317 |2,100 |410 |335 |
|Virginia |48,828 |713 |57,444 |759 |58,800 |910 |710 |
|Washington |24,849 |431 |29,225 |465 |29,700 |550 |425 |
|West Virginia |5,496 |304 |8,043 |443 |9,700 |660 |523 |
|Wisconsin |27,218 |519 |36,154 |653 |34,800 |780 |605 |
|Wyoming |2,338 |485 |3,515 |690 |3,800 |840 |651 |
Source: World Prison Brief 2000 & 2005 Wikipedia 2013
2. Since 2010 most states have seen a reduction in their penal population or at least in their rate of incarceration per 100,000 residents. Vermont and few other state known to have made deals with Democrats slightly increased 2005-2013 including Illinois. It is hoped that these reductions will be continued and accelerated for non-violent offenders serving time in state and federal prison, particularly the non-violent drug and immigration offenders. However, figures pertaining to the rate per 100,000 may be low as the result of not fully taking into account the reductions to the general population that were made by the unprecedented deportation proceedings to remove foreign prisoners and deter unlawful entry that may have resulted in most or all of the statistical reduction in incarceration 2009-2016. Care must be taken in the new administration to safely sustain reductions in federal and state penal population and accelerate release for populations of arbitrary non-violent offenders to conventional, correctional or online Bachelor degree programs, depending on their disposition to recidivism. The Commissioner of Social Security has been ordered to develop a Pre-release procedure for institutionalized persons under which an individual can apply for supplemental security income benefits prior to the discharge or release of the individual from a public institution under Sec. 1631 of Title XVI of the Social Security Act 42USC§1383(m).
3. In 2014, 1,053 inmates died in local jails, an 8% increase from 2013 (971) and the largest number of deaths in custody since 2008. Between 2000 and 2014, an average of 82% of jails reported zero deaths. In 2014, 80% of jails reported zero deaths and 14% reported one death. Suicides accounted for 31% of deaths during that period. From 2005 to 2014, the suicide rate increased 28% from 39 per 100,000 local jail inmates to 50 per 100,000 local jail inmates. Heart disease was the second leading cause of death in 2014. Between 2000 and 2014, heart disease made up a quarter (23%) of all deaths, and non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black jail inmates died from heart disease at nearly equal rates. Respiratory deaths increased 32% between 2013 (31) and 2014 (41). Deaths due to drug-alcohol intoxication increased from 72 in 2013 to 90 deaths in 2014. Accidental deaths and deaths due to homicide were the least common causes of death, accounting for about 2% of deaths in local jails in 2014. In 2014, there 3,927 inmate deaths in state and federal prisons across the United States. The number of federal prisoner deaths in federal prisons increased 11%, from 400 deaths in 2013 to 444 deaths in 2014. The vast majority of federal prisoner deaths (88%) could be attributed to natural causes. Unnatural deaths— including suicides (4%), homicides (3%), and accidents (1%)—made up less than a tenth of all federal prison deaths. From 2013 (3,479) to 2014 (3,483), the number of deaths in state prisons was relatively stable. Deaths in state prisons declined in both California (down 13%) and Texas (down 7%) from 2013 to 2014. Nearly 9 in 10 (87%) state prisoner deaths were due to illness in 2014, with more than half of those caused by either cancer (30%) or heart disease (26%). From 2013 to 2014, the number of AIDS-related deaths increased 23% and the number of deaths due to a respiratory disease increased 20%. Also up during this period was the number of suicides in state prison. Suicides increased 30% from 2013 to 2014 after a 6% decrease from 2012 to 2013. Suicides accounted for 7% of all state prison deaths in 2014—the largest percentage observed since 2001. Accidental deaths and deaths due to drug or alcohol intoxication were recorded as the cause of death in about 1% of state prison deaths in 2014. The state prisoner mortality rate (256 per 100,000 state prisoners) was 14% higher than the federal prisoner mortality rate (225 per 100,000 federal prisoners) 2001-2014.
C. The United States of America, detained 2.2 million prisoners, China was second with 1.7 million, 118 per 100,000 in 2016. With 693 detainees per 100,000 residents the United States had the second highest rate of detention after Seychelles with 799 per 100,000. More than 10.35 million people are held in penal institutions throughout the world according to the latest edition of the World Prison Population List (WPPL) published on Wednesday 3 February by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, at Birkbeck, University of London. Including the numbers reported to be held in detention centers in China and in prison camps in North Korea, the total may well be in excess of 11 million. The WPPL provides up-to-date information on the global prison population and the rate per 100,000 of the national population in 223 countries and territories. Figures are unavailable for only three countries – Eritrea, North Korea and Somalia. There are more than 2.2 million prisoners in the United States of America, more than 1.65 million in China (plus an unknown number in pre-trial detention or ‘administrative detention’), 640,000 in the Russian Federation, 607,000 in Brazil, 418,000 in India, 311,000 in Thailand, 255,000 in Mexico and 225,000 in Iran.
1. The world prison population rate, based on United Nations estimates of national population levels, is 144 per 100,000. The countries with the highest prison population rate – the number of prisoners per 100,000 of the national population – are Seychelles (799 per 100,000), followed by the United States (698), St. Kitts & Nevis (607), Turkmenistan (583), U.S. Virgin Islands (542), Cuba (510), El Salvador (492), Guam - U.S.A. (469), Thailand (461), Belize (449), Russian Federation (445), Rwanda (434) and British Virgin Islands (425). However, more than half of all countries and territories (55%) have a prison population rate of below 150 per 100,000. To determine the total number of detainees in any jurisdiction for which the total population and the total number of detainees in jail and state and federal prison, excluding people civilly committed to a state mental institution or other reeducation center in China, are known - Multiply the total number of detainees by 100,000 and divide by the total population of the jurisdiction to determine how many prisoners there are per 100,000 residents. Prison population rates vary considerably between different regions of the world, and between different parts of the same continent. For example: in Africa the median rate for western African countries is 52 whereas for southern African countries it is 188. In the Americas the median rate for south American countries is 242 whereas for Caribbean countries it is 347. In Asia the median rate for south central Asian countries (mainly the Indian sub-continent) is 74 whereas for central Asian countries it is 166. In Europe the median rate for western European countries is 84 whereas for the countries spanning Europe and Asia (e.g. Russia and Turkey) it is 236. In Oceania the median rate is 155.
2. Since about the year 2000 the world prison population total has grown by almost 20%, which is slightly above the estimated 18% increase in the world’s general population over the same period. There are considerable differences in prison population trends between the continents, and variation within continents. The total prison population in Oceania has increased by almost 60% and that in the Americas by over 40%; in Europe, by contrast, the total prison population has decreased by 21%. The European figure reflects large falls in prison populations in Russia and in central and eastern Europe. In the Americas, the prison population has increased by 14% in the USA, by over 80% in central American countries and by 145% in south American countries. The female prison population total has increased by 50% since about 2000, while the equivalent figure for the male prison population is 18%. The female total has increased proportionately more than the male total in every continent. Consequently the proportion of women and girls in the total world prison population has risen from 5.4% in about 2000 to 6.8% in the latest figures available.
World Prison Population and Rate of 223 National Jurisdictions 2014
|Nation |Prison Population Total |Prison Population Rate |
|United States of America |2,217,947 |693 |
|China |1,649,804 |118 |
|Russian Federation |653,218 |451 |
|Brazil |622,202 |307 |
|India |418,536 |33 |
|Thailand |318,910 |474 |
|Mexico |255,138 |212 |
|Iran |225,624 |287 |
|Turkey |187,609 |220 |
|Indonesia |180,347 |64 |
|South Africa |159,563 |292 |
|Philippines |142,168 |121 |
|Vietnam |136,245 |154 |
|Colombia |121,945 |244 |
|Ethiopia |111,050 |128 |
|United Kingdom: England & Wales |85,540 |148 |
|Jersey (United Kingdom) |154 |152 |
|United Kingdom: Northern Ireland |1,607 |87 |
|United Kingdom: Scotland |7,692 |143 |
|Pakistan |80,169 |43 |
|Peru |77,298 |242 |
|Morocco |76,000 |222 |
|Poland |71,786 |191 |
|Bangladesh |69,719 |43 |
|Argentina |69,060 |160 |
|France |66,678 |95 |
|Nigeria |63,142 |31 |
|Ukraine |62,749 |195 |
|Egypt |62 000 |76 |
|Germany |61,737 |78 |
|Spain |61,541 |136 |
|Taiwan |61,514 |272 |
|Algeria |60,220 |162 |
|Myanmar (formerly Burma) |60,000 |113 |
|Japan |59,620 |48 |
|Cuba |57,337 |510 |
|Kenya |57,000 |118 |
|Rwanda |54,279 |434 |
|Republic of (South) Korea |53,990 |107 |
|Italy |53,725 |89 |
|Malaysia |52,784 |171 |
|Venezuela |49,664 |178 |
|Saudi Arabia |47,000 |161 |
|Uganda |45,092 |115 |
|Uzbekistan |43,900 |150 |
|Chile |43,302 |247 |
|Iraq |42,880 |123 |
|Canada |40,663 |106 |
|Kazakhstan |39,179 |234 |
|Australia |36,134 |151 |
|Tanzania |34,404 |69 |
|El Salvador |33,547 |519 |
|Turkmenistan |30,568 |583 |
|Belarus |29,000 |306 |
|Romania |28,393 |143 |
|Cameroon |26,702 |115 |
|Afghanistan |26,519 |74 |
|Ecuador |25,902 |162 |
|Dominican Republic |25,006 |233 |
|Angola |24,165 |106 |
|Tunisia |23,000 |212 |
|Azerbaijan |22,526 |236 |
|Czech Republic |21,667 |195 |
|Israel |21,072 |256 |
|Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly |20,550 |32 |
|Zaire) | | |
|Madagascar |20,000 |83 |
|Guatemala |19,972 |121 |
|Sudan |19,101 |c. 65 |
|Sri Lanka |19,067 |92 |
|Zimbabwe |18,857 |145 |
|Zambia |18,560 |125 |
|Cambodia |18,308 |105 |
|Hungary |17,976 |187 |
|Nepal |17,905 |59 |
|Costa Rica |17,440 |352 |
|Panama |17,197 |392 |
|Mozambique |15,976 |61 |
|Honduras |15,914 |196 |
|Ghana |14,368 |53 |
|Portugal |14,281 |138 |
|Yemen |14,000 |53 |
|Bolivia |13,468 |122 |
|Singapore |12,394 |227 |
|Puerto Rico (USA) |12,327 |350 |
|Paraguay |12,313 |158 |
|Cote d'Ivoire |12,147 |52 |
|Malawi |12,129 |73 |
|Netherlands |11,603 |69 |
|Jordan |11,489 |150 |
|United Arab Emirates |11,193 |229 |
|Belgium |11,071 |105 |
|Haiti |11,046 |97 |
|Syria |10,599 |60 |
|Nicaragua |10,569 |171 |
|Slovakia |10,116 |184 |
|Serbia |10,067 |148 |
|Kyrgyzstan |10,030 |166 |
|Uruguay |9,996 |291 |
|Georgia |9,734 |274 |
|Greece |9,698 |109 |
|New Zealand |9,405 |194 |
|Tajikistan |9,317 |121 |
|Bulgaria |9,028 |125 |
|Burundi |8,689 |93 |
|Senegal |8,630 |62 |
|Niger |8,525 |39 |
|Hong Kong (China) |8,438 |114 |
|Austria |8,381 |95 |
|Laos |8,201 |71 |
|Moldova (Republic of) |7,881 |215 |
|Mongolia |7,773 |266 |
|Lithuania |7,355 |268 |
|Benin |7,247 |77 |
|Switzerland |6,923 |84 |
|Burkina Faso |6,827 |34 |
|South Sudan |6,504 |65 |
|Lebanon |6,502 |120 |
|Libya |6,187 |99 |
|Albania |5,547 |189 |
|Sweden |5,245 |55 |
|Mali |5,209 |33 |
|Papua New Guinea |4,864 |61 |
|Chad |4,831 |39 |
|Togo |4,422 |64 |
|Latvia |4,409 |239 |
|Jamaica |4,050 |145 |
|Bahrain |4,028 |301 |
|Kuwait |4,000 |92 |
|Botswana |3,960 |188 |
|Armenia |3,880 |130 |
|Ireland, Republic of |3,786 |80 |
|Trinidad and Tobago |3,700 |258 |
|Norway |3,679 |71 |
|Swaziland |3,610 |289 |
|Namibia |3,560 |144 |
|Sierra Leone |3,488 |55 |
|Denmark |3,481 |61 |
|Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of) |3,427 |147 |
|Croatia |3,424 |89 |
|Gabon |3,373 |210 |
|Republic of Guinea |3,110 |26 |
|Finland |3,002 |57 |
|Estonia |2,898 |216 |
|Mauritius |2,285 |155 |
|Liberia |2,203 |39 |
|Lesotho |2,073 |92 |
|Guyana |1,944 |259 |
|Kosovo/Kosova |1,816 |100 |
|Mauritania |1,768 |44 |
|Bosnia and Herzegovina: Federation |1,722 |73 |
|Fiji |1,555 |174 |
|Maldives |1,513 |341 |
|Slovenia |1,511 |73 |
|Belize |1,443 |449 |
|Cape Verde (Cabo Verde) |1,434 |286 |
|Bahamas |1,396 |363 |
|Oman |1,300 |36 |
|Macau (China) |1,292 |195 |
|Congo (Brazzaville) |1,240 |27 |
|Qatar |1,150 |53 |
|Montenegro |1,131 |174 |
|Gambia |1,121 |58 |
|Bhutan |1,119 |145 |
|Reunion (France) |1,111 |114 |
|Suriname |1,000 |183 |
|Martinique (France) |997 |240 |
|Guadeloupe (France) |970 |195 |
|Barbados |924 |322 |
|Bosnia and Herzegovina: Republika Srpska |877 |71 |
|French Guiana/Guyane (France) |850 |277 |
|Guam (USA) |797 |469 |
|Central African Republic |764 |16 |
|Seychelles |735 |799 |
|Luxembourg |691 |112 |
|Cyprus (Republic of) |681 |94 |
|St. Lucia |607 |349 |
|Djibouti |600 |68 |
|Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor) |581 |50 |
|Virgin Islands (USA) |577 |542 |
|Malta |569 |135 |
|Brunei Darussalam |565 |132 |
|Samoa (formerly Western Samoa) |501 |250 |
|Equatorial Guinea |500 |129 |
|French Polynesia (France) |456 |159 |
|Grenada |450 |398 |
|New Caledonia (France) |445 |175 |
|St. Vincent and the Grenadines |412 |378 |
|Antigua and Barbuda |387 |373 |
|Curaçao (Netherlands) |348 |225 |
|St. Kitts and Nevis |334 |607 |
|Solomon Islands |271 |56 |
|Vanuatu |230 |87 |
|Bermuda (United Kingdom) |230 |354 |
|Cayman Islands (United Kingdom) |224 |375 |
|Dominica |219 |300 |
|American Samoa (USA) |214 |382 |
|Mayotte (France) |203 |74 |
|Sao Tome e Principe |178 |101 |
|Tonga |176 |166 |
|Northern Mariana Islands (USA) |175 |267 |
|Aruba (Netherlands) |170 |165 |
|Sint Maarten (Netherlands) |161 |347 |
|Iceland |147 |45 |
|Kiribati |146 |136 |
|Comoros |145 | |
|Micronesia, Federated States of |132 |127 |
|Virgin Islands (United Kingdom) |119 |31 |
|Greenland (Denmark) |116 |208 |
|Guinea Bissau |92 |- |
|Guernsey (United Kingdom) |83 |127 |
|Isle of Man (United Kingdom) |80 |92 |
|Palau |72 |343 |
|Gibraltar (United Kingdom) |52 |147 |
|Anguilla (United Kingdom) |46 |307 |
|Andorra |41 |72 |
|Marshall Islands |35 |66 |
|Monaco |28 |74 |
|Cook Islands (New Zealand) |25 |109 |
|Nauru |14 |140 |
|Faeroe Islands (Denmark) |11 | |
|Tuvalu |11 |110 |
|Liechtenstein |10 |21 |
|San Marino |2 |- |
Source: Walmsley, Roy. World Prison Brief. World Prison Population List. 11th ed. Institute for Criminal Policy Research. London. 2016
3. The growth in the African prison population is considerably less than the increase in the population of the continent. However the size of this difference is heavily influenced by the figures for Rwanda. Rwanda’s prison population is still inflated by the many thousands detained in connection with the genocide in 1994, but the numbers have more than halved since 2000. Without the figures for Rwanda the prison population in Africa has increased by 25% since 2000. The change in the prison population in the Americas since 2000 is greatly influenced by the prison population in the United States, which is by far the largest but which has grown much less than that of many other countries in the continent. Without the figures for the United States, the prison population in the Americas has increased by 108% since 2000, the increase being over 80% in central America and 145% in south America.Prison population change since 2000 in Asia has varied greatly between the different parts of the continent: the totals in south eastern Asia and in western Asia (Middle East) both rose by 75% while the total in central Asia fell by 31%. China and India with their high national populations strongly influence the overall Asian prison population level, but in opposite directions – the Chinese prison population rose by 16% while the Indian prison population rose by 54%. Without the figures for these two countries the Asian prison population has risen by 38%. Europe is the only continent that has seen a fall in prisoner numbers since 2000. The size of the decrease is heavily influenced by the figures for the Russian Federation: Russia’s prison population is by far the largest in Europe and has fallen by almost 40%. Without the figures for the Russian Federation, the prison population in Europe has fallen by 1% since 2000. Russia is not the only part of Europe that has seen a large fall in the prison population: the prison population in central and eastern Europe without Russia has fallen by almost 42% since 2000. By contrast there has been growth in the other regions of Europe: 6% in western Europe, 12% in northern Europe and 27% in southern Europe. The growth in the prison population of Oceania is higher than in any other continent. It is of course dominated by the figures for Australia, whose prison population rose by 66% between 2000 and 2015, and New Zealand whose total rose by 56%.
Article 6 Legal Defenses
§65 Unwarranted Arrest, Search and Seizure
A. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not violated, an no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Rule 4 (b)(1)(D) Fed Crim. P. provides that an arrest warrant must be signed by a judge. A summons must be in the same form as a warrant except that it must require the defendant to appear before a magistrate judge at a stated time and place. (a) Issuance. If the complaint or one or more affidavits filed with the complaint establish probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the judge must issue an arrest warrant to an officer authorized to execute it. At the request of an attorney for the government, the judge must issue a summons, instead of a warrant, to a person authorized to serve it. A judge may issue more than one warrant or summons on the same complaint. If an individual defendant fails to appear in response to a summons, a judge may, and upon request of an attorney for the government must, issue a warrant. If an organizational defendant fails to appear in response to a summons, a judge may take any action authorized by United States law. The federal docket and Uniform Crime Statistics indicate that about 50% of all arrests are false, and are either dismissed right away or go on the permanent record as drugs, vagrancy, vice or 50/50 police brutality assault victims. The 49% rate of drug offenders in federal prison reveals that federal judges' rate of false imprisonment, is the same as that of an arresting police officer with secondary school and police academy education. To explain the gentrification process, under psychiatric rules, the guilty stay, the innocent move on. Police often investigate people for some time, when asked to come to police station, to avoid the obsessed dilemma of self-incrimination, false arrest and forcible relocation, first talk to an attorney to ask the prosecutor to dismiss the charges. It is generally a successful not guilty plea that a judge has neither read the mailed notice of appearance nor signed the warrant.
1. Comprehensive pre-trial coverage is found in Arts. 3-14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Art. 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Art. 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.Art. 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Art. 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Art. 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Art. 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Art. 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Art. 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Art. 11 (1) Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed. Art. 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Art. 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Art. 14 (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
2. Victims of miscarriages of justice and torture have the right to compensation under the Fourteenth Amendment. Art. 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 23 March 1976, when a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offense and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law. Cases that are dismissed before they are convicted are not generally due compensation, unless they can make a claim for torture. Art. 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 26 June 1987 the State shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation. No law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor may any law enforcement official invoke superior orders or exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, a threat to national security, internal political instability or any other public emergency as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Art. 5 of the Law Enforcement Code of Conduct of 17 December 1979. If a person is convicted of a crime as the result of entrapment then that person is not guilty. Government agents entrapped a person if three things occurred: First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime. Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving a person the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading the person to commit the crime. And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with that person.
B. Immunity is integral to the defense. Medical immunity is a state of having sufficient biological defenses to avoid infection, disease, or other unwanted biological invasion, and is related to the functions of the immune system. Legal immunity confers a status on a person or body that makes that person or body or their property free from otherwise legal obligations such as, liability for damages, punishment for criminal acts or unlawful search and seizure. Any action or proceeding brought against an individual who is entitled to immunity shall be dismissed. Such immunity may be established upon motion or suggestion by or on behalf of the individual under 22USC(6)§254d. A Court under 18USC§6003, Agency under §6004 or Congress under §6005 may issue an order granting immunity when, (1) the testimony or other information from such individual may be necessary to the public interest; and (2) such individual has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide other information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination. Social security administrators are immune unless payments should somehow cease under Sec. 202 of the Social Security Act 42USC§404(c).
1. The Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of February 13, 1946 elaborates at section 2 the United Nations, its property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case it has expressly waived its immunity. Under section 3 the premises of the United Nations shall be immune from, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action. Under Section 4 the archives of the United Nations, and in general all documents belonging to it or held by it, shall be inviolable wherever located. Section 11(a) assures representatives of Members immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal baggage, and, in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives, immunity from legal process of every kind. In order to secure, complete freedom of speech and independence in the discharge of their duties, the immunity from legal process in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in discharging their duties shall continue to be accorded, notwithstanding that the persons concerned are no longer the representatives of Members under section 12. Privileges and immunities are accorded to the representatives of Members not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves, but in order to safeguard the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the United Nations. Consequently a Member not only has the right but is under a duty to waive the immunity of its representative in any case where in the opinion of the Member the immunity would impede the course of justice under section 14. Under section 20 the Secretary-General shall have the right and the duty to waive the immunity of any official in any case where, in his opinion, the immunity would impede the course of justice and can be waived without prejudice to the interests of the United Nations. In the case of the Secretary-General, the Security Council shall have the right to waive immunity. Under section 29 the United Nations shall make provisions for appropriate modes of settlement of (a) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of a private law character to which the United Nations is a party; (b) Disputes involving any official of the United Nations who by reason of his official position enjoys immunity, if immunity has not been waived by the Secretary-General under section 20. United Nations laissez- passer may be issued to its officials under section 24. These laissez-passer shall be recognized and accepted as valid travel documents by the authorities of Members. Under section 30 all differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the present convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, unless in any case it is agreed by the parties to have recourse to another mode of settlement. If a difference arises between the United Nations on the one hand and a Member on the other hand, a request shall be made for an advisory opinion on any legal question involved in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the Court. The opinion given by the Court shall be accepted as decisive by the parties.
2. Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that the Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Member such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes. Representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the Organization. With respect to a nonparty to the Vienna Convention, the mission, the members of the mission, their families, and diplomatic couriers shall enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in the Vienna Convention under 22USC§254b. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 (T.I.A.S. numbered 7502; 23 U.S.T. 3227), entered into force with respect to the United States on December 13, 1972. Article 22 provides, the premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution. Article 31 ensures at 1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction. Under Art. 44 States may designate a representative of the mission a persona non grata and have them prevented from entering or removed from the country.
C. Habeas corpus, Latin for, “you may have the body”, is the plea prisoners make to challenge their detention in applications for a writ of habeas corpus. The Framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom. Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions. The District Court may accept applications from the state court after state remedies have been exhausted under 28USC§2241. Applications for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing, signed by the petitioner, with reference to the person having custody and are amendable. A Court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted. The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed. The person to whom the writ or order is directed shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention. When the writ or order is returned a day shall be set for hearing, not more than five days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed. Writs shall be granted if the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. Before a second application can be heard by the District Court a certificate of appeal ability must be granted by Circuit Court of Appeals. Decisions are final.
1. A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. A motion attacking a sentence shall be granted unless the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. The court shall cause notice to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law. If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or re-sentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate. A court may entertain and determine such motion without the production of the prisoner at the hearing under 28USC§2255.
2. The writ of habeas corpus began in England's Runnymede meadow on June 15, 1215, when dissident English barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, at sword point, limiting the power of the king in exchange for his right to rule. The writ of habeas corpus was among the rights articulated that day, and it has since evolved into the principal safeguard against arbitrary executive detention, torture and maltreatment of prisoners. 1679 Habeas Corpus Act stated that a writ of habeas corpus requires someone holding a person in prison to produce the person to a court. Failure of a judge or jailer to comply resulted in a hefty penalty of £500. Patterned after the habeas corpus clause of the US Constitution the 1794 Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, suspended Habeas Corpus until February 1795 after the arrest of leaders of the Constitutional and Corresponding Societies. It was renewed repeatedly until 1801 - with a possible hiatus in the period 1795/1797. Otherwise the writ of habeas corpus has been respected in Great Britain.
3. Art. I Sec. 9 Clause 2 of the US Constitution states, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” The Suspension Clause is designed to protect against these cyclical abuses. The Clause protects the rights of the detained by a means consistent with the essential design of the Constitution. It ensures that, except during periods of formal suspension, the Judiciary will have a time-tested device, the writ, to maintain the "delicate balance of governance" that is itself the surest safeguard of liberty. The Clause protects the rights of the detained by affirming the duty and authority of the Judiciary to call the jailer to account. The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody". Alexander Hamilton explained that by providing the detainee a judicial forum to challenge detention, the writ preserves limited government. As he explained in The Federalist No. 84: "The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone ... are well worthy of recital: 'To bereave a man of life ... or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.' And as a remedy for this fatal evil he emphatically lauded the writ of habeas corpus.
4. There is emerging opinion in international law habeas corpus privilege is an inalienable human right in all circumstances that may not be suspended because of a declared state of emergency. Habeas corpus is not a get out of jail free card but a right for individuals to petition the court to challenge the terms and treatment of their detention. Habeas corpus is the most important safeguard of liberty, without this right judicial decisions could not be contested nor would the accused even be given a trial. Whereas it is these basic liberties that make our nation worth defending it defeats the purpose to suspend habeas corpus rights in times of war and emergency. Relegating suspects to torturous interrogations when they could be given due process in a court of law, is not likely improve the security situation, while a fair and speedy trial will.
5. The ABA Kennedy Commission Report of June 23, 2004 admitted that the US had the most prisoners of any nation in the world and that measures would need to be taken to redress this problem. The next day, in Blakely v. Washington No. 02-1632 of June 24, 2004 the Court eliminated sentencing guidelines schemes. Sentences imposed under such guidelines in cases currently pending on direct appeal, or in cold habeas petitions, are in jeopardy. In both legislative and litigate practice Criminal sentences must be adjusted downward rather upward, mandatory minimum schemes eliminated and acquittals the norm for most crimes where there are significant mitigating factors. USA v. Booker J. & Fanfan No. 04-104-105 (2005) provided for the wholesale acquittal of drug convictions.
There is an enormous backlog of habeas petitions under the Blakely ruling seeking to minimize their maximum minimum sentences. The maxim is that justice delayed is justice denied. The federal judiciary must clearly prioritize granting writs of habeas corpus for people proving their innocence and for time served. New rules regarding prisoners serving 85% of their sentence are unconstitutional whereas the mandatory minimum sentencing regime has already been ruled to be cruel and unusual punishment. Sentences are supposed to be going down, not up. The guiding principles of sentencing under 18USC§3553(a) are to reduce legislative sentencing through appellate case study, provide certainty and fairness in meeting the purposes of sentencing, avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct, maintain sufficient flexibility to permit individualized sentences when warranted by a rehabilitative treatment not taken into account in the establishment of general sentencing practices and to reflect, to the full extent practicable, the advancement of knowledge of human behavior as it relates to the criminal justice process.
6. The executive is also an important venue for liberation. The President and Governors are authorized to grant pardons and commutation of sentence. For instance President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case July 2, 2007. Libby was convicted in March, the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair. Exodus 14 VS 14 says that "the lord will fight my case and I shall hold my peace". As part of the pre-release procedures for institutionalized persons the Commissioner of Social Security shall develop a system under which an individual can apply for supplemental security income benefits prior to the discharge or release of the individual from a public institution. The Commissioner shall provide notice written in simple and clear language, that includes the address and telephone number of the local office of the Social Security Administration which serves the under 42USC§1393(m,n,o).
D. People are protected from unreasonable search and seizure unless, there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of such materials is necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human being 42USC§2000a. The mere possession of, even large quantities of, controlled substances does not qualify as a reasonable justification for search and seizure. The IV Amendment protects the rights of the people to property and privacy from unwarranted police “search and seizure”. The “exclusionary” rule is the most effective defense by preventing evidence gathered without a warrant issued with probable cause from being used in court. Thus a police officer must have a warrant issued with probable cause before he enters a person’s home or gathers information by intruding upon a person’s domain that will be used in court. Recent rulings have expanded the scope of “probable cause”. When on a warranted search of a home the police may confiscate anything in sight that is suspicious whether it is mentioned in the warrant or not due to the “plain view doctrine”. Smells and sounds can also give rise to probable cause. Jones v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 257 does not prohibit the plain view confiscation of contraband as long as it abides by Rule 41 (e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Fed. Crim. P.) that disqualifies evidence when, (1) the property was illegally seized without warrant, (2) the warrant is insufficient on its face, (3) the property seized is not that described in the warrant, (4) there was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued, (5) the warrant was illegally executed.
1. Rakas v. Illinois (1978) 439U.S.128 determined that to accurately gauge probable cause required by the Fourth Amendment against an individuals right to privacy, officers must not “violate a persons legitimate interest to privacy”. The warrant requirement is no mere formality, it is a crucial safeguard against abuses by executive officers explained in McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (1948). The warrant requirement was found to be a constitutionally mandated safeguard even for wiretaps intended to protect domestic national security in United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. Even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties.
2. The Court has emphasized that the mandate of the Fourth Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes, and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate are unreasonable. Power is a heady thing; and history shows that the police acting on their own cannot be trusted. Thus, the Constitution requires that a law school educated judge in good standing with the Supreme Court be interposed between the citizen and the police pursuant to Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). FISA judges grant the FBI and NSA executives nearly all the warrants they claimed to need in United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908, 913 (4th Cir. 1980). People are protected from unreasonable search and seizure unless, there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of such materials is necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human being under 42USC§2000aa . The mere possession of, even large quantities of, controlled substances does not qualify as a reasonable justification for search and seizure. The warrant requirement is no mere formality, it is a crucial safeguard against abuses by executive officers.
3. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications is prohibited except under Sec. 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and Sec. 108 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement under 18USC§2511. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 permits the President to conduct warrant less searches for 15 days following a formal declaration of war, whereupon the 36,000 FBI and 50,000 NSA investigators must seek the approval of a 11 judge FISA court for 35,000 (2000) to 150,000 (2016) searches of names of individuals and communication corporations under 50USC§1801. In recent years FISA has been criticized for their censorship of civil liberties under 50USC§3029 and been convicted of armed attacks against civilians and their property. The Attorney General is authorized to confiscate wire or oral communication intercepting devices under 18USC§2513. In the matter of search of information associated with email accounts in the United States District Court for Nevada No. 17-mg968-NSK the application for search warrants under 18USC§2703(a) and §2703(c)(1)(A) require Microsoft to disclose to the government records and other information in its possession, pertaining to the subscriber or customer associated with the Target Accounts. The Court had jurisdiction to issue the requested warrant because it is a court of competent jurisdiction with jurisdiction over the offense being investigated under 18USC§2711 and 18USC§27039. Probable cause is that more than 58 people were killed and 557 injured, on the evening of Sunday, October 1, 2017, Route 91 Harvest, a music festival was in progress in south Las Vegas. The gunman was found deceased in his hotel room with a gunshot wound to the head. On October 2, 2017 search warrants found over 20 firearms, over a thousand rounds of rifle ammunition and 100 pounds of explosives were found. Pursuant to 18USC§2703(g) the presence of law enforcement is not required for the service of this warrant.
4. A Court may impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day for each day in violation after the issuance of the order comply with the requirements of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act under 18USC§2522. Apple obviously pays $3,650,000 a year legal fees for their customer's privacy. Microsoft needs to pay for the prosecutor to dismiss their FBI occupation. Apple might agree to release device access information of a deceased person to their inheritors under 24USC§420, but to protect the privacy of hundreds of millions of computers, cannot participate in any crime or murder justified tampering under 18USC§1512. Apple is reportedly planning to launch a cheaper 13-inch MacBook Air during the second quarter, but while a new Windows computer can be purchased for as little as $300, new Apples currently don't sell for less than $999. Encrypted wifi is necessary to provide commercial customers a minimum of protection against unlawful interception. As encrypted wifi has extended into grocery stores the FBI Law Enforcement Retail conspiracy has extended into the organized criminal tampering of food and drugs under 18USC§1512(a)(2)(ii) & (iii) and Sec. 301 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&CA) under 21USC§331 that should be redressed by an injunction against the FBI Law Enforcement Retail Partnership Network infringement into $30 billion annual retail industry theft in Sec. 302 of the FD&CA under 21USC§331 to liberate commerce from this conspiracy with the National Gang Intelligence Center. The Hobbs Act prohibits robbery and extortion, and conspiracy, that interferes with interstate and foreign commerce under 18USC§1951 and Scheidler v. National Org. for Women, Inc., 547 U.S. 9, 23 (2006).
5. Should international correspondence be censored in peacetime, as though the entire United States is a prison? FISA continues to be re-authorized despite counsel to abolish the NSA, lay-off its 50,000 workers, and sell or transfer its headquarters to a different military or civilian federal government agency. The Attorney General is ultimately responsible for the confiscation of NSA and FBI wire and oral communication intercepting devices under 18USC§2513. The Attorney General has been recommended to institute minimization procedures that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non-publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information under §1801(h). Since 2001 the number of names entered in the NSA supercomputer has risen tenfold from 15,000 to 150,000. The NSA has pled guilty to armed attacks against civilians in Europe. Since 2006 NSA interception of every wire communications leaving the United States has been associated with international and domestic violence that constitutes terrorism under §1801(c) to such a degree that international emails must be singularly isolated and domestic email lists limited to less than a dozen trusted readers, from untroubled email lists numbering in the tens of thousands before 2006. Since 2013 information has been even more compromised by FBI sabotaged Windows computers, time and money it takes to adapt to this crisis the federal government complacently continues to use insecure Microsoft computers and produce intellectually insipid, often tampered, literary works under §1801(d) without even publishing any information regarding any potential attacks, sabotage, international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities under §1801(e) and 18USC§1512.
6. To deter unwarranted foreign surveillance 50USC§1809 provides that a person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance under color of law; or discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. Any person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; is a first offense for the entitled to appropriate injunctive relief; and a second or subsequent offense shall be subject to a mandatory $500 civil fine for the Recovery of Civil Damages under 18USC§2520. Hospitals and Asylums Battle Mountain Sanitarium Reserve statute likewise provides for a $1,000 fine and up to 12 months in jail for unlawful intrusion and violation of the rules and regulations pertaining under 24USC§154. Evidence that has been unlawfully obtained is generally dismissed and may be used against the perpetrators. Any search conducted without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable. Probable cause is the standard by which a particular decision to search is tested against the constitutional mandate of reasonableness.
7. The United States must better protect journalistic and government sources against the $10,000 per day fine for rejecting the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, that needs to be repealed to protect commerce against corrupt police investigation under 18USC§2722. Civil action against state officials under 18USC§2707 is afforded with mandatory minimum 12.4% OASDI payroll tax on state employees in Title I of the Social Security Act and requiring a Bachelor degree for employment. Civil acton against the federal government under 18USC§2711 must require a Bachelor degree and exclude marijuana from drug testing for federal employment to be morally competent to repeal, abolish or otherwise overrule the Authority for Employment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Senior Executive Service under 5USC§3151-3152, Office of Special Counsel, Interagency Drug and Crime Enforcement, National Office of Drug Control Policy, International Narcotic Control and Law Enforcement, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
§66 Right to a Fair Trial
A. The right to a fair trial is a basic human and constitutional right in all-criminal prosecutions because it is jeopardized. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental safeguard to assure that individuals are not unjustly punished. The basic principle in a fair trial is a right to justice. Every government has the duty to bring to justice those responsible for crimes. Justice is however based on respect for the rights of every individual. Justice involves reciprocity between adversaries to satisfactorily settle legal disputes pursuant to the written judgment of a third part neutral. Justice involves discovering laws or their application to be unjust or unconstitutional for the pacific resolution of a case or to request them amended or repealed. Justice requires that criminal defendants who are not criminals against humanity be acquitted with a determination as to whether or not that person has been convicted of an offense or directed to make reasonable restitution. The two elements of a fair trial are truth and decent treatment. The essential principle contained in the actual trial of an illegal act is, non-repetition, and that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed
2. When people are tortured or ill treated by law enforcement officials, when innocent individuals are convicted, or when trials are manifestly unfair the justice system is equally liable for being prosecuted for crimes and procedural errors. A judge must therefore be neutral and impartial to either the prosecutor or defendant to ensure the case is given due process that includes a right to appeal the decision and complain of trial errors. The decision of a judge can have a significant impact upon a person’s life; it is therefore of utmost importance that people enjoy a fair trial. Unless human rights are upheld without discrimination in the police station, the interrogation room, the detention centre, the court and the prison cell, the authorities have failed in their duties and betrayed their responsibilities and in many cases the conviction must be overturned and/or compensation paid to the falsely accused and tortured.
B. The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers 27 August to 7 September 1990 obligates lawyers exclusively to the role of defending the criminally accused and sets forth to protect them from retaliation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the principles of equality before the law, the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, and all the guarantees necessary for the defense of everyone charged with a penal offense. The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides that a detained person shall be entitled to have the assistance of, and to communicate and consult with, legal counsel. The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners recommend, in particular, that legal assistance and confidential communication with counsel should be ensured. The right to non-self incrimination is grounds for legal assistance under the Convention on Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases of 1993.
1. The purpose of lawyers is to establish conditions under which justice can be maintained through due process. Courts are difficult and complicated for laymen to work with. Although people are welcome to act prose, speaking for themselves, and generally do in small cases, it is wise for parties to judicial proceedings, both plaintiffs and defendants, to hire a lawyer to represent them. Lawyers work for their clients and may be discharged or may resign if a conflict of interest manifests in which case a lawyer may be sued to disgorge their profits Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc. 2007 SCC 24 June 1. If a defendant is unable to afford a lawyer a public defender will be appointed. Plaintiffs can often find lawyers willing to represent them, pro bono, in the public interest, or on a contingency basis. Many non-governmental organizations and non-lawyers also participate in legal proceedings as witnesses or by means of the submission of Amices Curie briefs. The defense of liberty is a team effort amongst judges, lawyers, friends, family, victims and concerned citizens who are counseled to co-operate in pursuit of justice. The Court must value legal briefs and respect written notices of appearances.
2. As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients and employ that knowledge in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal education in the public interest as best represented in the spirit of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility. Legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority therefore lawyers should further the public's understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and justice system. A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and legislature and of the fact that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot or have not afforded adequate legal assistance and are entitled to free, professionally literate and friendly legal services nonetheless on a contingency or pro bono basis whereas it is in the public interest to give all merit worthy claims due process.
3. Prosecutors are government lawyers who represent the penal interests of the government in felony cases in criminal courts. Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors of 27 August-7 September 1990 requires the office of prosecutors to be strictly separated from judicial functions. The prosecutor investigates the facts of the case and proposes the maximum sentence authorized by the legislature. Prosecutors carry out their functions impartially and avoid all political, social, religious, racial, cultural, sexual or any other kind of discrimination. They protect the public interest, act with objectivity, take proper account of the position of the suspect and the victim, and pay attention to all relevant circumstances, irrespective of whether they are to the advantage or disadvantage of the suspect. They keep matters in their possession confidential, unless the performance of duty or the needs of justice require otherwise. They consider the views and concerns of victims when their personal interests are affected and ensure that victims are informed of their rights in accordance with the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. Prosecutors shall not initiate or continue prosecution, or shall make every effort to stay proceedings, when an impartial investigation shows the charge to be unfounded. Prosecutors shall give due attention to the prosecution of crimes committed by public officials, particularly corruption, abuse of power, grave violations of human rights and other crimes recognized by international law and, where authorized by law or consistent with local practice, the investigation of such offenses. When prosecutors come into possession of evidence against suspects that they know or believe on reasonable grounds was obtained through recourse to unlawful methods, which constitute a grave violation of the suspect's human rights, especially involving torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or other abuses of human rights, they shall refuse to use such evidence against anyone other than those who used such methods, or inform the Court accordingly, and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that those responsible for using such methods are brought to justice. The prosecutor’s mission is not so much to secure a conviction as it is to achieve a just result. The defendant is entitled to a full measure of fairness, and it is as much the prosecutor’s duty to see that the accused is not deprived of any statutory or constitutional rights, as it is to prosecute Young v. United States 481 U.S. 787 (1987).
C. The V Amendment to the Constitution ensures that no one will be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime unless indicted by the grand jury, nor shall anyone be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The VI Amendment to Constitution ensures that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. The arrested person must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor and to have the assistance of a counsel for his defense. The jury is used far more in the United States than in other countries. States are obligated to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms of detainees. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the principles of human dignity, equality before the law, the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, and all the guarantees necessary for the defense of everyone charged with a penal offense. Governments shall ensure that all persons are immediately informed by the competent authority of their right to be assisted by a lawyer of their own choice upon arrest or detention or when charged with a criminal offense. Detained person shall be entitled to have the assistance of, and to confidential communication and consultation with, legal counsel.
1. Amnesty International publishes an exhaustive Fair Trials Manual that covers pre-trial rights, rights at trial and during appeal and special cases. It is fundamental human rights that everyone has a right to personal liberty. The essential corollary to the right to liberty is protection against arbitrary or unlawful detention. An individual can only be deprived of their liberty in on grounds and in accordance with the law and international standards. Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing. The right to a fair hearing in criminal trials is specified by a number of concrete rights, such as the right to be presumed innocent, the right to be tried without undue delay, the right to prepare a defense, the right to defend oneself in person or through counsel, the right to call and examine witnesses and the right to protection from retroactive criminal laws. A person must be informed of the reason for their arrest. As the result of the presumption of innocence in most cases it is expected that they will be released on bond before trial. An accused person is entitled to be notified of their rights including the right to legal counsel and to silence, in writing and in a language they understand. People held in custody are entitled have access to the outside world in the form of prompt access to families, lawyers, doctors, a judicial official and, if the detainee is a foreign national, to consular staff or competent international organization. The person’s family can be notified of their detention by the authorities.
2. Everyone deprived of their liberty has the right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court, and to have the detention reviewed on a regular basis, if the detention is unlawful to order their release. The right to challenge the lawfulness of detention, and to seek remedy, is invoked by applying for a writ of habeas corpus. Every person who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention has an enforceable right to reparation, including compensation. Damage incurred because of acts or omissions by a public official contrary to the rights contained in these principles shall be compensated according to the applicable rules or liability provided by domestic law. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Anyone detained or imprisoned has the right to request improvements in their treatment or to complain about their treatment. The authorities must reply promptly, and if the request or complaint is refused, it may be brought to a judicial or other authority. All detained people have the right to be held only in an officially recognized place of detention, located if possible near their place of residence, under a valid order committing them to detention. Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as un-convicted persons. No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This right is absolute and non-derogable. It applies to all people. It may never be suspended even during times of war, threat of war, internal political instability, or states of emergency.
D. All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The right to equality before the law means that laws must not be discriminatory, and that judges and officials must not act in a discriminatory fashion in enforcing the law. The primary institutional guarantee of a fair trial is that decisions will not be made by political institutions but by competent, independent and impartial tribunals established by law. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. The defense and the prosecution will be treated in a manner that ensures that both parties have an equal opportunity to prepare and present their case during the course of the proceedings Everyone has an equal right to access to the courts, without discrimination.
1. Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent, and treated as innocent, until and unless they are convicted according to law in the course of proceedings which meet at least the minimum prescribed requirements of fairness. The right to be presumed innocent applies not only to treatment in court and the evaluation of evidence, but also to treatment before trial. It applies to suspects, before criminal charges are filed prior to trial, and carries through until a conviction is confirmed following a final appeal. If a person is acquitted of a criminal offense by final judgment of a court, the judgment is binding on all state authorities. Therefore, the public authorities, particularly prosecutors and the police, should refrain from implying that the person may have been guilty, so as not to undermine the presumption of innocence, respect for the judgments of a court and the rule of law. No one charged with a criminal offense may be compelled to testify against him or herself or to confess guilt. No one may be convicted for an act or an omission which was not an offense at the time it was committed. This prohibition prevents the retroactive application of criminal law. It gives rise not only to a prohibition on retroactive prosecutions, but also imposes an obligation on states to define precisely by law all criminal offenses. No one may be tried or punished again in the same jurisdiction for a criminal offense if they have been finally convicted or acquitted of that offense. This prohibition against double jeopardy, also known as the principle of ne bis in idem, prevents a person from being tried or punished more than once for the same crime.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offense has the right to be tried without undue delay. The length of time judged reasonable will depend on the circumstances of the case. The guarantee of prompt trial in criminal proceedings is tied to the right to liberty, the presumption of innocence and the right to defend oneself. It aims to ensure that an accused person's fate is determined without undue delay. It is aimed at ensuring that a person's defense is not undermined by the passage of inordinate amounts of time, during which witnesses' memories may fade or become distorted, witnesses may become unavailable, and other evidence may be destroyed or disappear. The right to be tried promptly encapsulates the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. Everyone charged with a criminal offense has the right to defend him or herself against the charges, to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require. Everyone charged with a criminal offense has the right to defend him or herself in person. The accused may decide to be assisted by defense counsel, and the court is required to inform the accused of the right to counsel. The right to legal assistance applies to all stages of the criminal proceedings, including during the preliminary investigation and before trial.
3. The review by a higher court must be a genuine review of the issues in the case. The rights to a fair and public trial must be observed during appeal proceedings. The right to be present during appeals proceedings depends on the nature of those proceedings. In particular, it depends on whether the appeal court examines issues of fact as well as of law, and on the manner in which the accused's interests are presented and protected. The accused has the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. Judgments must be made public, with limited exceptions, and everyone tried by a court of law has the right to be given reasons for the judgment and to be judged only by decision-makers who have attended the proceedings. A judgment is made public if it is pronounced orally in a session of the court which is open to the public or if a written judgment is published. The right to public judgment is violated if judgments are made accessible only to a certain group of people or when only people having a specific interest are allowed to inspect a judgment.
E. Punishments imposed upon conviction of a crime may only be inflicted on people who have been convicted after a fair trial. Punishments must be proportionate and may not violate international standards. Courts may not impose a heavier penalty than the one that applied when the crime was committed. However, if legal reform reduces the penalty for an offense, states are obliged to apply retroactively the lighter penalty. The conditions in which a convicted prisoner is held must not violate international standards that limit time in solitary, restraints and use of force by officers. Punishment for an offense may be imposed only on the offender; international standards prohibit the imposition of collective punishments. The imposition of corporal punishment as a sanction for a criminal or disciplinary offense violates the prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to a fair trial by inflicting a penalty which is prohibited under international law. Everyone convicted of a criminal offense has the right to have the conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal.
1. Children are entitled to all the fair trial guarantees and rights which apply to adults, and to some additional special protection. The juvenile's right to privacy shall be respected at all stages in order to avoid harm being caused to her or him by undue publicity or by the process of labelling. In most cases, the best interests of a child are protected by not separating them from their parents. Children must be segregated from adults. No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offenses committed by persons below eighteen years of age. The right to life is fundamental and absolute. In states that have abolished the death penalty it should not be reinstated. All states are encouraged to ratify the Second Optional Protocol aiming at the abolition of the death penalty of 15 December 1989. The execution of juveniles, pregnant women, the mentally ill, mentally retarded and people over 70 are prohibited. The death penalty shall be only for the most heinous crimes. In view of the irreversible nature of the death penalty, trials in capital cases must scrupulously observe the right to a fair trial. Anyone sentenced to death has the right to appeal to a court of higher jurisdiction, and steps should be taken to ensure that such appeals shall become mandatory. Anyone sentenced to death has the right to seek pardon or commutation of their sentence. There is no guarantee that the executioners will not be held responsible for crimes against humanity.
2. In times of national emergency some fair trial rights may be suspended. The following rights may never be suspended: the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of slavery and servitude,; the prohibition of detention for debt; the prohibition of retroactive criminal laws; the recognition of legal personality Any suspension of rights must not involve discrimination on grounds of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin. There is growing consensus that habeas corpus must never be suspended. A person may not be found guilty of a penal offense related to the armed conflict except by a court "respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure". International humanitarian law, which provides minimum standards of conduct during armed conflict, contains important fair trial safeguards. These apply to various categories of people during international wars and internal conflict, including civil wars. The safeguards set forth in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols protect various categories of people, defined as protected persons, in specified circumstances. The safeguards include guarantees of a fair trial for people charged with criminal offenses. Art. 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides, No arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Art. 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 23 March 1976, provides, “when a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offense and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law”. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 26 June 1987 states at Art. 14, “the State shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible.” The Commissioner of Social Security has been ordered to develop a Pre-release procedure for institutionalized persons under which an individual can apply for supplemental security income benefits prior to the discharge or release of the individual from a public institution under Sec. 1631 of Title XVI of the Social Security Act 42USC§1383(m).
§67 Civil Law
A. The best defense against arbitrary arrest, detention and exile, is that a persons actions are legal under the civil code. The civil law system includes criminal law and all statutes at large. The American Legal System is a unique balance of the civil and common law systems. Civil law is the dominant legal tradition today in most of Europe, all of Central and South America, parts of Asia and Africa, and even some discrete areas of the common-law world (e.g., Louisiana, Quebec, and Puerto Rico). The common law follows an “adversarial” model which gives most responsibility to the supreme court, while civil law is “code-based”, written, reviewed by law school, and avoid jury trials through agreement. For the United States to fully adopt a civil law system, the bar exam would need to open up to Bachelor of law degrees. Whereas there are 1.2 million lawyers to fill 1.1 million legal occupations, by adopting a civil law system, expanding the number of lawyers, threefold, there would be enough lawyers to staff 1.4 million law enforcement and corrections positions and require a minimum of a Bachelor degree. The Bachelor of law degree could be any humanity or criminal justice major with first year constitutional law. The Bar exam is very difficult, wherefore it is proposed that all law enforcement officers and convicted felons, be required to be re-educated, to a minimum of a Bachelor degree, due to zero recidivism in several state studies, superceding 34USC§60501. Recidivism, defined as re-incarceration within 3 years of release from prison, occurs in 66% of state offenders, 50% in those who earned vocational certificates, 35% in those with an Associates degree and 0% in those who earned a post-conviction Bachelor degree. Several state studies have shown that people who earn a post-conviction Bachelor degree are 100% free of recidivism. Federal recidivism runs about 33%. It is advised that law schools include police or correctional academy, as a mandatory part of their curriculum, and law enforcement agencies require a minimum of Bachelor of law degree for employment, under 34USC§60501. Law enforcement and corrections officers, with a minimum of high school, plus 6 weeks to 6 months at an academy, do not necessarily possess the Bachelor degree, several state studies have shown is needed to prevent recidivism and stop offending civil society, as an individual, 100% of the time. Law school graduate unemployment is higher than 60%. The principal finding is that to reduce unacceptably high rates of unauthorized use of force, false arrest, torture and wrongful death, a Bachelor degree, including the first year of law school, plus police or correctional academy, must be required of all volunteer law enforcement officers or correctional officers employed in the United States and a Bachelor degree is highly advised to anyone convicted of a felony, anywhere. Secondarily, it is advised that law schools include police and correctional academy as a mandatory part of their curriculum, so that law enforcement agencies would employ law students and lawyers, especially, under 34USC§12577. The United States must reduce their rate of arbitrary arrest, detention and exile, from 693 detainees per 100,000 residents, the second most concentrated in the world, to under the arbitrary legal limit of 250 detainees per 100,000 residents under Art. 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Blakely v. Washington (2004) and Booker v. United States (2005).
1. Codification of the law dates to the Hammurabi Code (1790 BC) the civil-law system, jus civile, had its origins in the Roman Republic, before the beginning of the Empire, in the second century B.C. By the end of the Republic, in 27 B.C., a body of legal experts, or jurists, had gained prominence within the legal system, separate and apart from the courts of law. Jurists were the prototype of the lawyer, not referring to judges, but upper class legal experts interested in and volunteering their time to the interpretation of questions of law. In the Roman legal system there were two types of civil judges: the democratically elected magistrate, or praetor, and the judge selected for the trial, or judex. Emperor Justinian ended reliance upon judicial precedent in the encyclopedic work commissioned by him, the Corpus Juris Civilis, with the dictum “non exemplis sed legibus judicandum est” (decisions should be rendered in accordance, not with examples, but with the law). The law underwent further evolution in later periods of the Empire, culminating in a comprehensive statement of private law prepared by the jurist Gaius in the latter half of the second century A.D. Gaius’s Institutes were an extensive collection of legal principles and rules covering matters ranging from the rights of citizenship and the manumission of slaves to the preservation of estates and the rules of intestate succession.
2. The Corpus Juris Civilis was the primary guide for civil law throughout the middle ages and the basis for the formulation of contemporary codices of civil law at the beginning of the modern era in the 18th century. From the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries, northern Italy witnessed the rise of a jurist class almost as prominent and significant as its Roman predecessor. In medieval Italy the jurists, known as glossators, were primarily teachers, members of the law faculties of the universities, drawn not from the nobility but from the general public. They generally carried the title of doctor. Their basic technique was the “gloss,” an interpretation or addition to the text of the Corpus Juris Civilis, first made between the lines and later in the margins. They also used some of the substance and argumentative techniques of medieval theology. The “Great Gloss” of the leading glossator of the period, the Accursian Gloss (1220-1260) totaled over 96,000 commentaries to the entire text of the Corpus Juris Civilis. The lay judges were generally not highly educated or specially trained.
3. Two distinct forms of civil law, independent of the judiciary, evolved during the medieval period, canon law and customs. Canon law had been developing since the eleventh century, when the Bishop of Worms (Germany) collected scattered rules and regulations of the church into a series of twenty books known as his Decretum. From 1130 to 1150, an Italian ecclesiastical jurist, Gratian, along with others produced the Concordia Discordantium Canonum, a monumental work that became the basis for almost all canon law. Capitulare navium (Shipping Rules) were first published in Venice in 1205 and republished in expanded form as the Statuta et Ordinamenta super Navibus (Statutes and Regulations on Shipping) in 1255. Compiled in Barcelona, Spain, and containing over 330 articles, the Consolato Del Mare covered such maritime matters as construction of vessels, circumstances requiring assistance to other vessels in distress, general average (a maritime principle for allocating damages), employment of pilots, and privateering. The independence of social and commercial law from the judiciary must be re-asserted.
4. The Enlightenment was based on a belief in the fundamental importance of reason as a liberating force in intellectual life and in how society was organized, a belief that grew out of the precepts of the natural law school. In Europe the effects and influence of the Enlightenment provided the final stimulation for the creation of the modern comprehensive codes of the different European states. Codification in the sixteenth century differed from the codification process during the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment periods of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The former was “codification as a restatement of the law” while the latter involved “a rationally organized statement of the whole field of law.” Humanism was an intellectual movement that had its origins in sixteenth century France, a time and place of great upheaval. It encouraged scholarly examination of law, particularly the nature and function of law, and in the process the science of jurisprudence was founded. The school of natural law was an outgrowth of humanism. The origins of natural law are several, but the writings of Hugo de Groot (better known as Grotius) stand out as the real starting point in the development of the natural law school. Although Grotius (1583–1645), a Dutchman, is better known as the father of public international law, attempted, through several seminal writings, especially De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), to develop universal concepts of law that transcended national boundaries and were not dependent on any one legal system. He advocated ideas such as law being based on human experiences and desires, particularly the desire for an orderly and peaceful society and the maintenance of that society based on reason. He argued for a rational approach to the structure of law and the resolution of disputes. He supported the systematic arrangement of legal materials, such as the treatment of property and obligations, and of specific rules within those systematic arrangements. In sum, “Grotius was . . . a starting point for the codifying lawyers of the Enlightenment and a support for an increasingly mercantile society, in which good order and a clearly defined system of rules of property and obligation were seen as highly desirable.” Samuel Pufendorf and Christopher Wolff in Germany attempted to build a legal system using the scientific methods of Galileo and Descartes. This approach was characterized by the assertion of axioms from which particular rules were logically deduced and then tested by experience and observation.
5. Napoleon regarded the creation of the Code Civil as his greatest achievement, overshadowing even his great military victories. During his exile on St. Helena he remarked, “My true glory is not that I have won forty battles. Waterloo will blow away the memory of these victories. What nothing can blow away and will live eternally is my Civil Code.” In 1800, Napoleon appointed four senior practitioners of law to develop a comprehensive legal code. These four practitioners were experienced jurists who had studied Grotius, Pufendorf, and the other great writers of the natural law school. The commission held 102 sessions, all in the relatively short period of four years, devoted to drafting the code. The final product was presented to and promptly passed by the French legislative body. This code, officially designated the Code Civil des Français, was issued in 1804 in the form of three books with 2,281 articles. Later it came to be known as the Code Napoléon, but in its present form is called simply the Code Civil. The modern code in Germany, still in effect, resulted from the creation of a commission by statute in 1873 to codify German civil law. The result was a comprehensive code, known as the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, or BGB, approved in 1896.
6. The reception of Roman law into Spain, resulted in the preparation of a comprehensive Spanish digest, the Codigo de Las Siete Partidas (The Code of the Seven Parts of the Law). The digest was prepared by the monarch Alfonso the Learned in the latter part of the thirteenth century. This monumental work was the foundation of Spanish private law until 1889, when it was replaced by a code that is still in force, the Codigo Civil (Civil Code). Modern codification processes in Latin American countries did not really begin until the middle part of the nineteenth century. The process in Chile was started, in the civil-law tradition, by an inspiring jurist, Andres Bello who eventually completed, with but modest assistance from his legislative colleagues, an entire new civil code that was given legislative approval in 1856 and went into force in 1857. Even today the Chilean code and the legal system on which it is based are viewed as the most advanced and influential among the Spanish-speaking countries of Central and South America. The modern codification process began in Brazil in the mid-nineteenth century with the adoption of a penal code in 1830, a code of criminal procedure in 1833, a commercial code in 1850, and the new civil code in 1916.
7. Civil law entered the United States rather late and was never fully accepted. The acceptance of a civil law system remains a breaking point in the Senate. When a law is enacted in the United States, it is passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President, it is then given a public law number reflecting when it was passed, which “Congress”, and the order it came within that Congress. For example, Pub. L. No. 108-1 was the first law of the 108th Congress. Laws are published in chronological order in United States Statutes at Large (Stat.). The first official codification of federal laws was the Revised Statutes of the United States that was enacted in 1873. 69 errors were caught during publication and another 183 over the next few years. Then in 1919, a team began work on new code that would encompass all the laws currently in force. In 1920 and 1921 the Code was passed unanimously in the House but rejected by the Senate. Then, in 1924 after the Senate Committee found 600 alleged errors a compromise was reached on a “twilight zone” whereby the United States Code self-referentially provided that it is “prima facie” evidence of the general and permanent laws in force at a given date, except that the titles that have been enacted as positive law are “legal evidence of the laws therein contained”, while the Statutes at Large are “legal evidence of laws”. Thus, U.S. statute was first codified in the Revised Statutes of the United States in 1873, and again into the 50 titles of the United States Code, which serves as the basis of civil law in the United States.
B. The golden rule is that one should do unto others as one would have done unto your self. An unjust law however is no law at all. What is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law. An unjust law is one that is out of harmony with God, the constitution or human rights. An unjust law is a human law that is not routed in eternal law and natural law. Any law that degrades human personality or is born in false witness is unjust. John Locke wrote in the 17th century: "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom." The rule of law is a foundational principle of the constitutional structure that lies at the root of the government. Constitutional rights and freedoms are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. According to British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Christie 2007 SCC 21 25 May: The rule of law embraces at least three principles. The first principle is that the “law is supreme over officials of the government as well as private individuals and thereby preclusive of the influence of arbitrary power”: The second principle “requires the creation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws which preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order”. The third principle requires that “the relationship between the state and the individual shall be regulated by law”.
1. Deference to municipal decisions “adheres to the fundamental axiom that courts must accord proper respect to the democratic responsibilities of elected municipal officials and the rights of those who elect them.” Municipal law requires that municipal governments hold meetings that are open to the public, in order to imbue municipal governments with a robust democratic legitimacy. The democratic legitimacy of municipal decisions does not spring solely from periodic elections, but also from a decision-making process that is transparent, accessible to the public, and mandated by law London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc. 2007 SCC 29 June 21. In certain circumstances, however, the powers of one level of government must be protected against intrusions, even incidental ones, by the other level. For this purpose, the courts have developed the doctrines of inter jurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy in Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta 2007 SCC 22 May 21
In the United States the doctrine of inter-jurisdictional immunity applies to the supremacy clause that states, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding, under Art. VI Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.
2. The doctrine of inter-jurisdictional immunity recognizes that the Constitution is based on an allocation of exclusive powers to both levels of government, not concurrent powers, although these powers are bound to interact in the realities of the life of the Constitution. It is a doctrine of limited application, which should be restricted to its proper limit. Inter-jurisdictional immunity should in general be reserved for situations already covered by precedent. While in theory a consideration of inter-jurisdictional immunity is apt for consideration after the pith and substance analysis, in practice the absence of prior case law favoring its application to the subject matter at hand will generally justify a court proceeding directly to the consideration of federal paramountcy. Is the federal law in agreement with the Constitution and international recognized human rights or should it be ruled unconstitutional, in whole or in part?
3. According to the doctrine of federal paramountcy, when the operational effects of state law are incompatible with federal legislation, the federal legislation must prevail and the provincial legislation is rendered inoperative to the extent of the incompatibility. The doctrine applies not only to cases in which the state legislature has legislated pursuant to its ancillary power to trench on an area of federal jurisdiction, but also to situations in which the provincial legislature acts within its primary powers, and legislature pursuant to its ancillary powers. In order to trigger the application of the doctrine, the onus is on the party relying on the doctrine of federal paramountcy to demonstrate that the federal and provincial laws are in fact incompatible by establishing either that it is impossible to comply with both laws or that to apply the state law would frustrate the purpose of the federal law. All constitutional legal challenges to legislation should follow the same approach. First, the pith and substance of the state and the federal law should be examined to ensure that they are both validly enacted laws and to determine the nature of the overlap, if any, between them. Second, the applicability of the state law to the federal undertaking or matter in question must be resolved with reference to the doctrine of inter-jurisdictional immunity. Third, only if both the state law and the federal law have been found to be valid pieces of legislation, and only if the state law is found to be applicable to the federal matter in question, then both statutes must be compared to determine whether the overlap between them constitutes a conflict sufficient to trigger the application of the doctrine of federal paramountcy.
4. Federal legislation can be ruled unconstitutional by the Court using the Oakes test according to Canada Attorney General v. Hislop 2007 SCC 10 March 1. If the legislation fails under any one of four tests it cannot be justified. a. Is the objective of the legislation pressing and substantial? b. Is there a rational connection between the government’s legislation and its objective? c. Does the government’s legislation minimally impair the constitutional right or freedom at stake? d. Is the delirious effect of the Constitutional violation outweighed by the salutary effect of the legislation? The Constitution of a country is a statement of the will of the people to be governed in accordance with certain principles held as fundamental and certain prescriptions restrictive of the powers of the legislature and government. It is the “supreme law” of the nation, unalterable by the normal legislative process, and un-suffering of laws inconsistent with it. The duty of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the laws of the nation to each of the states, and it is thus our duty to ensure that the constitutional law prevails. The text of the Constitution establishes the broad confines of the supreme law, but it is up to the courts to interpret and apply the Constitution in any given context. The inviolability of the Constitution ensures that our nation’s most cherished values are preserved, while the role of the courts in applying the Constitution ensures that the law is sufficiently flexible to change over time to reflect advances in human understanding. But it also means that the Constitution, at any snapshot in time, is only as robust as the court interpreting it. If the judiciary errs or is slow to recognize that previous interpretations of the Constitution no longer correspond to social realities, it must change the unconstitutional law. We consider that restrictions on conduct be proportionate and that conditions may not be imposed which collectively amount to a deprivation of liberty should be enshrined in the statute.
5. National laws are not a defense against serious violations of internationally recognized human rights. Under Art. 32 of the Draft Articles of State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts of 2001 “the responsible State may not rely on the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to comply with its obligations”. Under paragraph 2 of the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law of 16 December 2005 if they have not already done so, States shall, as required under international law, ensure that their domestic law is consistent with their international legal obligations by: (a) Incorporating norms of international human rights law and international humanitarian law into their domestic law, or otherwise implementing them in their domestic legal system; (b) Adopting appropriate and effective legislative and administrative procedures and other appropriate measures that provide fair, effective and prompt access to justice; (c) Making available adequate, effective, prompt and appropriate remedies, including reparation, as defined below; (d) Ensuring that their domestic law provides at least the same level of protection for victims as that required by their international obligations. International law is therefore superior to national laws, using common sense, even outdated provisions of the national constitution.
C. A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege for an individual, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, political opinion, the right to vote, freedom from slavery and involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights and freedoms of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Discrimination is synonymous with inequality. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a persons race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, political belief and in some instances sexual preference. Protection of discrimination needs to be extended to censurable and unequal behavior between individuals and between the government and individual(s), namely censorship. A two-part analysis was established for determining whether a violation of a person’s freedom has occurred. The first step asks whether the activity is within the protected sphere of free expression. If the activity conveys or attempts to convey a meaning, it has expressive content and prima facie falls within the scope of the guarantee. Once it is established that the activity is protected, the second step asks if the impugned legislation infringes that protection, either in purpose or effect.
1. “Freedom” is defined as “the absence of coercion or constraint”. It is because of the very nature of freedom that generally imposes a negative obligation on the government and not a positive obligation of protection or assistance. Usually the government is requested to cease and desist in an action or law that unfairly limits personal liberty. A situation might arise in which, in order to make a fundamental freedom meaningful, a posture of restraint would not be enough, and positive governmental action might be required. This might, for example, take the form of legislative intervention aimed at preventing certain conditions, which muzzle expression, or ensuring public access to certain kinds of information. The state must be accountable for the inability to exercise the fundamental freedom. A court must proceed in the following way. First it must consider whether the activity for which the claimant seeks protection is a form of expression. If so, then second, the court must determine if the claimant claims a positive entitlement to government action, or simply the right to be free from government interference. If it is a positive rights claim, then three factors must be considered. These three factors are (1) that the claim is grounded in a fundamental freedom; (2) that the claimant has demonstrated that exclusion from a statutory regime has the effect of a substantial interference with their freedom of expression, or has the purpose of infringing on their freedom and (3) that the government is responsible for the inability to exercise the fundamental freedom. If the claimant cannot satisfy these criteria then the claim will fail. If the three factors are satisfied then their rights have been infringed and they are entitled to relief.
2. Slavery is the most absolute restriction on a person’s liberty. In the beginning of the 19th Century many Parliaments abolished the slave trade civilly. Great Britain drafted an Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1807. The Abolition Bill passed British Parliament in August 1833. The French decree was signed by the Provisional Government in April 1848. The American colonies had been frequently disrupted by slave revolts, or the threat of revolt as the result of the estimated 10 million Africans who were brought to the Americas as slaves beginning in the 15th century. In 1854, the Republican Party included the abolition of slavery in its manifesto and the southern states seceded from the union in rebellion against freedom. When Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate was elected to the presidency in 1860, Lincoln initially hoped to keep the peace with Confederacy by permitting the practice of slavery. On 22 September 1862, exactly one hundred days before it went into effect, and a year after the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln unveiled his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation to his entire Cabinet that on the first day of January 1863, “all persons held as slaves within any of the rebel states shall be thenceforth and forever free.” The United States is unique because our Civil War was fought not because the slaves revolted but because the slavers did. All told the Civil War took the lives of 498,332 soldiers, 364,511 Union and 133,821 Confederate (1861-1865). The abolition of slavery – which at the time concerned approximately 5 million people held in unlawful servitude - became the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of 6 December 1865 that states, Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States of America, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
3. After the US Civil War blacks had to fight discrimination to enjoy their civil rights to vote and enjoy public services including schools on an equal basis with whites as reflected in the passage of the XIV and XV Amendments to the US Constitution. Severer punishments for crimes were imposed on the slave than on free persons guilty of the same offenses. Congress, by the civil rights bill of 1866, passed in view of the thirteenth amendment, before the fourteenth was adopted, undertook to wipe out these burdens and disabilities, the necessary incidents of slavery, constituting its substance and visible from; and to secure to all citizens of every race and color, and without regard to previous servitude, those fundamental rights which are the essence of civil freedom, namely, the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, and convey property, as is enjoyed by white citizens. These laws and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 are codified in Chapter 13 of Title 18. In 1868 the 14th Amendment was passed to counter the "black codes" and “Jim Crowe” laws and ensure that no state "shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States or deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In 1870 the 15th Amendment was passed to permanently guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color and assigned federal observers to oversee the conduct of elections. The Amendment took nearly a century to implement. ()The Civil Rights Act of 1875 passed March 1, 1875, entitled 'An act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights. The Act Provided: That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude. The Act was tried in the Civil Rights Cases 109 US 3 (1883) that found that the equal protection of the law does not extend to the individual or private society.
4. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction and was the beginning of the famous nonviolent civil rights movement that fought for equal rights in public accommodations, transportation and schools. The new act established a Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department and empowered federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against interference with the right to vote. It also established a federal Civil Rights Commission with authority to investigate discriminatory conditions and recommend corrective measures. The Civil Rights Act of 2 July 1964 PL 88-352, is codified, as amended, at 42USC§1981 - §2000h. The Civil Rights Acts were drafted to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes. The Voting Rights Act, adopted initially in 1965 and extended in 1970, 1975, and 1982, is generally considered the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress. The Act codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendment of 3 February 1870 permanent guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color and assigns federal observers to oversee the conduct of elections, that took nearly a century to implement. The women’s suffrage movement was successful in securing their voting rights in the 19th Amendment of 18 August 1920. Literacy tests and other poll taxes were abolished in the 24th Amendment of 23 January 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 21 November 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166) amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to strengthen and improve Federal civil rights laws, to provide for damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination, to clarify provisions regarding disparate impact actions, and for other purposes.
§68 Immunity
A. Do not torture US Ambassadors or High Court with mind altering substances. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make under Article 3 Section 2 Clause 2 of the US Constitution. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State under the 11th Amendment to the US Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause (Section 1 repeal the rest) of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides: Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
1. Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that the Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Member such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes under 22USC§254b. Legal immunity confers a status on a person or body that makes them free from otherwise legal obligations such as, liability for damages, arrest, punishment for criminal acts or unlawful search and seizure. Any action or proceeding brought against an individual who is entitled to immunity shall be dismissed. Such immunity may be established by or on behalf of the individual (by a lawyer) under 22USC§254d. For instance, the right of any person to social security benefit payment is not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this chapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law Sec. 207(a) of the Social Security Act under 42USC§407(a).
2. The Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of February 13, 1946 elaborates at Section 2. The United Nations, its property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case it has expressly waived its immunity. Under Section 4 the archives of the United Nations, and in general all documents belonging to it or held by it, shall be inviolable wherever located. Section 11(a) assures representatives of Members immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal baggage, and, in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives, immunity from legal process of every kind. The presence of a protected person cannot be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations under Art. 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Times of War of 1949. Art. 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 (T.I.A.S. numbered 7502; 23 U.S.T. 3227), provides, the premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution. Article 31 ensures a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdictions of the receiving State. Under Art. 44 the receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, grant facilities in order to enable persons enjoying privileges and immunities, it must, in particular, in case of need, place at their disposal the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property. States may designate a representative of the mission a persona non grata and have them prevented from entering or removed from the country.
B. The granting of Asylum is a peaceful and humanitarian act and that, as such, it cannot be regarded as unfriendly by any other State under the Declaration on Territorial Asylum 2312 (XXII) of 14 December 1967. The Declaration like the Convention on the Status of Refugees of 1951 is mindful of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares in Art. 14 (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Under Art. 1 of the Declaration on Territorial Asylum, (1) Asylum granted by a State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, to persons entitled to invoke article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including persons struggling against colonialism, shall be respected by all other States. (2)The right to seek and to enjoy asylum may not be invoked by any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes. (3) It shall rest with the State granting asylum to evaluate the grounds for the grant of asylum. Under Art. 2(2) Where a State finds difficulty in granting or continuing to grant asylum, States individually or jointly or through the United Nations shall consider, in a spirit of international solidarity, appropriate measures to lighten the burden on that State.
1. The Asylum Case (Colombia / Peru) Judgment of 20 November 1950 provided: Asylum may be granted on humanitarian grounds in order to protect political offenders against the violent and disorderly action of irresponsible sections of the population. It is not permissible for States to grant asylum to persons accused or condemned for common crimes. In principle, asylum cannot be opposed to the operation of justice. An exception to this rule can occur only if, in the guise of justice, arbitrary action is substituted for the rule of law. Such would be the case if the administration of justice were corrupted by measures clearly prompted by political aims. Asylum protects the political offender against any measures of a manifestly extra-legal character which a government might take or attempt to take against its political opponents. The word “safety" determines the specific effect of asylum granted to political offenders, means that the refugee is protected against arbitrary action by the government, and that he enjoys the benefits of the law. On the other hand, the safety which arises out of asylum cannot be construed as a protection against the regular application of the laws and against the jurisdiction of legally constituted tribunals. Asylum as practiced in Latin America is an institution which, to a very great extent, owes its development to extra-legal factors. The good-neighbor relations between the republics, the different political interests of the governments, have favored the mutual recognition of asylum apart from any clearly defined juridical system. The practice of asylum may arise from agreements between interested governments inspired by mutual feelings of toleration and goodwill. In the case of extradition, the refugee is within the territory of the State of refuge. A decision with regard to extradition implies only the normal exercise of the territorial sovereignty. The refugee is outside the territory of the State where the offense was committed, and a decision to grant asylum in no way derogates from the sovereignty of that State. In the case of diplomatic asylum, the refugee is within the territory of the State where the offense was committed. A decision to grant diplomatic asylum withdraws the offender from the jurisdiction of the territorial State and constitutes an intervention in matters which are exclusively within the competence of that State.
2. The Asylum policy of the United States is that refugees with a legitimate claim for relief from political persecution shall be; (i) granted sufficient resources for employment training and placement in order to achieve economic self-sufficiency among refugees as quickly as possible; (ii) provided with the opportunity to acquire sufficient English language training to enable them to become effectively resettled as quickly as possible; (iii) insured that cash assistance is made available to refugees in such a manner as not to discourage their economic self-sufficiency under 8USC§1158 and 8USC§1522. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bars an alien from obtaining refugee status in this country if he “assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” under 8USC§1101(a)(42). This so-called “persecutor bar” applies to those seeking asylum or withholding of removal, but does not disqualify an alien from receiving a temporary deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) pursuant to Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) and Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009).
3. The number of credible fear cases has skyrocketed since the procedure was implemented—in FY 2009, USCIS completed 5,523 cases. In Fiscal Year 2017, USCIS found 60,566 individuals to have a credible fear, out of 79,977 case completions. In FY 2016, the most recent year with available data, 20,455 individuals were granted asylum: 11,729 affirmatively and 8,726 defensively. Total annual asylum grants averaged 23,669 between FY 2007 and FY 2016. These individuals, many of whom were detained during this screening process, will be afforded an opportunity to apply for asylum defensively and establish that they meet the refugee definition. In previous administrations Homeland Security allowed more than 90% of asylum-seekers who had proven they have a "credible fear" of returning to their home country to be released in the U.S. to await their final hearing before an immigration judge. Since President Donald Trump took office, those rates plummeted to 8% in Los Angeles, 2% in Detroit, and 0% in El Paso, Philadelphia and Newark. where the plaintiffs are being held. District Judge James Boasberg in the District of Columbia ordered the department to stop making blanket determinations against most asylum-seekers and resume the long-standing practice of deciding each applicant's detention status on a case by case basis. Case completions reached an all-time high in FY 2016 at 92,071 and decreased to 79,977 in FY 2017. As of March 2018, there were more than 318,000 affirmative asylum applications pending with USCIS.
4. The Extradition of Fugitives Clause in the Constitution requires States, upon demand of another State, to deliver a fugitive from justice who has committed a "treason, felony or other crime" to the State from which the fugitive has fled. 18USC§3182 sets the process by which an executive of a state, district or territory of the United States must arrest and turn over a fugitive from another state, district, or territory. In order for a person to be extradited interstate, 18USC§3182 requires: An executive authority demand of the jurisdiction to which a person that is a fugitive from justice has fled. The requesting executive must produce a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, and such document must charge the fugitive demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime. Such document must be certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory whence the person so charged has fled. The executive receiving the request must then cause the fugitive to be arrested and secured, and notify the requesting executive authority or agent to receive the fugitive. An agent of the executive of the State demanding extradition must appear to receive the prisoner, which must occur within thirty days from time of arrest or the prisoner may be released. (Some states allow longer waiting periods of up to 90 days before release). Cases of kidnapping by a parent to another state would see automatic involvement by the US Marshal Service.
5. In Kentucky v. Dennison (1860), the Supreme Court held that, although the governor of the asylum state had a constitutional duty to return a fugitive to the demanding state, the federal courts had no authority to enforce this duty. As a result, for more than 100 years, the governor of one state was deemed to have discretion on whether or not he/she would comply with another state's request for extradition. In Puerto Rico v. Branstad, (1987) the Court overruled Dennison, and held that the governor of the asylum state has no discretion in performing his or her duty to extradite, whether that duty arises under the Extradition Clause of the Constitution or under the Extradition Act under 18USC§3182, and that a federal court may enforce the governor's duty to return the fugitive to the demanding state. There are only four grounds upon which the Governor of the asylum state may deny another state’s request for extradition: (1) the extradition documents facially are not in order; (2) the person has not been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (3) the person is not the person named in the extradition documents; or (4) the person is not a fugitive. Furthermore, if the fugitive is under sentence in the asylum state, he need not be extradited until his punishment in the asylum state is completed. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State under the 11th Amendment to the US Constitution. Defendants, who do not want to be extradited to a trial by the demanding state, are entitled to a lawyer and trial in the state they reside, to prove the extradition documents are not facially in order under the Convention on Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases (1993).
C. The psychiatric rule is that guilty stay and the innocent must move on. State parties undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status under Common Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 23 March 1976 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 3 January 1976. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, States Parties may take measures derogating from their obligations, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin under Common Articles 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 23 March 1976 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 3 January 1976. Public emergencies burden the Court with political opinion, property, national origin and disability cases such as medicinal marijuana and drug addiction cases to be presumed innocent, and in need of protection from the arresting and torturing police officer(s), who are unfortunately undereducated, with less than a Bachelor degree on average, and therefore not presumed to be able to stop their persecution, corrupt police investigation, unlawful disclosures, false accusations, inferior, inadequate, abusive and conspiratory legal citations and tortious misconduct against civil and political persons, their property and land, as military object, if they are merely dismissed from the court, without actually being discharged from the police force, given a decent disability more than $1,000 a month, with which to finish completing the Bachelor degree they required, by the police chief under the Law Enforcement Code of Conduct (1979) who must pay the mandatory minimum 12.4% OASDI payroll tax and downsize the force by requiring a Bachelor degree. 1 police officer per 1,000 residents is considered normal. 1.5 million police officers in a social security area population of 330 million is 4.5 police officers per 1,000 residents, justified by the three full-time shifts and part-time employees it takes to operate 24 hours a day.
1. The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information of November 1996 Principle 1(d) elaborates: No restriction on freedom of expression or information on the ground of national security may be imposed unless the government can demonstrate that the restriction is prescribed by law and is necessary in a democratic society to protect a legitimate national security interest. Principle 20 guarantees: Any person accused of a security-related crime involving expression or information is entitled to all of the rule of law protections that are part of international law. These include, but are not limited to, the following rights: (a) the right to be presumed innocent; (b) the right not to be arbitrarily detained; (c) the right to be informed promptly in a language the person can understand of the charges and the supporting evidence against him or her; (d) the right to prompt access to counsel of choice; etc. (g) the right to a fair and public trial by an independent and impartial court or tribunal.
2. The United States’ ranking fell from 43 to 45 out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) 2018 World Press Freedom Index, continuing its downward trend in the first year of Donald J. Trump’s presidency. labeling the press an “enemy of the American people” in a series of verbal attacks toward journalists, attempts to block White House access to multiple media outlets, routine use of the term “fake news” in retaliation for critical reporting, and calling for media outlets’ broadcasting licenses to be revoked. President Trump has routinely singled out news outlets and individual journalists for their coverage of him. The violent anti-press rhetoric from the White House has been coupled with an increase in the number of press freedom violations at the local level as journalists run the risk of arrest for covering protestors simply attempting to ask public officials questions. Reporters have even been subject to physical assault while on the job. The US Press Freedom Tracker launched in August 2017 documented 34 arrests of journalists in 2017, the majority while covering protests (find out more on the racker). Whistleblowers face prosecution under the Espionage Act if they leak information of public interest to the press, while there is still no federal “shield law” guaranteeing reporters’ right to protect their sources. “Fake news” is now a trademark excuse for media repression, in both democratic and authoritarian regimes. A federal press “shield law,” the Journalistic Source Protection Act, was adopted unanimously in October 2017 by Canada’s parliament, and two months later, a Commission of Inquiry tasked with investigating Quebec police surveillance of journalists recommended Quebec adopt legislation to better protect journalistic sources. These improvements are the cause of Canada’s 4-point gain in 2017.
3. Regulation of the news media is usually limited under Art. 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that states: (1) Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law (2) Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. It is however the Trump Administration's anarchist, anti-immigrant, tariffs in excess of 6% under the Trading with the Enemy Act and 2.6% military pay raise propaganda that must be prohibited under Sec. 2, Art. 51 and Art. 54 of the 4th Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Times of War (1949) and Art. 22 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families (1990). The incompetence of the President under Art. 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Times of War (1949) is to be tried as a disability under the 25th Amendment to, rather than impeachment under Art. 2 Sec. 4 of the US Constitution.
4. The United States must better protect journalistic, commercial and government sources against the $10,000 per day fine for rejecting the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, that needs to be repealed to protect commerce against corrupt police investigation under 18USC§2522. Civil action against state officials under 18USC§2707 is afforded with mandatory minimum 12.4% OASDI payroll tax on state employees in Title I of the Social Security Act and requiring a Bachelor degree for employment. Civil action against the federal government under 18USC§2712 must require a Bachelor degree and exclude marijuana from drug testing for federal employment to be morally competent to repeal, abolish, overturn or otherwise overrule the Authority for Employment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Senior Executive Service under 5USC§3151-3152, Office of Special Counsel, Interagency Drug and Crime Enforcement, National Office of Drug Control Policy, International Narcotic Control and Law Enforcement, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
D. Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia currently have passed laws broadly legalizing marijuana in some form. The District of Columbia and 10 states -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington -- have adopted the most expansive laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Most recently, Michigan voters approved a ballot measure permitting adults age 21 and over to purchase and possess recreational-use marijuana. Vermont became the first state earlier this year to legalize marijuana for recreational use through the legislative process, rather than via a ballot measure. Vermont's law allows for adults age 21 and over to grow and possess small amounts of cannabis. However, it does not permit the sale of non-medical cannabis. Some other state laws similarly decriminalized marijuana, but did not initially legalize retail sales. Most other states allow for limited use of medical marijuana under certain circumstances. Some medical marijuana laws are broader than others, with types of medical conditions that allow for treatment varying from state to state. Louisiana, West Virginia and a few other states allow only for cannabis-infused products, such as oils or pills. Other states have passed narrow laws allowing residents to possess cannabis only if they suffer from select medical illnesses.
Legalization of Marijuana, State by State 2019
|State |Statutory |Patient Registry |Allows |Specifies |Recognizes |State Allows for |
| |Language (year) |or ID cards |Dispensaries |Conditions |Patients from |Retail Sales/Adult |
| | | | | |other states |Use |
|Alaska |Measure 8(1998) |Yes |Yes |Yes |No, but adults |Ballot Measure |
| |SB 94 (1999) | | | |over 21 may |2(2014) |
| |Statute Title 17,| | | |purchase at |Marijuana |
| |Chapter 37 | | | |retail adult |Regulations |
| | | | | |dispensaries. | |
|Arizona |Proposition 203 |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes, for | |
| |(2010) | | | |AZ-approved | |
| | | | | |conditions, but | |
| | | | | |not for | |
| | | | | |dispensary | |
| | | | | |purchases. | |
|Arkansas |Issue 6 (2016) |Pending |Pending |Pending |Pending | |
| |Details pending | | | | | |
|California |Proposition 215 |Yes |Yes (cooperatives|No |No |Proposition 64 |
| |(1996)SB 420 | |and collectives) | | |(2016) |
| |(2003) | | | | | |
|Colorado |Amendment 20 |Yes |Yes |Yes |No |Amendment 64(2012) |
| |(2000) | | | | |Task Force |
|Medical program | | | | | |Implementation |
|info | | | | | |Recommendations(201|
| | | | | | |3) |
|Adult-use info | | | | | |Analysis of CO |
| | | | | | |Amendment 64 (2013)|
| | | | | | |Colorado Marijuana |
| | | | | | |Sales and Tax |
| | | | | | |Reports |
| | | | | | |2014 "Edibles" |
| | | | | | |regulation measure |
| | | | | | |FAQ about CO |
| | | | | | |cannabis laws by |
| | | | | | |the Denver Post. |
|Connecticut |HB 5389 (2012) |Yes |Yes |Yes | | |
|Delaware |SB 17 (2011) |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes, for | |
| | | | | |DE-approved | |
| | | | | |conditions. | |
|District of |Initiative 59 |Yes |Yes |Yes | |Initiative 71 |
|Columbia |(1998) L18-0210 | | | | |(2014) |
| |(2010) | | | | | |
|Florida |Amendment 2 |Pending |Pending |Pending |Pending | |
| |(2016) Details | | | | | |
| |pending | | | | | |
|Guam |Proposal 14A |Yes |Yes |Yes |No | |
| |Approved in Nov. | | | | | |
| |2014, not yet | | | | | |
| |operational. | | | | | |
| |Draft rules | | | | | |
| |released in July | | | | | |
| |2015 | | | | | |
|Hawaii |SB 862 (2000) |Yes |Yes |Yes |No | |
|Illinois |HB 1(2013) Eff. |Yes |Yes |Yes |No | |
| |1/1/2014 | | | | | |
| |Rules | | | | | |
|Louisiana |SB 271 (2017) |Pending |Yes |Yes |No | |
| |(not yet in | | | | | |
| |effect) | | | | | |
|Maine |Question 2 (1999)|Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes, but not for |Question 1 (2016) |
| |LD 611(2002) | | | |dispensary |page 4 |
| |Question 5(2009) | | | |purchases. | |
| |LD 1811 (2010) | | | | | |
| |LD 1296(2011) | | | | | |
|Maryland |HB 702 (2003)SB |Yes |Yes |Yes |No | |
| |308 (2011) HB | | | | | |
| |180/SB 580 (2013)| | | | | |
| |HB 1101-Chapter | | | | | |
| |403 (2013) | | | | | |
| |SB 923 (signed | | | | | |
| |4/14/14) | | | | | |
| |HB 881- similar | | | | | |
| |to SB 923 | | | | | |
|Massachusetts |Question 3 (2012)|Yes |Yes |Yes |No |Question 4 (2016) |
| |Regulations(2013)| | | | | |
|Michigan |Proposal 1 (2008)|Yes |Not in state law,|Yes |Yes, for legal |Proposal 18-1 |
| | | |but localities | |protection of |(2018) |
| | | |may create | |possession, but | |
| | | |ordinances to | |not for | |
| | | |allow them and | |dispensary | |
| | | |regulate them. | |purchases. | |
|Minnesota |SF 2471, Chapter |Yes |Yes, limited, |Yes |No | |
| |311 (2014) | |liquid extract | | | |
| | | |products only | | | |
|Missouri |Amendment 2 |Yes |Yes, details |Yes |Yet to be | |
| |(2018) | |pending | |determined | |
|Montana |Initiative |Yes |No** |Yes |No | |
| |148(2004) SB 423 | | | | | |
| |(2011) |New details |New details |New details |New details | |
| |Initiative 182 |pending |pending |pending |pending | |
| |(2016) | | | | | |
|Nevada |Question 9(2000) |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes, if the other|Question 2 (2016) |
| |NRS 453A NAC 453A| | | |state's program |page 25 |
| | | | | |are | |
| | | | | |"substantially | |
| | | | | |similar." | |
| | | | | |Patients must | |
| | | | | |fill out Nevada | |
| | | | | |paperwork. Adults| |
| | | | | |over 21 may also | |
| | | | | |purchase at adult| |
| | | | | |retail | |
| | | | | |dispensaries. | |
|New Hampshire |HB 573 (2013) |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes, with a note | |
| | | | | |from their home | |
| | | | | |state, but they | |
| | | | | |cannot purchase | |
| | | | | |through | |
| | | | | |dispensaries. | |
|New Jersey |SB 119(2009) |Yes |Yes |Yes |No | |
| |Program | | | | | |
| |information | | | | | |
|New Mexico |SB 523 (2007) |Yes |Yes |Yes |No | |
| |Medical Cannabis | | | | | |
| |Program | | | | | |
| |A6357 (2014) |Yes |Ingested doses |Yes |No | |
|New York |Signed by | |may not contain | | | |
| |governor 7/5/14 | |more than 10 mg | | | |
| | | |of THC, product | | | |
| | | |may not be | | | |
| | | |combusted | | | |
| | | |(smoked). | | | |
|North Dakota |Measure 5(2016) |Yes |Yes |Yes |No | |
| |Final details | | | | | |
| |pending | | | | | |
|Northern Mariana |Does not have a | | | | |Yes, HB 20-178 HD |
|Islands |medical program. | | | | |4- Public Law 20-66|
| | | | | | |(2018) |
|Ohio |HB 523 (2016) |Yes |Yes |Yes |Details pending, | |
| |Approved by | | | |but will require | |
| |legislature, | | | |reciprocity. | |
| |signed by | | | | | |
| |governor 6/8/16, | | | | | |
| |not yet | | | | | |
| |operational | | | | | |
|Oklahoma |SQ 788Approved by|Details pending |Details pending |Not as voted on |Details pending | |
| |voters on | | | | | |
| |6/26/18, not yet | | | | | |
| |operational | | | | | |
|Oregon |Oregon Medical |Yes |Yes |Yes |No, but adults |Measure 91 (2014) |
| |Marijuana | | | |over 21 may | |
| |Act(1998) | | | |purchase at adult| |
| |SB 161(2007) | | | |retail | |
| | | | | |dispensaries. | |
|Pennsylvania |SB 3 (2016) |Yes |Yes |Yes | | |
| |Signed by | | | | | |
| |governor 4/17/16 | | | | | |
| |Not yet | | | | | |
| |operational | | | | | |
|Puerto Rico |Public Health | |Cannot be smoked | | | |
| |Department | | | | | |
| |Regulation 155 | | | | | |
| |(2016) Not yet | | | | | |
| |operational | | | | | |
|Rhode Island |SB 791(2007) SB |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes | |
| |185 (2009) | | | | | |
|Utah |Prop 2 (2018) |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yet to be | |
| | | | | |determined | |
|Vermont |SB 76(2004) SB |Yes |Yes |Yes |No |H.511 approved by |
| |7(2007) SB | | | | |legislature, signed|
| |17(2011) | | | | |by governor |
| |H.511 (2018) | | | | |1/22/18. |
| | | | | | |Effective July 1, |
| | | | | | |2018. |
| | | | | | |Does NOT provide |
| | | | | | |for legal |
| | | | | | |production or |
| | | | | | |sales. |
| | | | | | |Allows adults 21 |
| | | | | | |years or older to |
| | | | | | |possess up to one |
| | | | | | |ounce of marijuana.|
| | | | | | |Selling marijuana |
| | | | | | |in Vermont remains |
| | | | | | |illegal. |
| | | | | | |Allows adults to |
| | | | | | |grow two mature |
| | | | | | |plants. |
| | | | | | |Public consumption |
| | | | | | |of marijuana is |
| | | | | | |also not allowed. |
|Washington |Initiative |No |Yes, approved as |Yes |No, but adults |Initiative |
| |692(1998) SB | |of Nov. 2012, | |over 21 may |502 (2012) |
| |5798 (2010) | |stores opened in | |purchase at an |WAC Marijuana |
| |SB 5073(2011) | |July, 2014. | |adult retail |rules: Chapter |
| | | | | |dispensary. |314-55 WAC |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |FAQ about WA |
| | | | | | |cannabis laws by |
| | | | | | |the Seattle Times. |
|West Virginia |SB 386 (2017) |Yes |Yes. No whole |Yes |No, but may allow| |
| | | |flower/cannot be | |terminally ill to| |
| | | |smoked but can be| |buy in other | |
| | | |vaporized. | |states. | |
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures. November 2018
1. A number of states have also decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Ten states and the District of Columbia now have legalized small amounts of marijuana for adult recreational use. Colorado and Washington approved adult-use recreational marijuana measures in 2012. Alaska, Oregon and District of Columbia followed suit in fall of 2014. In 2015, Ohio voters defeated a ballot measure that addressed commercial production and sale of recreational marijuana. On Nov. 8, 2016, voters in four states, California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada, approved adult-use recreational marijuana, while voters in Arizona disapproved. In 2018, Michigan voters approved “Proposal 1” by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana in the state. In 2018, Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana for adult use through the legislative process (rather than a ballot initiative.) Vermont’s law went into effect July 1, 2018. Although voters in Maine approved adult use marijuana in 2016, the legislature approved a moratorium on implementing the retail sales and taxation portion of the law until at least February 2018. In 2017, the legislature passed a measure to facilitate a regulated marketplace in the state for adult use marijuana, but the measure was vetoed by Governor Paul LePage. The legislature introduced the package once again in 2018. The governor once again vetoed but the legislature overrode the veto and House Bill 1199 became law on May 2, 2018. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana. This generally means certain small, personal-consumption amounts are a civil or local infraction, not a state crime (or are a lowest misdemeanor with no possibility of jail time). Since 2013, five state legislatures have enacted marijuana decriminalization – Delaware (2015), Illinois (2016), Maryland (2014), Missouri (2014), and Vermont (2013). Also, in 2014 and preceding the successful legalization ballot measure, the District of Columbia enacted legislation, which passed congressional review, and made possession or transfer without remuneration of one ounce or less of marijuana a civil violation.
2. When the legalization of cannabis for personal consumption was introduced to the international community in 1972 Nixon, at the behest of his Schaffer Commission on Drug Policy, recommended that marijuana be legalized for personal use as the “cure” of prison is far worse than the “ill” of marijuana consumption. Congress however did not ratify the bill. Carter likewise attempted to legalize for personal use up to 1 ounce of marijuana, and failed. The Dutch Commission, addressing the same issue in the 1970’s was successful and began permitting the sale of small quantities of marijuana for personal use at coffee shops. California was the first state, in 1996, to pass a medical marijuana initiative with 55.6% to 44.4% of the vote. In Washington DC Medical Marijuana was legalized as Initiative 59 and passed with 69% in favor and 31% opposed in November 1998. Alaska Measure 8 passed 57.75% to 43.25% in 1998 legalizing marijuana for use and up to 6 plants of cultivation with a recommendation from a doctor and a receipt proving that the recommendation had been sent with ID to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services for a license. Washington State Initiative 698 passed 58.76% to 41.34% in 1998. Oregon Measure 67 passed 54% to 46% in 1998 by 1999 over 200 people had paid $150 to get a permit. Arizona Proposition 300 failed 43% to 57% successfully ruling that Arizona doctors did not need to adhere to federal standards to prescribe Schedule I narcotics and hallucinogens. 61% to 39% of the voters in Maine said yes to Question 2 legalizing Medical Marijuana in November 1999 making Maine 8th state to do so. On Nov. 2, 2005 Denver, Colorado a measure passed with 54% of the vote, with 46% of voters opposing the legalized possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. Led by the Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement, Nevada, where the medical marijuana initiatives passed with 59% of the vote in 1998 and 65% of the vote in 2000, proposed to the public this 2002 in ballot initiative 9 to totally eliminate all fines for the possession of less than 3 ounces of marijuana the initiative lost 39% to 60.7% although subsequent petitions to decriminalize marijuana have met with discrimination, the number of medical marijuana states grew to 17 states and Washington D.C. by 2010. In 2012 Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana for commercial cultivation.
3. Many European nations are following the Dutch legalization model at the beginning of the 21st century. The United Kingdom consented to reduce Marijuana from a Class B drug to a Class C drugs that would be permissible to be smoked on the streets; the proposal to downgrade cocaine, heroin and ecstasy to a Class B drug, eliminating prison time, was however rejected. January 23, 2001 the Belgian Parliament followed the example of their neighbor the Netherlands and legalized the possession and personal use of cannabis by amending a 1921 law prohibiting its use, although the law permits personal use and cultivation it does not permit the sale of cannabis in coffee shops like the Netherlands. On July 1, 2001 Portugal voted to legalize all drugs by removing them from criminal penal proceedings to administrative confiscation and fines. Although many European nations continue to prohibit cannabis and other psychotropic substances the European Commission on Consumer Policy has been advocating for the legalization of all drugs to reduce crime and the burden of prison since 1996.
4. Whereas there are no recorded fatalities directly as the result of the consumption or abuse of Marijuana the estimated 50 to 100 million global consumers of the drug require that any discussion of marijuana should begin with the fact that there have been numerous official reports and studies, every one of which has concluded that marijuana poses no great risk to society and should not be criminalized. Most experts agree that occasional or moderate use of marijuana is innocuous, they also agree that excessive use can be harmful. Research shows that the two major risks of excessive marijuana use are: (1) respiratory disease due to smoking and (2) accidental injuries due to impairment. There have been numerous official reports and studies, every one of which has concluded that marijuana poses no great risk to society and should not be criminalized. Most experts agree that occasional or moderate use of marijuana is innocuous, they also agree that excessive use can be harmful. Research shows that the two major risks of excessive marijuana use are: respiratory disease due to smoking and accidental injuries due to impairment. Marijuana has no known fatalities and is reported as successful in relieving symptoms of addiction, anxiety, tension, stress and depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), HIV/AIDS, post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), insomnia, migraine, movement disorders, multiple sclerosis, digestive problems, inflammation, nausea and vomiting, cancer treatment side-effects, non-severe pain, spasms and convulsions, psoriasis and arthritis.
5. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws NORML Principles of Responsible Cannabis Use state, when marijuana is enjoyed responsibly, subjecting users to harsh criminal and civil penalties provides no public benefit and causes terrible injustices. For reasons of public safety, public health, economics and justice, the prohibition laws should be repealed to the extent that they criminalize responsible marijuana use. Five principles follow as summarized. First, adults only, cannabis consumption is for adults only. It is irresponsible to provide cannabis to children. Second, no driving, the responsible cannabis consumer does not operate a motor vehicle or other dangerous machinery while impaired by cannabis, nor (like other responsible citizens) while impaired by any other substance or condition, including some medicines and fatigue. Third, set and setting, the responsible cannabis user will carefully consider his/her set and setting, regulating use accordingly. Fourth, resist abuse, use of cannabis, to the extent that it impairs health, personal development or achievement, is abuse, to be resisted by responsible cannabis users. Fifth, respect rights of others, the responsible cannabis user does not violate the rights of others, observes accepted standards of courtesy and public propriety, and respects the preferences of those who wish to avoid cannabis entirely.
6. The Justice Department Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) needs to change is name to Bureau for Firearms and Explosives (FE) and legislate FE a share of the federal tax revenues generated by the sale of firearms and ammunition and fees for criminal background checks based upon 2.5% annual growth from current spending. The Judiciary needs to change the name of the Court of International Trade of the United States (COITUS) to Customs Court (CC) and the Treasury Alcohol, Tobacco, Tax and Trade Bureau (ATTTB) should legalize marijuana and change its name to Alcohol, Tobacco and Marijuana (ATM) under the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery signed in Geneva on 7 September 1956. The $1.2 billion (FY2017) Bureau of Firearms and Explosives (BFE) must let go ATF with 2.5% annual growth.
7. The Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was created from various treasury bureaus in the Gun Control Act of 1968 with added authority over explosives. The ATF was transferred from the Treasury to the Department of Justice in the Homeland Security Bill of 2003. Armed forces and operators of heavy machinery should not be under the influence of alcohol, tobacco or marijuana. Efforts should be made for the Bureau of Firearms and Explosives (BFE) to be financed by existing tax on pistols and revolvers with Congressional permission and fees for gun background checks for justice department accounting. The Center for Tobacco Products in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) needs to be abolished. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATTB) in the Treasury Department is advised change their name to Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco and Marijuana (ATM) and legalize the state marijuana tax.
8. The Attorney General and Secretary-General of the United Nations may by rule— (1) add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he— (A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and (B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed; or (2) remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule under 21USC§811. Due to its acceptable medical uses and psychological addictive quality marijuana must be listed as a Schedule III, Schedule II of the International Convention. Due to the physical addiction, chronic disease and risk of violence and accident posed by alcohol intoxication alcohol and tobacco are Schedule II. Should the Attorney General and Secretary General remove marijuana from the schedule entirely or should alcohol and tobacco be included?
9. Pre-employment and on the job drug screening have become common procedure for most major employers. There has never been a single, controlled scientific study showing drug urinalysis improves workplace safety. Marijuana stays in the system for a month, while most other drugs are quickly excreted, and is basically the only detectable drug. Claims that drug testing works are based on dubious anecdotal reports or the mere observation of a declining rate of drug positives in the working population, which has nothing to do with job performance. Such scientific studies as have been conducted have found little difference between the performance of drug-urine-positive workers and others. The largest survey to date, covering 4,396 postal workers nationwide, found no difference in accident records between workers who tested positive on pre-employment drug screens and those who did not. The study did find that drug-positive workers had a 50% higher rate of absenteeism and dismissals; put another way, however, drug users had a 93.4% attendance record (versus 95.8% for non-users) and fully 85% kept their jobs for a year (versus 89.5% for non-users)! An economic analysis of postal workers in Boston concluded that the net savings of drug testing were marginal, and that there could be many situations where it is not cost-effective. Another survey of health workers in Georgia found no difference in job performance between drug-positive and drug-negative workers.
10. The first controversy regarding urinalysis to be heard by the Supreme Court was Skinner vs. Railway Executives Association (1989) 489 US 602. In response to 21 train accidents where the rampant alcohol or drug abuse of personnel was determined to be a probable cause of 25 deaths, 65 wounded and $19 million in property damage the court concluded that “individualized suspicion” and random tests were unwarranted but that probable cause under the IV Amendment was established when train wrecks or property damage occurred and urine, blood and breath testing was a required part of the post accident investigation. The very same day the Court decided in National Treasury Employees Union vs. Von Raob (1989) 489 US 656 that Customs officials that wear weapons, confiscate drugs or handle classified material need to pass pre-employment and random drug screening as the balance of IV Amendment privacy for these employees is overruled by the need to prevent diversion of drugs by law enforcement officials and ensure that these officers are physically fit and possessing of good judgment. In both of these cases it was Federal Employees in positions that are critical to national safety and security who were restricted to mandatory drug testing. It is highly recommended that marijuana be removed from the Drug Schedule and excluded from pre-employment drug screening for all employees, to ensure competitive employment practices are not distorted by the unscientific prohibition of marijuana, in any State.
11. To reduce demand for speed, opiates and other dangerous drugs and make peace with the idiotic drug war in the only fashion known to work, by federally legalizing marijuana, Congress shall repeal marijuana from Schedule I(c)(17) of the CSA under 21USC§812(c). Justification for the legalization of marijuana, with zero fatalities, as well as narcotics, is found in that Consignments of medical supplies, food and clothing intended for civilians shall be allowed free passage under Art. 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate under Art. 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and UN Charter. If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal under Art. 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. States must remove any impediments arising to the free exportation of goods required for humanitarian needs, such as (i) medicines and medical devices; and (ii) foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; as well as goods and services required for the safety of (agriculture) civil aviation, such as (iii) spare parts, equipment and associated services (including warranty, maintenance, repair services and safety-related inspections) necessary for (irrigation and agricultural equipment) civil aircraft. To this end, the United States must ensure that licenses and necessary authorizations are granted and that payments and other transfers of funds are not subject to any restriction in so far as they relate to the goods and services referred to above, pursuant to Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) No. 175 3 October 2018 and United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran) (1979-1981).
F. With 2.2 million behind bars the US had more people incarcerated than any other nation, and with 692 detainees per 100,000 residents had the highest rate of incarceration in 2016. It is estimated that 50% of arrests are false. Federal sentences for drug offenses are to be reduced after it was held that federal prison had a 50% rate of false imprisonment. To redress the 50% rate of false arrest and 50% false imprisonment in federal prison due to excessive drug sentencing The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988) provides law enforcement and corrections officers with several legal principles to redress false arrests. Principle 2 only under the law, holds prosecutors accountable for the accuracy of their legal citation. Principle 21 Prohibition of Corrupt Police Investigation. Principle 27 Inadmissibility of Evidence Improperly Acquired. Non-compliance with these principles in obtaining evidence shall be taken into account in determining the admissibility of such evidence against a detained or imprisoned person.
1. The Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (1990) provides. Guideline 14. Prosecutors shall not initiate or continue prosecution, or shall make every effort to stay proceedings, when an impartial investigation shows the charge to be unfounded. Guideline 15. Prosecutors shall give due attention to the prosecution of crimes committed by public officials, particularly corruption, abuse of power, grave violations of human rights and other crimes recognized by international law and, where authorized by law or consistent with local practice, the investigation of such offenses. Guideline 16. When prosecutors come into possession of evidence against suspects that they know or believe on reasonable grounds was obtained through recourse to unlawful methods, which constitute a grave violation of the suspect's human rights, especially involving torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or other abuses of human rights, they shall refuse to use such evidence against anyone other than those who used such methods, or inform the Court accordingly, and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that those responsible for using such methods are brought to justice. Law colleges have advised the public to retain a lawyer to have the prosecutor drop the charges instead of being invariably arrested responding to a request to come to the police station for questioning. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Held: The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. The right to non-self incrimination is grounds for legal assistance under the Convention on Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases (1993).
2. Victims of false imprisonment and torture have a right to compensation under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offense and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him under Art. 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976). The State shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation under Art. 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1987). By reason of attitude not in accordance with the Geneva Conventions the government is under obligation to make good to consequence of injury. Thus every wrong creates a right for the court to rectify pursuant to the Case Concerning the Factory of Chorzow Permanent Court of Justice A. No. 9 (1927).
Article 7 International Courts
§69 International Courts
A. The International Court of Justice or World Court was established by the UN General Assembly in Chapter XIV of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations to settle disputes between states in Peace Palace at the Hague in the Netherlands to take over the operations of the Permanent Court of Justice (1922-1946). The World Court is the principle judicial organ of the United Nations. The World Court operates under the Statute of the Court and the Rules of Court. The Court dockets contentious cases between nations regarding the legality of the use of force, issues presented by the General Assembly, issues Advisory Opinions for Specialized Agencies Authorized to Request Advisory Opinions and settles international disputes regarding compensation. On 12 January 2005 Information Officer Boris Heim wrote, the Court's activity is limited to rendering judgments in legal disputes between States submitted to it by the States themselves and giving advisory opinions when it is so requested by UN organs or specialized agencies of the UN system under Article 34 of the Statute and Rules. Successful claims for treaty obligations may be levied against States under Art. 36 of the Statute of the Court for service upon the Secretary-General.
1. By reason of attitude not in accordance with the Geneva Conventions the government is under obligation to make good to consequence of injury. Thus every wrong creates a right for the court to rectify in the Case Concerning the Factory of Chorzow A. No. 9 (1927) the Permanent Court of Justice. Interpretations of Paragraph 4 of the Annex following Article 179 of the Treaty of Neuilly of 29 November 1919 (Greek Republic v. Kingdom Bulgaria) by the Permanent Court of Justice in No. 3 (12/9/1924) respected damages caused incurred by claimants not only as regards their property, rights and interest but also their person. It was held that the essential principle contained in the actual trial of an illegal act is non-repetition and that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed” in the Advisory Opinion regarding the Legal Consequences of Constructing a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory No. 131 on 9 July 2004. The principle of reparation for damages is provided for in Art. 26 of Declaration on Social Progress and Development 2542 (XXIV) 1969.
2. Post World War II interpretations of international law by the court are founded in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the 1949 Geneva Convention. The Court keeps records of their decisions since its creation in 1947 and for the Permanent Court of Justice that preceded it at Peace Palace (1922-1946). The principle of non-use of force in Art. 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter is often called the jus cogens, universal norm, of international law: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. This principle may also be called the principle of non-aggression. Art. 51 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter recognizes that the authorization of the use of force is an inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations. States do not have a right of collective armed response to acts which do not constitute an armed attack. States are limited in the use of force to a direct and proportional response to the use of force by Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) No. 70 (1986). The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States 2625(XXV) (1970), adopted by the General Assembly on 24 October 1970, makes it clear: No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. The first published decision of the Court assisted the General Assembly to establish Condition for Admission of a State to Membership by reviewing Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Charter enumerating that member nations be (1) a State; (2) peace-loving; (3) must accept the obligations of the Charter; (4) must be able to carry out these obligations; (5) must be willing to do so. Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (2006) notes the execution of prisoners who have been specially designated immune by the International Court of Justice under the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of February 13, 1946 as occurred in Lagrand Brothers v. USA Judgment No. 104 on June 27, 2001 and Avena and other Mexican National v. USA Judgment No. 128 on March 31, 2004. The United States of America has had more decisions (convictions) published on the ICJ web site than other nation.
1. Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) No. 175 3 October 2018
2. Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (2003-2004) 3. Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America) (1999), 4. LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America) (1999-2001)
5. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America) (199) 6. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (1992-2003) 7. Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America) (1992-2003) 8. Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (1989-1996) 9. Electronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy) (1987-1989) 10. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (1984-1991) 11. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) (1981-1984) 12. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran) (1979-1981) 13. Aerial Incident of 7 November 1954 (United States v. USSR) (1959)
14. Aerial Incident of 4 September 1954 (United States v. USSR) (1958)
15. Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (United States v. Bulgaria) (1957-1960) 16. Interhandel (Switzerland v. United States) (1957-1959)
17. Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) (1950)
B. Inspired by the vision of the United Nations (UN) and with the aim of supporting the establishment of law and administration of justice worldwide; representatives of 34 national bar associations gathered in New York on 17 February 1947 to create the International Bar Association (IBA). In its role as a dual membership organization, comprising 30,000 individual lawyers and over 195 Bar Associations and Law Societies, the International Bar Association (IBA) influences the development of international law reform and shapes the future of the legal profession. Its Member Organizations cover all continents of the World. IBA membership grew steadily and in 1970 was accelerated by the admission of individual lawyers to the Association and the formation of the Section on Business Law. In 1974 the Section on Legal Practice was formed and in 1982 a third Section, the Section on Energy and Natural Resources Law was created. The Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Just Rule of Law were formed in the 1980s. In 1992 an Action Plan was adopted to establish a Trial Observer Corps and investigate cases where judges and lawyers or the independence of Bar Associations was threatened. In 1995, the formation of the Human Rights Institute expanded this work and gave the opportunity for member organizations and individual members to actively contribute. Grouped into two Divisions – 1. the Legal Practice Division and 2. the Public and Professional Interest Division – the Association covers all practice areas and professional interests. It provides members with access to leading experts and up-to-date information as well as top-level professional development and network-building opportunities through high quality publications and world-class conferences. The IBA’s Bar Issues Commission provides its Member Organizations with substantive and social programs at and between meetings and the IBA's Human Rights Institute works across the Association, helping to promote, protect and enforce human rights under a just rule of law, and to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession worldwide.
C. Since its foundation in 1923 by the International Chamber of Commerce the International Court of Arbitration has settled over 10,000 cases from more than 170 countries and territories in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration. The purpose of the International Court of Arbitration is to improve the settlement of international Alternative Dispute Resolution and provide litigants with business disputes of an international character an alternative to the higher cost of settling in national courts by appointing one of 144 experts to arbitrate and settle the dispute while being monitored by the International Court of Arbitration. The American Arbitration Association (AAA) resolves 14,500 labor-management disputes annually.
D. No United States Court, and no agency or entity of any State or local government, including any court, may cooperate with the International Criminal Court under 22USC§7423. This prohibition does not apply to tribunals. As of 1 January 2007, 104 countries are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998. Out of them 29 are African States, 12 are Asian States, 16 are from Eastern Europe, 22 are from Latin America and the Caribbean, and 25 are from Western Europe and other States. The United States of America is not one of the states parties to the ICC pending a treaty made under 22USC§7401. The lame excuse given at 22USC§7421 is that in addition to exposing members of the Armed Forces of the United States to the risk of international criminal prosecution, it might deny Americans the the procedural protections of the Bill of Rights and trial by jury, an dthe Rome Statute creates a risk that the President and other senior elected and appointed officials of the United States Government may be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.
1. The International Criminal Court is the most recent development in the international justice system and will try crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes and acts of aggression in accordance with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
There are 18 judges from different states, nominated by their state and elected by 2/3 vote of the General Assembly to serve one 9 year, non-renewable term. 1. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was founded by UN Security Council Resolution 827 in 1993 to prosecute the grave breaches in international humanitarian law that began in 1991 and now has yearly budget of $500 million. The Tribunal has conceded to close their doors. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was created by UN Security Council Resolution 955 in 1994 to prosecute those responsible for genocide and breaches in international law, it has a current yearly budget of $177,739,400.
2. International criminal courts and tribunals are a distinctive development of the 1990s. At the start of that decade, no international criminal courts existed. Today, three independent international bodies adjudicate international criminal law: the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established in 1993; the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), established in 1994; and the International Criminal Court (ICC), created by a treaty concluded in 1998. With the exception of the ICC, these bodies were intended at their creation to have limited life spans. In Security Council Resolution 1534 (2004) the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda recalls that resolution 1503 (2003) cites the Completion Strategy (S/2002/678) called on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to take all possible measures to complete investigations by the end of 2004, to complete all trial activities at first instance by the end of 2008, and to complete all work in 2010. East Timor Special Panels and Serious Crimes Unit closed in May 2005. It should be a simple matter to transfer responsibility of the detainees to nations that grant them asylum and their voluminous records to the United Nations Archives and Records Management Section. As former ICTY prosecutor Louise Arbour, later High Commissioner of Human Rights, wrote, "If we exploit the full potential of criminal trials for war crimes, we should do so in part to punish, in part to deter, but, most importantly, to try to understand."
3. There are several good reasons, that are not elaborated upon, for not acceding to the ICC. First, the United States is the most penal nation in the world and idolizing prosecution is not trusted. Second, the office of prosecutor, pronounced Satan in Hebrew, is offensive to a nation that did not kill all their Jews, and respects the statehood of the Attorney General. Third, the ICC is neither competent nor independent because it specializes in the prosecution of war crimes committed by heads of state and military officers and totally lacks any judicial discipline or indeed fulfills any role not performed by the Security Council. Fourth, the ICC has abetted the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to violently overthrow the International Court of Justice, kill prisoners Babic (innocent) and Milosevic, assassinate the Director-General of the World Health Organization, seize the United Nations and wreck the global economy and public health. Fifth, the ICC must be evicted from the H(Pl)ague, High Commission on Human Rights, civil society and made inferior to the International Court of Justice not the Secretary-General. Sixth, the devastation of the international economy was pre-ordained by the infringement of the trademark International Criminal Court (ICC) on the International Chamber of Commerce, that was benign until they launched their coup. On the other hand, by not signing the Rome Statute, the United States appears guilty of war crimes and crime against humanity. Mr F S Nariman, President of the Bar Association of India, pointed out that: ‘.the spirit of the Rome Statute is not so much in the actual establishment of the Court and the filling of its dockets with cases to be tried before it; its spirit lies rather in the encouragement it gives to national governments worldwide to put up for trial in their own national courts persons accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Rome Statute has established what can be described as a “culture of legality”: its true success will only come when aversion to impunity gets internalized by the democratic legal systems of each ratifying nation State.’
4. The International Bar Association notes that the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was ‘frequently politicized and used for propaganda purposes by its opponents’, and seen as ‘remote and disconnected from the population’. The advent of the ICC has increased the politicization of the tribunals to the point of willful killing, the murdering of prisoners without trial and assassination. The first example of prosecutorial indiscretion resulting in the death of human beings, is that of the Ugandan Government who referred the situation of northern Uganda to the ICC on 16 December 2003. This referral was announced by the Prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, in a joint press conference with President Museveni in London on 29 January 2004 and the Prosecutor began investigations in July 2004. On 8 July 2005, arrest warrants were issued, under seal, against five LRA leaders: J Kony, V Otti, R Lukwiya, O Odhiambo and D Ongwen. D Ongwen was reported to have been killed on 2 October 2005, and none of the others have yet been detained. Our biggest fear is that arrest warrants will be an excuse for military forces to go in all guns blazing and these children will be killed or injured in a hail of bullets.’ ICC-02/04-01/05. At 18:30 hours on Sunday 5 March 2006 Mr. Milan Babic, a detained witness, was found dead in his cell at the United Nations Detention Unit in Scheveningen. The Detention Unit Medical Officer confirmed Milan Babic’s death shortly after his body was found, hanged. The Dutch authorities were called immediately who, confirmed that the cause of death was suicide. Although Mr. Babic initially participated in the Tribunal as a witness who needed protection he was betrayed and indicted on 17 November 2003. On 26 November 2003 Mr. Milan Babic surrendered to the Tribunal. Six days later, on Saturday morning, 11 March 2006, a prison guard found the former Yugoslav leader, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, lifeless in bed. The cause of death was cardiac arrest after years of heart complications exacerbated by the denial of medical care by Judge Ronbinson. It was an abrupt end to his four-year U.N. war crimes tribunal for orchestrating a decade of conflict that ended with 250,000 dead and the Yugoslav federation torn asunder. In April 2001 Mr. Slobodan Milosevic was arrested. He was extradited to the Hague that June. The trial began in February 2002. Strangely, both his mother and father are reported to have died of suicide, at different times. On Monday May 22, 2006 at 7:43 pm after Mr. Lee Jong-wook, Director-General of the World Health Organization died in Geneva before the annual World Health Assembly meeting 22-27 May while undergoing emergency surgery for a blood clot, subdural hematoma, in his brain. Lee, a native of South Korea, was 61 and received a medical doctor's degree from SNU and a master's degree in public health from the University of Hawaii. He worked for 19 years at the agency before becoming elected as the head of the U.N.'s health agency in May 2003. His term was to last five years. Despite their assassinations ICTY was not abolished on time in 2007, but their mission was extended by numerous United Nations Security council resolutions into the nongovernmental slavery sector to the detriment of the European economy and public health system. ICTY needs to be abolished.
E. The European Court of Justice, or European Court of Human Rights as it was formerly called, is the oldest and busiest continental court in the world. The Court operates in conjunction with the laws of the Council of Europe. The Court was founded in 1959 in accordance with the ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Articles 40-56 by European nations in 1953 to uphold the rights and freedoms enumerated in Articles 2-18 of the Convention. The bench currently accommodates 41 judges, 1 for each member nation, who are elected to serve 6 year terms by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Admission is reserved to the High Contracting Parties and the Commission on Human Rights to bring cases before the court in accordance with Article 44. The admission of more nations to the European Union has caused the number of applications registered annually with the Commission to increase from 404 in 1981 to 2,037 in 1993 to 4,750 in 1997. By 1997 the number of unregistered or provisional files opened each year in the Commission had risen to over 12,000. The European Court is unique in that the judgment is executed by the Council of Ministers.
F. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was founded in 1978 as an autonomous judicial seat located in San Jose, Costa Rica composed of 7 judges elected for 6 year terms by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States in accordance with Article 52 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. All cases are presented by member nations and the guests of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In Treaties Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court the Court determined in 1982 that Art. 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights grants the Court an unlimited advisory jurisdiction rather than a limited venue for organizations to request such an opinion from the court as offered by the International Court of Justice. The model procedure is for the Court to issue a request to parties to submit their advisory opinions so that the court can come to a well-researched opinion regarding any treaty in the world.
G. Article 18 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union adopted 11 July 2000 calls for a Court of Justice to build peaceful institutions and try violations of human rights that occur in African Republics. The Protocol of the Court of Justice of the African Union was signed on 11 July 2003 however remains to be ratified. The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and People’s Rights was ratified on 15 January 2004 under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted 27 June 1981 to assist the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
H. In 2016 the President of Palestine created the Constitutional Court and appointed nine judges. The Palestine Constitution of 2003 provided for a Constitutional Court to rule, pursuant to a request from the president of the state, the prime minister, the speaker of the Representative Council, ten members of the Representative Council, the Courts of Appeal, Cassation, or High Justice, or the Attorney General regarding: The constitutionality of laws before or after they are promulgated, the constitutionality of the platforms and activities of political parties and associations, and the constitutionality of concluding international treaties under Art. 182. Judges are sworn in by a Supreme Judicial Council represented in English in the Internet with funding from the European Union as the High Judicial Council. The Constitutional Court must fill the role of counterpart to the respectable Israeli Supreme Court an ensure international treaties will be constitutional and keep the peace with UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947) that recognizes the partition between the State of Israel and State of Palestine. The first published decision of the International Court of Justice was to assist the General Assembly to establish Condition for Admission of a State to Membership under Art. 4, paragraph 1, of the Charter whereby member nations be (1) a State; (2) peace-loving; (3) must accept the obligations of the Charter; (4) must be able to carry out these obligations; (5) must be willing to do so. The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion of 9 July, 2004 No. 131 held that settlements established by Israel were in breach of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Yasser Arafat became extremely sick, flew to France for treatment and died; years later scientists detected lethal doses of plutonium 210.
1. To make peace in the Holy Land, it is believed that compensation is necessary to settle injury caused by international military conflict between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and settlers inflict far more damage than Palestine irregulars and Israelis could be paid with reduced rates for the Palestinian victims, including those whose Israeli convictions are overturned, or were detained without charge, unless Palestine pays the victims of their militants at the same UN Compensation Commission Rates. Extra paperwork and irregularity of the actors, dissuades every serious international criminal incident between Israelis and Palestinians from filing for UN Compensation and the priority is to cease official hostilities and pay reparations. For 51 days in July and August 2014, Israel conducted a military operation in Gaza known as Protective Edge. It was the third major Gaza operation by the Israeli armed forces in seven years, and by far the most lethal and destructive. Some 2,205 Palestinians, including 722 militants and over 500 children, and 70 Israelis (64 of whom were soldiers) were killed. Thousands of Palestinians were wounded; over 18,000 of their homes were destroyed; some 470,000 were displaced; and large areas of Gaza were essentially razed. The United Nations Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry elected a Jordanian prince High Commissioner rather than settle at UN compensation rates. There was another upsurge in violence that began in October 2015 in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. During the escalation of violence, more than 230 Palestinians and at least 32 Israelis were killed over the course of 2015 and 2016 in the context of demonstrations by Palestinians, as well as Palestinian attacks or alleged attacks, and the often lethal response of the Israeli security forces. Coinciding with the rise in violence is a rise in arrests and in the number of Palestinians in Israeli detention, including those in administrative detention. In 2015 there were more than 6,000 detainees currently held on alleged security grounds, as well as approximately 700 administrative detainees. In 2014, the Israeli Government reinstituted the use of punitive home demolitions. Since that time, the number of demolitions has been on the rise, with 11 demolitions displacing 85 people reported in 2015, while already, as of July 2016, there had been 16 demolitions, displacing 92 people.
G. The compensation rates set forth by United Nations Security Council Compensation Commission for Iraq-Kuwait, due all victims of all conflicts and disasters of an international nature, including the Syrian refugee crisis and the disproportionate use of force between Israel and Palestine, remain:
1. People forced to relocate as the result of military action $2,500 -$4,000 for an individual and $5,000-$8,000 for a family;
2. People who suffered serious bodily injury or families reporting a death are entitled to between $2,500 and $10,000;
3. After being swiftly compensated for relocation, injury or death an individual may make a claim for damages for personal injury; mental pain and anguish of a wrongful death; loss of personal property; loss of bank accounts, stocks and other securities; loss of income; loss of real property; and individual business losses valued up to $100,000.
4. After receiving compensation for relocation, injury or death an individual can file a claim valued at more than $100,000 for the loss of real property or personal business.
5. Claims of corporations, other private legal entities and public sector enterprises. They include claims for: construction or other contract losses; losses from the non-payment for goods or services; losses relating to the destruction or seizure of business assets; loss of profits; and oil sector or heavy industry losses.
6. Claims filed by Governments and international organizations for losses incurred in evacuating citizens; providing relief to citizens; damage to diplomatic premises and loss of, and damage to, other government property; and damage to the environment.
§70 Human Rights Council
A. On 15 March 2006, the United Nations 60th General Assembly passed a historic resolution approving the creation of the new UN Human Rights Council. The Council will serve as the main United Nations forum for dialogue and cooperation on human rights. Its focus will be to help Member States meet their human rights obligations through dialogue, capacity building and technical assistance. The Council will also make recommendations to the General Assembly for further development of international law in the field of human rights. The first election of members of the Human Rights Council by the General Assembly is expected to take place on 9 May 2006, followed by the first meeting of the Council to be convened on 19 June 2006. The purpose of this Council is to sustain Human Rights in a permanent forum to hear petitions all year rather than at special times of the year. UN Chronicle: Human Rights Council.
1. The Human Rights Council, is led by the High Commissioner of Human Rights. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has the rank of Under Secretary-General of the United Nations and heads the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The post of High Commissioner was established in December 1993 by a General Assembly resolution, in accordance with a recommendation contained in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action 25 June 1993. The resolution specifies that the High Commissioner is the principal United Nations official responsible for United Nations human rights activities, and that the High Commissioner performs his/her duties under the direction and authority of the Secretary-General. The resolution gives the High Commissioner the broad mandate to promote and protect all human rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural. The International Bill of Rights is found in ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 3 January 1976 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 23 March 1976.
B. The overarching Council on Human Rights is composed of 53 States, meets each year in regular session in March/April for six weeks in Geneva. Over 3,000 delegates from member and observer States and from non-governmental organizations participate. There are 7 Committees to the Human Rights Council (HRC). The Council can also meet exceptionally between its regular sessions in special session, provided that a majority of States members of the Commission so agree, mindful of the need for the Commission on Human Rights to deal with urgent and acute human rights situations in the most expeditious way. During its regular annual session, the Council adopts about a hundred resolutions, decisions and Chairperson's statements on matters of relevance to individuals in all regions and circumstances. It is assisted in this work by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, a number of working groups and a network of individual experts, representatives and rapporteurs mandated to report to it on specific issues.
1. The Human Rights Committee (HRC) was established in Part IV of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 23 March 1976 and its first Optional Protocol of 23 March 1976 allowing individuals to submit complaints to the Human Rights Committee The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, was adopted on 15 December 1989 and entered into force on 11 July 1991. The Human Rights Committee was established to monitor the implementation of the Covenant and the Protocols to the Covenant in the territory of States parties. It is composed of 18 independent experts who are persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights. The Committee convenes three times a year for sessions of three weeks' duration, normally in March at United Nations headquarters in New York and in July and November at the United Nations Office in Geneva. Each session of the Committee is preceded by two simultaneous pre-session working groups established under rules 62 and 89 of its Rules of Procedure of 26 July 1989. The working group established under rule 89 is entrusted with the task of making recommendations to the Committee regarding communications received under the Optional Protocol. Council on Human Rights procedures and mechanisms are mandated to examine, monitor and publicly report either on human rights situations in specific countries or territories (known as country mechanisms or mandates) or on major phenomena of human rights violations worldwide (known as thematic mechanisms or mandates). These procedures and mechanisms are collectively referred to as the Special Procedures of the Commission on Human Rights and published as the Rules of Procedure of the Functional Commissions of the Economic and Social Council of 12 August 1947.
C. The Committee on Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (CMW) was established in Part VII of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 18 December 1990 by its State parties. All States parties are obliged to submit regular reports to the Committee on how the rights are being implemented. States must report initially one year after acceding to the Convention and then every five years. The 14 expert Committee will examine each report and address its concerns and recommendations to the State party in the form of “concluding observations”. The Committee meets in Geneva and normally holds one session per year. The Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 1961 establishes safeguards against statelessness in several different contexts. A central focus of the Convention is the prevention of statelessness at birth by requiring States to grant citizenship to children born on their territory, or born to their nationals abroad, who would otherwise be stateless. Article 8 (1) A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless without due process under (2-4). Article 32 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of 1954 provides, The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of stateless persons. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.
1. Common Articles 26-29 to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 and the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of 1954 protect refugees and stateless people against discrimination, provide for the freedom of movement, requires States to provide them with identity papers and travel documents at the same price as nationals, for which 'denaturalized' citizens are due compensation for the extortionate fees paid to restore their documents, and prohibits the expulsion, refoulment, of stateless persons and refugees who are lawfully on the territory of a State Party. Article 26 provides for the freedom of movement. Each Contracting State shall accord to stateless persons (refugees) lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence and to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances. Article 27 identity papers provides: The Contracting States shall issue identity papers to any stateless person (refugee) in their territory who does not possess a valid travel document. Article 28 travel documents provides, The Contracting States shall issue to stateless persons (refugees) lawfully staying in their territory travel documents for the purpose of travel outside their territory, unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require, and the provisions of the Schedule to this Convention shall apply with respect to such documents. The Contracting States may issue such a travel document to any other stateless person (refugee) in their territory; they shall in particular give sympathetic consideration to the issue of such a travel document to stateless persons in their territory who are unable to obtain a travel document from the country of their lawful residence. Article 29 fiscal charges provides 1. The Contracting States shall not impose upon stateless persons (refugees) duties, charges or taxes, of any description whatsoever, other or higher than those which are or may be levied on their nationals in similar situations. 2. Nothing in the above paragraph shall prevent the application to stateless persons of the laws and regulations concerning charges in respect of the issue to aliens of administrative documents including identity papers. The epidemiological paradox is that people of a Hispanic ethnicity, with a disproportionate number of undocumented pedestrians, are reported to be healthier but poorer in Health, United States 2015.
D. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), unlike the other committees, was not established by its corresponding instrument - the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 3 January 1976. Rather, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) created the Committee, following the less than ideal performance of two previous bodies entrusted with monitoring the Covenant. The Committee was established in 1985, met for the first time in 1987 and has to date held 14 sessions. Meeting initially on an annual basis, the Committee currently convenes twice a year, holding two three-week sessions, generally in May and November/December. It holds all its meetings at the United Nations Office at Geneva. The Committee is comprised of 18 members who are experts with recognized competence in the field of human rights. Members of the Committee are independent and serve in their personal capacity, not as representatives of Governments. At present, the Committee is made up of 13 men and five women. The Committee itself selects its chairperson, three vice-chairpersons and rapporteur. Members of the Committee are elected by ECOSOC for four year terms, and are eligible for re-election if re-nominated.
E. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), was established in Part V of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 3 September 1981. The Committee's mandate is very specific: it watches over the progress for women made in those countries that are the States parties. A country becomes a State party by ratifying or acceding to the Convention and thereby accepting a legal obligation to counteract discrimination against women. This body supplements the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) that was established in 1946 as a functional commission of ECOSOC. An expert body established in 1982, is composed of 23 experts on women's issues from around the world. Meetings are held twice annually, when the Committee reviews national reports submitted by the States parties within one year of ratification or accession, and thereafter every four years. The Committee monitors the implementation of national measures to fulfill this obligation. An Optional Protocol Entered into Force 22 December 2000 granting the Committee the authority to accept petitions from individuals.
F. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was established in Part II of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 2 September 1990. The CRC is composed of 18 independent experts who are persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights. Members are elected for a term of four years by States parties in accordance with article 43 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Members serve in their personal capacity and may be re-elected if nominated. There are three Optional Protocols to the Convention of the Rights of the Chiled of 2 September 1990. First Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography of 18 January 2002 prohibits prohibit the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Second Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict of 12 February 2002 ensures that members of the armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 shall not take part in hostilities. Third, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure of 14 April 2014 provides that the Committee shall be guided by the principle of the best interests of the child. It shall also have regard for the rights and views of the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
G. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) was established in Part II of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 4 January 1969. Since CERD was established many Non-Self-governing Territories, including some administered by States under United Nations trusteeship agreements, have become independent. Nevertheless, there are still 18 such Territories. CERD is composed of 9 members as determined at the First Meeting of States Parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination held in 1969.
H. The Committee against Torture (CaT) was established pursuant to article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 26 June 1987 to monitor its implementation. The 10-member Committee began to function on 1 January 1988, six months after the entry into force of the Convention, adopted on 10 December 1984. An Optional Protocol was made available for ratification 4 February 2003 to facilitate inspections of facilities in which people are detained.
I. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is the body of independent experts which monitors implementation of the Convention by the States Parties. All States parties are obliged to submit regular reports to the Committee on how the rights are being implemented. States must report initially within two years of accepting the Convention and thereafter every four years. The convention recognizes that discrimination against any person on the basis of disability is a violation of the inherent dignity and worth of the human person, that there is a diversity of people with disabilities and that there is a need to promote and protect the human rights of all persons with disabilities, including those who require more intensive support. People with disabilities must have the freedom to make their own choices and be enabled to enjoy full access to the physical, social, economic and cultural environment, to health and education and to information and communication, so as to fully enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms. The right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing and to the continuous improvement of living conditions is typically ensured by social security insurance. The rights of persons with disabilities to just and favorable conditions of work, shall be on an equal basis with others, including equal opportunities, such as union membership and equal remuneration for work of equal value, safe and healthy working conditions, including protection from harassment, and the redressing of grievances. State Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities are not held in slavery or in servitude, and are protected, on an equal basis with others, from forced or compulsory labor. The Optional Protocol to the Convention gives the Committee competence to examine individual complaints with regard to alleged violations of the Convention by States parties to the Protocol.
J. The US does not participate in the Human Rights Council. UN Ambassadors explained to the Secretary of State, they do not want to negotiate with human rights offenders, such as China. The United States must reduce safely reduce its prison population and police force by requiring a Bachelor degree for employment as law enforcement and corrections officers and providing all prisoners who have completed high school or gotten their GED access to online Bachelor degree programs afforded by student loans. The federal government must repeal the $10,000 a day fine for refusing to provide for the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act under 18USC§2522. Guideline 16 on the Role of the Prosecutor (1990) states: When prosecutors come into possession of evidence against suspects that they know or believe on reasonable grounds was obtained through recourse to unlawful methods, which constitute a grave violation of the suspect's human rights, especially involving torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or other abuses of human rights, they shall refuse to use such evidence against anyone other than those who used such methods, or inform the Court accordingly, and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that those responsible for using such methods are brought to justice. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Held: The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. The right to non-self incrimination is grounds for legal assistance under the Convention on Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases (1993). Law colleges have advised the public to retain a lawyer to have the prosecutor drop the charges instead of being invariably arrested responding to a request to come to the police station for questioning.
1. To raise the $10,000 a day bar from the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act a minimum of a Bachelor degree must be required for all law enforcement officers. To promote enrollment growth and graduate employment, law colleges are advised to include 4-20 week police and correctional academies in their three year curriculum. The primary finding is that State employees are obligated to pay the mandatory 12.4% OASDI tax to be minimally insured plus optional +/-6% state employee retirement contribution under Title I of the Social Security Act, so that they can be fairly and independently compensated for being laid off by civil action under 18USC§2707. $200 a month disability and $666 retirement for state employees is due to insufficient funds. The federal government would do much better to authorize the employment of the Human Rights Council and Committees, than continue to be excluded due to damages caused by the incompetent interference with civil, political and diplomatic affairs from the Authority for Employment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Senior Executive Service under 5USC§3151-§3152, Office of Special Counsel, Interagency Drug and Crime Enforcement, National Office of Drug Control Policy, International Narcotic Control and Law Enforcement, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement that must be abolished by civil action under 18USC§2712. Whether or not the United States must seek refuge from violence at the International Court of Justice, when in the Hague, the US is advised to independently ratify the Optional Protocols to extend the protection of human rights to all US citizens. 1. Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil an Political Rights of 23 March 1976 relating to the Human Rights Committee. 2. Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty of 15 December 1989. 3. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all Discrimination against Women of 22 December 2000. 4. Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 4 February 2003 to inspect penal institutions, without retaliation under 18USC§1513.
CHAPTER 2—SOLDIERS' AND AIRMEN'S HOME
§§41-60 Repealed
§§41 to 43. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XV, §1532(b)(1)–(3), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1733
Section 41, R.S. §4815; Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 130, §10, 22 Stat. 565; Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 299, §1, 35 Stat. 1004; May 11, 1926, ch. 285, 44 Stat. 499; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501, related to composition, powers, and duties of board of commissioners for the Soldiers' Home.
Section 42, acts Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 299, §1, 35 Stat. 1004; May 11, 1926, ch. 285, 44 Stat. 499; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501, required president of board of commissioners to submit annual reports on Soldiers' Home.
Section 43, R.S. §4816; Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 130, §7, 22 Stat. 565; June 6, 1972, Pub. L. 92–310, title II, §228(a), 86 Stat. 207, related to appointment and removal of officers of Soldiers' Home.
Effective Date of Repeal. Repeal effective one year after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 1541(a) of Pub. L. 101–510, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under section 401 of this title.
Authority for Exemption of Certain Physicians at Soldiers' and Airmen's Home From Reductions in Retired Pay Pub. L. 99–145, title XVI, §1625, Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 778, which provided that the Governor of the United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home could exempt, at any time, not more than two physicians employed by the Home from the restrictions in 5 USC§5332(a)–(c), if the Governor determined that such exemptions were necessary to recruit or retain well-qualified physicians for the Home, was repealed by Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title X, §1063(c), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1476.
§44. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title III, §347(1), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1422
Section, R.S. §4818; Sept. 24, 1980, Pub. L. 96–357, §7(a), 94 Stat. 1183, related to funds for support of the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home. See section 2772 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
§44a. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–454, §2(b), Oct. 2, 1976, 90 Stat. 1518
Section, act Feb. 13, 1936, ch. 66, 49 Stat. 1137, related to pay deductions of enlisted men and warrant officers on active list of Regular Army, not to exceed 25 cents, to be credited to permanent fund of United States Soldiers' Home [now United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home] trust fund.
§44b. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XV, §1532(b)(4), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1733
Section, Pub. L. 94–454, §1, Oct. 2, 1976, 90 Stat. 1518, related to collection of fees from members of Soldiers' Home.
Effective Date of Repeal. Repeal effective one year after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 1541(a) of Pub. L. 101–510, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under section 401 of this title.
§44c. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title III, §347(4), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1422
Section, Pub. L. 94–454, §2(a), Oct. 2, 1976, 90 Stat. 1518, related to pay deductions from enlisted men and warrant officers. See section 1007(i) of Title 37, Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services.
§§45 to 46b. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XV, §1532(b)(1), (2), (5), (6), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1733
Section 45, R.S. §4819; June 12, 1906, ch. 3078, 34 Stat. 242; May 11, 1908, ch. 163, 35 Stat. 110; Nov. 29, 1989, Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title III, §347(1), 103 Stat. 1422, authorized commissioners to receive donations for benefit of Soldiers' Home.
Section 46, acts Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 130, §8, 22 Stat. 565; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501; Dec. 15, 1973, Pub. L. 93–185, 87 Stat. 712, related to investment and withdrawal of funds of Soldiers' Home.
Section 46a, act Apr. 9, 1935, ch. 54, title II, 49 Stat. 147, related to deposit and expenditure of interest earned on funds of Soldiers' Home.
Section 46b, act July 19, 1937, ch. 511, 50 Stat. 519, related to laws governing administration of funds appropriated from Soldiers' Home Permanent Fund.
Effective Date of Repeal. Repeal effective one year after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 1541(a) of Pub. L. 101–510, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under section 401 of this title.
§47. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title III, §347(3), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1422
Section, acts Jan. 16, 1891, ch. 74, 26 Stat. 718; May 29, 1920, ch. 214, 41 Stat. 655, related to custodian of funds and transfer of funds for outdoor relief.
§§48 to 50. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XV, §1532(b)(1), (2), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1733
Section 48, act Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 130, §9, 22 Stat. 565, related to borrowing money on credit of Soldiers' Home.
Section 49, R.S. §§4814, 4821, related to persons entitled to membership in and benefits of Soldiers' Home.
Section 50, R.S. §4822, related to persons excluded from benefits of Soldiers' Home.
Effective Date of Repeal. Repeal effective one year after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 1541(a) of Pub. L. 101–510, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under section 401 of this title.
§§51 to 53. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title III, §347(1), (2), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1422
Section 51, R.S. §4820, related to rights of pensioners and surrender of pensions while remaining in Home.
Section 52, acts Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 130, §4, 22 Stat. 564; Aug. 17, 1912, ch. 301, §1, 37 Stat. 312; July 3, 1930, ch. 863, §1, 46 Stat. 1016; Nov. 8, 1985, Pub. L. 99–145, title XIII, §1301(f), 99 Stat. 737, related to allotment of pensions and distribution upon death.
Section 53, R.S. §4823, related to discharge from Home and return to military service.
§54. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XV, §1532(b)(1), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1733
Section, R.S. §4824, related to coverage of inmates by Articles of War. See section 801 et seq. of Title 10, Armed Forces.
Effective Date of Repeal. Repeal effective one year after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 1541(a) of Pub. L. 101–510, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under section 401 of this title.
§§55 to 57. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title III, §347(2), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1422
Section 55, act Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 130, §5, 22 Stat. 565, related to uniform for inmates.
Section 56, act Mar, 3, 1883, ch. 130, §6, 22 Stat. 565, related to outdoor relief to persons entitled to admission.
Section 57, act Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 130, §3, 22 Stat. 564, related to limitation of expenditures and purchase of supplies.
§58. Repealed. Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, §53, 70A Stat. 641
Section, acts June 4, 1897, ch. 2, §1, 30 Stat. 54; June 28, 1950, ch. 383, title IV, §402(d), 64 Stat. 272, provided for sale of medical and hospital supplies to the Soldiers' Home [now United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home] in the District of Columbia. See sections 4624 and 9624 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
§59. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XV, §1532(b)(2), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1733
Section, acts Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 130, §1, 22 Stat. 564; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501, related to annual report of board of commissioners of Soldiers' Home.
Effective Date of Repeal. Repeal effective one year after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 1541(a) of Pub. L. 101–510, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under section 401 of this title.
§60. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title III, §347(2), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1422
Section, acts Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 130, §2, 22 Stat. 564; Jan. 27, 1948, ch. 35, 62 Stat. 5, related to inspection and report by Inspector General of the Army.
Bibliography
Abramson, Jeffrey. We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. Basic Books. Harper Collins Publisher. New York. 1995
Accessory After the Fact 18USC§3
Act to Establish the Department of Justice 1870
Act of May 27, 1955 42 U.S.C. 1856a, 1856b
Additional Power of the Attorney General 18USC§846
Administration of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 50 U.S.C. App. 1989b
Administration of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 42 U.S.C. 1973c
Admission of Non-Immigrants 8USC§1184
Adoption of children 42USC Chapter 67 Subchapter II
Advisory Opinion regarding the Legal Consequences of Constructing a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory No. 131 9 July 2004
Advocacy of the Overthrow of the Government 18USC§2385
Aerial Incident of 7 November 1954 (United States v. USSR) (1959)
Aerial Incident of 4 September 1954 (United States v. USSR) (1958)
Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (United States v. Bulgaria) (1957-1960)
Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (1989-1996)
Afghanistan & Iraq v. USA HA-2-11-05
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted 27 June 1981
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights
Age Discrimination Act of 1975 42USC(76)§6101
Agencies 31USC§101
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali v. US Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights HA-22-6-06
Airborne Hunting Act 16 U.S.C. 742j-1
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau. Delegation Respecting Claims against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 28CFR§0.132
AFT. General Functions 28CFR§0.130
ATF. Specific Functions 28CFR§0.131
ATF. Transition and Continuity of Regulations 28CFR§0.133
Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) No. 175 3 October 2018
American Bar Association. Charting a Future the Civil Jury System. Brookings Institution. Washington D.C. 1992
ABA. Model Code of Judicial Conduct. 2004 Edition
ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility
ABA Justice Kennedy Commission Recommendations 2004
American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU v. NSA
American Convention on Human Rights
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 42 U.S.C. §12101-12213
Amistad 40 US 518 (1841)
Amnesty International. Fair Trials Manual
Amnesty International, International standards on the death penalty, AI Index: ACT 50/06/97, 1997
Antarctic Preservation Act of 1978 16USC§2403
Anti-discrimination policy; minority recruitment program 5 U.S.C. 7201
Anti-Trust Division 28 CFR I 0.40
Apodaca et al. v. Oregon (1972)
Apple, James G.; Deyling, Robert P. A Primer on the Civil-Law System. Federal Judicial Center. 1994-1995
Applications for retirement 5 U.S.C.8336
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar) Summary 2020/1 23 January 2020
Appointment of special attorneys and special assistants to the Attorney General 28 U.S.C. 515
Apprehension and Detention of Aliens 8USC§1226
Approval of “necessary expenditures in the line of duty'' of U.S. Marshals and Deputy U.S. Marshals 28 U.S.C. 567
Approving inmate disciplinary and good time regulations 18 U.S.C. 3624
Armed interference with elections 18USC§593
Arms Export Control Act, as amended by Public Law 94-329, 22USC§2778
Arson with Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction 18USC§81
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564 (2002)
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union No. 03-218 (2004)
Assaults within Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction 18USC§113
Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division 28 CFR I 0.46
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division 28 CFR I 0.56
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Environment and Natural Resources Division 28 CFR I 0.66
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Tax Division 28 CFR I 0.71
Asylum 8USC§1158 and 8USC§1522
Asylum Case (Colombia / Peru) Judgment of 20 November 1950
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 42 U.S.C. 2011
Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office 28 CFR I 0.48
Attorney General's Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys 28 CFR 0.10
Recovery 28CFR I 0.171
Authority and Criteria for the Classification of Substances 21USC§811
Authority: Federal Tort Claims 28CFR§0.172
Authority for Employment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Senior Executive Service 5USC§3151-3152 repeal
Authority of Attorney General to investigate United States attorneys, marshals, trustees, clerks of court, and others 28 U.S.C.526
Authority to Enter into Reciprocal Agreements for Fire Safety 42USC§1856a, §1856b
Authority to provide law enforcement representatives with information on Federal prisoners 18 U.S.C. 4082
Authorization for the interception of wire, oral or electronic communications limited 18USC(119)§2516
Authorized Sentences 18USC§3551
Automobile Information Disclosure Act 15 U.S.C. 1231
Availability of Appropriations 28USC§524
Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (2003-2004)
Awards, and Appropriations Therfore 18USC§3059 repealed
Baier v. Alberta 2007 SCC 31 June 29
Bail Reform Act of 1966 arrest and release 28 U.S.C.3041-3063
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 16 U.S.C.668-668d
Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct as revised at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justice at Peace Palace, the Hague, 25-16 November 2002
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 28US Code Chapter 6 § 151-158
Banks, Duren Ph.D., Ruddle, Paul; Kennedy, Erin; RTI International; Planty, Michael G. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Arrest-Related Deaths Program Redesign Study, 2015-16: Preliminary Findings. December 15, 2016 NCJ 250112
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law of 16 December 2005
Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, G.A. res. 45/111, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A) at 200, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990)
Basic Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary of 6 September 1985
Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers 27 August to 7 September 1990
Basic principles on the use of force and firearms (1990)
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
Bell, Derrick. Race, Racism and American Law. Little Brown and Company. Law School Case Book Series. Third Edition. Boston. 1992
Bender, David et al. The Jury System. Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc. San Diego, California. 1997
Bergel, Jean Louis. Principal Features and Methods of Codification, 48 La. L. Rev. 1073, 1078–79 (1988)
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967)
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886
Blairon, Laurence, Mrs. ICJ Information Officer. 3 September 2004
Blakely v. Washington No. 02-1632 of June 24, 2004
Bloom v. Social Security Administration (10th Cir.) No. 02-3362 (2003)
Board of Directors of Federal Prison Industries 28 CFR I 0.99
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, G.A. res. 43/173, annex, 43 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 298, U.N. Doc. A/43/49 (1988)
Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House) HR 4437
Border Security Act S. 2394
Bribery of Witnesses 18USC§201
British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Christie 2007 SCC 21 25 May
Brown, Governor of California, et al v. Marciana & Plata et al (2011)
Boumedine v. Bush No. 06-1195 (2008)
Buergenthal, Thomas; Shelton, Dinah. Protecting Human Rights in the Americas, Cases and Materials, N.P. Engel, Publisher, Kehl, Strasbourg, Arlington, 1995
Bureau of Firearms and Explosives (FE) as amended 28CFR Part W §0.130-0.133, 31USC§3724
Bureau of Justice Assistance 28 CFR 0.94-1
Bureau of Justice Statistics 28 CFR I 0.93, 42USC§3731-3734
Bureau of Prisons; Director and Employees §4041
Bureau of Prison Employees' Powers 18USC§3050
Bureau of Prisons. General Functions 28CFR§0.95
Bush v. Gore on 12 December 2000
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board writ of certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court December 4, 2000
Calculation of Term of Imprisonment 18USC§3585
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)
Camden 28 trial: U.S. v. Anderson, et al (1973)
Canada Attorney General v. Hislop 2007 SCC 10 March 1
Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta 2007 SCC 22 May 21
Care of juveniles 18 U.S.C. 5040
Case Concerning the Factory of Chorzow. Permanent Court of Justice A. No. 9 (1927)
Cause of Action 34USC§12601
Central Committee of the Hamilton County Republican Party v. Dalton C-060269 Ohio 1st Circuit May 30, 2007
Chairman of the United States Parole Commission 28 CFR I 0.125
Chapter XIV of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) of 1997
Chief Justice John G. Roberts. 2006 Year-End-Report of the Federal Judiciary. January 1, 2007 Chief Justice Rehnquist. Year-End Report. 2000
Child custody determinations 28USC§1738A
Child Support Enforcement 42USC§666
Circuit Courts of Appeals 28US Code Chapter 3 §41-49
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Civil acton 18USC§2707 and §2712
Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights 42USC§1983
Civil Division 28 CFR I 0.45
Civil Forfeiture 18USC§981
Civil litigation at the Court of International Trade Against the United States and Agencies and Officers Thereof 28 U.S.C. 1581
Civil Rights Act of 1875 passed March 1, 1875 Chapter 13 of Title 18
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 2 July 1964 PL 88-352, 42 USC Chapter 21 §1981 - §2000h
Civil Rights Act of 21 November 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166)
Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
Civil Rights Division 28 CFR I 0.50
Claims for Damages Caused by Investigative or Law Enforcement Officers of the Department of Justice 31USC§3724
Claims of Officers and Employees at Government Penal and Correctional Institutions 31USC§3722
Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979)
Collection of Fees, Accounting 28USC§567
Comision Interamericana de Derechos Humanos - Diez años de actividad 1971, Secretaría General de la Organización ede los Estados Americanos, Washington D.C., 1982
Commitment to Attorney General; Residential Treatment Centers; Extension of Limits of Confinement; Work Furlough 18USC§4082b
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, Title I of Pub. L. 103-414 (108 Stat. 4279) 18USC§2522 repeal
Community Relations Service 28 CFR I 0.30
Computation of Annuity 5USC§8339
Conditions of Probation 18USC(227)§3563
Confiscation of wire or oral communication intercepting devices 18USC§2513
Conspiracy Art. 81 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 10USC§881
Constitution of Hospitals & Asylums Non Governmental Economics (CHANGE)
Constitutive Act of the African Union. 11 July 2000
Contracting, for the imprisonment, subsistence, care, and proper employment of persons convicted of offenses against the United States 18 U.S.C. 4002
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 26 June 1987
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953
Convention for the Reduction of Statelessness 1961
Convention on Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases (1993)
Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of February 13, 1946
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 3 September 1981
Convention on the Rights of the Child of 2 September 1990
– Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children,
child prostitution and child pornography of 18 January 2002
– Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement
of children in armed conflict of 12 February 2002.
– The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure of 14 April 2014
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)
Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families (1990)
Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973)
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and 1967 Protocol
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless People. 1954 entered into force 1960.
Conyers, John. Ohio Elections: Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Staff HA-5-1-05
Coordination and Assistance of United States Trustees 28 CFR I 0.38
Cottrell, Guy J. Chief Postal Inspector. United States Postal inspection Service Annual Report. FY 2014
Courts-Martial Manual
Crime Control and Law Enforcement 34USC§10101 et seq. P.L. 115–76 November 02, 2017
Crime of Violence 18USC§16
Crime Victims’ Rights 18USC§3771
Criminal Aspects of Civil Rights 18 U.S. C. Chapter 13 §241-248
Criminal Division 28CFR§0.55
Criminal Elections and Political Activities 18 U.S. Code §591-611
Criminal Forfeiture 18USC§982
Custody of State Offenders 18USC§5003
Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power of 29 November 1985
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States 2625(XXV) (1970)
Declaration on Social Progress and Development 2542 (XXIV) 1969
Declaration on Territorial Asylum 2312 (XXII) 14 December 1967
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1963)
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1975)
Defense of actions 28 U.S.C.2410
Delegation of Authority 28USC§510
Delegations. Bureau of Prisons 28CFR§0.96
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) (1981-1984)
Department of Housing and Urban Development and Federal Housing Authority Transactions 18USC§1010
Department of Justice. Summary of Budget Authority by Appropriation FY2015 & FY 2017
Deputy Director 28 CFR I 0.31
Designating places of imprisonment or rehabilitation where the sentences of prisoners shall be served and ordering transfers from one institution to another, whether maintained by the Federal Government or otherwise 18 U.S.C.4082b
Designation of agents for the transportation of prisoners 18 U.S.C. 4008
Detention and Removal of Aliens Ordered Removed 8USC§1231
Director of COPS 28 CFR I 0.120
Director of the Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR I 0.96
Disability Insurance Benefit Payments Sec. 223 of the Social Security Act under 42USC§423
Disability retirement 5USC§8337, §8336, §8339
Dismissal on motion of action against individual entitled to immunity 22USC(6)§254d
Dispositional Hearing. Juvenile Delinquency 18USC§5037
Disposition of the Effects of the Deceased Persons 24USC§420
D.J. Harris, M. O'Boyle, C. Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, Butterworths, 1995.
Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation 21U.S.C.Chapter 16
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Delegation Respecting Claims against the DEA 28CFR§0.103.a
DEA. Drug Enforcement Policy Coordination 28CFR§0.102
DEA. Re-delegation of Authority 28CFR§0.104
DEA. Release of Information 28CFR§0.103
DEA. Specific Functions 28CFR§101
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
Duties of Bureau of Prison 18USC§4042
Education Amendments of 1972 20 U.S.C. §1681
Eggen, Dan and Goldstein, Amy. Number of Fired Prosecutors Grows: Dismissals Began Earlier than Justice Department Says. Washington Post. May 10, 2007
Electronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy) (1987-1989)
Eligibility for SSI Benefits Sec. 1611 of Title XVI of the Social Security Act 42USC§1382
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Persons Prohibited from Holding Certain Positions 29USC§1111
Endangered Species Act of 1973 16USC§1531-1544
Enforcement of Civil Rights 42USC§2000e
Enforcement of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 18USC§2522
Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property Derived From Specified Unlawful Activity 18USC§1957
Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States Executive Order 13,768. January 25, 2017
Entering into contracts with State officials for the custody prisoners 18USC§5003
Environment and Natural Resources Division 28 CFR I 0.65
Equal Force 28 CFR I 0.121
Escape and Rescue Act 18 U.S.C. 751, 752
Eskridge, William N. Jr.; Frickey, Philip P. Cases and Materials on Legislation: Statutes and the Creation of Public Policy. American Casebook Series. 2nd Edition. West Publishing Company. St. Paul, Minn. 1995
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 1843
Ethics Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 101-94, 103 Stat. 1716 (1989)
Executive Office for Immigration Review 8CFR§1003.1
Executive Office for United States Attorneys 28CFR§0.22
Executive Office for United States Trustees 28CFR§0.37
Expedited Removal of Aliens Convicted of Committing Aggravated Felonies 8USC§1228
Export Trade Certificates 15 U.S.C. Chapter 66 4011-4021
Extradition 18USCII(209)§3181-3196
FAIR v. Rumsfeld (2006)
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act 15 U.S.C. 1451
False declaration to court or grand jury 18USC§1623
False information in regards to citizenship 18USC§1015
Farley, John. Treasury Forfeiture Fund Accountability Report. Acting Director Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture. Gka Certified Public Accountants. US Treasury Department. Washington DC. 2016
Federal Bureau of Investigations. Authority to Seize Arms and Munitions of War 28USC§0.89
FBI. Certificates for Expenses of Unforeseen Emergencies 28CFR§0.88
FBI. Crime in the United States. 2016
FBI. Criminal Justice Policy Coordination 28CFR§0.85a.
FBI. Delegations Respecting Claims against the FBI 28CFR§0.89a
FBI. General Functions 28CFR§0.85
FBI. Representation on Committee for Visitor Exchange 28CFR§0.87
FBI. Seizure of Gambling Devices 28CFR§0.86
Federal Custody; Remedies on Motion Attacking Sentence 28USC(153)§2255
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21 U.S.C. 301-397
Federal Prisoners in State Institutions; Employment 18USC§4002
Federal Protection 18 U.S.C.§245
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Federal Rules of Evidence
Federal Tort Claims Act 28 CFR 0.172
Federal Work Study Program 34CFR§675.1 Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part C; 42 U. S. C. 2751-2756b
Findings on Juvenile Justice 42 U.S.C. 5601
Firearms Title 18 U.S. Code Chapter 44; Unlawful Acts 18USC§922; Penalties 18USC§924
Fire. Prohibited Acts 36CFR§261.5
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 U.S.C.661-667d
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&CA). Prohibited Acts Sec. 301 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21USC§331
FD&CA. Injunction Proceedings Sec. 302 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21USC§332
Force reduction 5USC§5301, 5USC§3504
Foreign Assistance Act 22 U.S.C. 2356
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 28 CFR I 0.128
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 50USC(36)I§1801
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 50USC(36)I§1809
Forfeiture, Civil 18USC§981 and Criminal §982
Forfeitures 21USC§881
Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Times of War of 1949
Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers 18USC§1030
Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Electronic Mail 18USC§1037
Free Insider Trader Settlement (FITS) HA-1-4-04
Fugitive Felon Act 18USC§1072, §1073
Fugitives from State or Territory to State, District or Territory 18USC§3182
Fukurai, Kiroshi; Butler, Edgar W.; Krooth, Richard. Race and the Jury: Racial Disenfranchisement and the Search for Justice. Plenum Press. New York. 1993
Functions of the Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division 28 CFR I 0.41
Garcetti v. Ceballos, No. 04-473, (2006)
Garner, Bryan A. Black’s Law Dictionary. West Group. St. Paul, Minn. 7th Edition. 2000
Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information 18USC§793
General Arrest Authority for Violation of Release 18USC§3062
General Authorization to Delegate Functions; Publication of Delegations 3USC§301
General Obligation to Delegate Functions 3USC§301 and 5USC§3503
General Provisions for Chapter 18USC§4247
Geneva Protocol (to the Hague Conventions) for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare 17 June 1925
Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)
Georgia v. McCollum (1992)
Granting permits to states or public agencies for rights-of-way upon lands administered by the Director 43 U.S.C.931c, 961; 18 U.S.C. 4001, 4041, 4042.
Greenhouse, Linda. Chief Justice Advocates Higher Pay for Judiciary. New York Times. January 1, 2007
Guaranteeing Standby Energy Authority under 42 U.S.C. Chapter 77 §6272-6285
Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors of 27 August-7 September 1990
Habeas Corpus Act 1679, Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 S.185, H.R.267, H.R.1189, H.R. 2543 and H.R.1416
Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, suspended 1794-1801
Hamdi v. Rumsfield No. 03-6696 (2004)
Harbor and concealment of terrorists 18USC§2339
Harding, Lauri. Military Recruiters. At Issue. Greenhaven Press. Thomson Gale. Farmington Hills, MI. 2008
Health care for prisoners 18USC§4006
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part C; 42 U. S. C. 2751-2756b
Himmelstein, David U.; Thorne, Deborah; Warren, Elizabeth; Woolhanderler, Steffie. Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study. American Journal of Medicine. Elsevier Inc. April 2009
Hospitalization of an Imprisoned Person Suffering Mental Disease or Defect 18USC§4245
Hurtado v. United States 410 US 578 (1973)
Illegal Exportation of War Materials 22USC§401
Immediate Retirement 5USC§8336
Immigration and Nationality Act 8USC§1182-1183
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999)
Immunity 22USC§254d
Immunity of Witnesses Generally 18USC§6002
Immunity of Witnesses; Court and Grand Jury Proceedings 18USC§6003; Certain Administrative Proceedings §6004 and Congressional Proceedings §6005
Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and Storage of Explosive Materials 18 USC chapters 40; Penalties 18USC§844, Additional Authority of Attorney General 18USC§846
Importation of Arms, Ammunitions and Implements of War 27 CFR part 47
Indigent Prisoners 28CFR§0.127
Influencing or Injuring Jurors 18 U.S.C. 1503
Injunction Proceedings Sec. 302 of Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&CA) 21USC§332
Insanity or mental incompetence of a prisoner 18U.S.C.4247
Inter-American Court of Human Rights 1978
Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications is prohibited 18USC§2511
Interference by armed forces 18USC§593
Interference with Commerce 18USC§1951
Inter-Governmental Agreement on Refugee Travel Documents. London. 15 October 1946
Interhandel (Switzerland v. United States) (1957-1959)
International Bar Association ICC Monitoring and Outreach Program HA-27-6-06
International Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 18 December 1990
International Court of Arbitration , Rules of Arbitration.
International Court of Justice (ICJ). Condition for Admission of a State to Membership
ICJ. History of the Court
ICJ. Statute of the Court
International Criminal Court
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia HA-25-12-04
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 23 March 1976
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 3 January 1976
International Drug Control 19USC§2484
International Prison Commission 22 U.S.C. 263a
International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL). History of Jury Nullification. June 2001
INTERPOL--United States National Central Bureau
Interpretations of Paragraph 4 of the Annex following Article 179 of the Treaty of Neuilly of 29 November 1919 (Greek Republic v. Kingdom Bulgaria) Permanent Court of Justice in No. 3 (12/9/1924)
Intimidation of voters 18USC§594 and 52USC§10101
J.E.B. v Alabama
Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence ratified by the Congress of the 15 states with 56 signatories on 4 July 1776. Drafted between 11 June and 28 June 1776
Jenks, Chris. Square Peg in a Round Hole: Government Contractor Battlefield Torts Liability and the Political Question Doctrine. Berkeley Journal of International Law. Vol. 28 Is. 1. (2010)
Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information of November 1996
Johnson v. Louisiana (1972)
Judicial Conference of the United States. Statement of Judge Paul G. Cassell United States District Court District of Utah to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of
Representatives on “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws – The Issues”. June 26, 2007
Judiciary Act of 1789
Judgment on the Prosecutor's Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I's 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal ICC-01/04-168 of 13 July 2006
Jurisdiction and venue of the Court of Claims 28 USC Chapter 91§1491-1509
Jurisdiction and Venue of the Court of International Trade 28USCode Chapter 95 §1581-1585
Jurisdiction by the United States, Fugitives from Justice. Crater Lake National Park 16USC§124
Jurisdiction over Park, Fugitives from Justice. Yellowstone National Park. 16USC§24
Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 28 U.S.C. § 1861-1878
Justice Management Division 28 CFR I 0.75
Justice System Improvement Act of 1984 42 US Code Chapter 46 Subchapters 1-15
Juvenile Delinquency 18USC§5031-§5042
Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings 18USC Part IV
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 42USC Chapter 72
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Kentucky v. Dennison (1860)
Kerlikowske, R. Gil. 2016 Performance and Accountability Report. US Customs ad Border Protection. 2016 January 18, 2017
Kirby v United States 174 US 47, 55 (1899)
Kohn, Stephen M. Jailed for Peace: The History of American Draft Law Violators, 1658-1985. 1995
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. Prohibition of Certain Persons from Holding Office 29USC§504
Lacey Act and related provisions 18 U.S.C. 41-48
Laeven, Luc; Laryea, Thomas. Principles of Household Debt Restructuring. IMF Staff Papers. June 26, 2009
LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America) (1999-2001)
Laundering of Monetary Instruments 18USC§1956
Law Enforcement Code of Conduct 1979
Law Enforcement Personnel within National Park System 16USC§1a–6
Law Enforcement Scholarship Program 34USC§12577
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, What is a Fair Trial? A Basic Guide to Legal Standards and Practice, 1995
Leasing of minerals on lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.
August 7, 1947, 61 Stat. 914, 30 U.S.C.352
Legal Consequences of Off-Season Flu Delivery HA-14-5-09
Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America) (1999)
Lehman, Godfrey D. Great Jury Trials of History. We the Jury…The Impact of Jurors on Our Basic Freedoms. Prometheus Books. Amherst, New York. 1997
Lichtblau, Eric. Thousands held in Federal Prisons too long. New York Times. May 24, 2016
Limitation on Detention; Control of Prisons 18USC§4001
Literacy Program 28 CFR pt. 544, subpt. H
London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc. 2007 SCC 29 June 21
McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (1948)
Machine Guns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms 26 USC chapter 53
Magna Carta June 15, 1215
Mandatory Restitution 18USC(77)§1593
Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary, NP Engel, 1993
Manslaughter 18USC§1112
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 23CFR655.601
Markman, Joshua A.; Durose, Matthew R.; Rantala, Ramona R.; Tiedt, Andrew D. Recidivism of Offenders Placed on Federal Community Supervision in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics. June 2016
Martinez et al v. Astrue No. Cal. No 08-CV-48735-CW August 11, 2009
Matters involving obstructions to navigation, and dredging or filling 33 U.S.C. 403
Medical Relief; Expenses 18USC§4005
Migratory Bird Act 16 U.S.C. 701
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (1984-1991)
Military Commissions Act S. 3930. October 17, 2006
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Monitoring of Inmate Phone Calls 28CFR§540.102
Moore, Lloyd. The Jury: Tool of Kings, Palladium of Liberty The W.H. Anderson Company. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1973
Murder 18USC§1111
National Association of Attorney General (NAAG)
National Conference of State Legislatures. Marijuana Legalization. November 2018
National Housing Act 18 U.S.C.1010
National Highway Traffic Safety Commission 23USC§408
National Institute of Justice 42 U.S.C. 3721-3723
National Juvenile Court Data Archive
National Park Service 18USC§1856
National Park Service and Related Organizations 54USC§100101 et seq
National Treasury Employees Union vs. Von Raob (1989)
Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009)
Nigel S. Rodley, The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987, (new edition forthcoming).
Norwegian Institute of Human Rights, Manual for Trial Observation, March 1996.
No Social Security Benefits for Prisoners Act of 2009, Public Law 111-115
Notice of eligibility for re-employment and other placement assistance 5CFR§351.803
Oath of Deputy 28USC§951
Obituary of Milan Babic HA-5-3-06
Obituary of Slobodan Milosevic HA-11-3-06
Obstruction of Justice Rule 96 (Art. 134) of the Manual for Courts-Martial
Obstruction of Lawful Hunt 16USC§5201
Obstruction of State or Local Law Enforcement 18USC§1511
O'Donnell, Daniel. Protectión internacional de los derechos humanos, Comisión Andina de Juristas, Lima 1988
Offenders with Mental Disease or Defect 18USC§4241-4247
Office of the Attorney General 28 CFR I 0.5
Office of the Associate Attorney General 28 CFR I 0.19
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 28 CFR I 0.119
Office of the Deputy Attorney General 28 CFR I 0.15
Office of Intelligence Policy and Review
Office of Justice Programs 28 CFR I 0.90
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Office of Legal Counsel 28 CFR I 0.25
Office of Legal Policy 28 CFR I 0.23
Office of Legislative Affairs 28 CFR I 0.27
Office of Professional Responsibility 28 CFR I 0.39
Office of Public Affairs 28 CFR I 0.28
Office of the Federal Register 1 CFR 16.1
Office of the Pardon Attorney 28 CFR I 0.35
Office of the Solicitor General 28 CFR I 0.20
Office of the Solicitor General may in consultation with each agency or official concerned, authorize intervention by the Government in cases involving the constitutionality of acts of Congress 28 CFR I 0.21
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (1992-2003)
Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments. Sec. 202 of Title II of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)II§402
Omnibus Crime and Safe Street Act 42U.S.C.§3789d
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 204
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all Discrimination against Women of 22 December 2000
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 4 February 2003
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil an Political Rights of 23 March 1976
Orders 36CFR§261.50
Organization 18USC§18
Other Criminal Penalties 52USC§21144
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
Patent and Copyright Cases 28 U.S.C. 1498
Patent Secrecy Act 35 U.S.C. 183
Payment of Benefits Sec. 1631 of Title XVI of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)XVI§1383
Payment of claims less than $1,000 by officers losing property 31 U.S.C. 3722
Payment of rewards with respect to escaped Federal prisoners 18 U.S.C.3059
Penalties 18USC§844 and 18USC§924
Penalties for Fraud and (gross) negligence 19 U.S.C. 1592
Penalties for Fraud Sec. 208 of Title II of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)II§408
Penalties for Fraud Sec. 1632 of Title XVI of the Social Security Act 42USC§1383a
Pennsylvania v. Balenger, 704 A2d 1385, 1389-90 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997)
Performance Appraisal 5USC§3595
Perjury 18USC§1621
Permanent Record. US Institute of Peace. August 2006
Peterson, Trudy Huskamp. US Institute of Peace. Special Report: Temporary Courts,
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 28USC§2241
Pointer v Texas 380 US 400, 405 (1965)
Points on a persons license 23 CFRPart1327
Policy 5USC§5301
Political campaign contributions and donations by foreign nationals are prohibited under 52USC§30121
Postal Reorganization Act 39 U.S.C. 3016
Power to Grant Writ 28USC§2241
Preference eligibles; retention; physical qualifications; waiver 5USC§3504
Prescribing rules and regulations applicable to the carrying of firearms by Bureau of
Principal 18USC§2
Prison-made goods 18USC§1761-1762
Prisons officers and employees 18USC§3050
Procedure and Administration 26 U.S.C. Chapters 61-80
Procedure for the Payment of Benefits 42USC§1393
Procedures of the Commission on Human Rights and published as the Rules of
Procedure of the Functional Commissions of the Economic and Social Council of 12 August 1947
Prohibited Acts Sec. 301 of Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&CA) 21USC§331
Prohibition against any Federal Interference 42USC§1395
Prohibition of foreign political campaign contributions under 52USC§30121
Prohibition of Terrorist Finance 18USC§2339C
Prohibition of Use as Evidence of Intercepted Information 18USC§2515
Promulgating rules governing the control and management of Federal penal and correctional institutions and providing for the classification, government, discipline, treatment, care, rehabilitation, and reformation of inmates confined therein 18 U.S.C. 4001, 4041, and 4042
Protection of Human Test Subjects. National Research Act. July 12, 1974. Title II, Public Law 93-348 45 CFR 46 .
Protection of National Forests; Rules and Regulations 16USC§551
Protocol (III) Additional to the Geneva Conventions relating the Adoption of a New Distinctive Emblem of 8 December 2005
Protocol of the Court of Justice of the African Union 11 July 2003
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and People’s Rights. 15 January 2004
Provisions for the health, safety, and welfare of Government witnesses and their families, including psychological well-being and social adjustment 18USC§3521
Preparation of the code and supplement for the United States and the District of Columbia 1USC§213 and §202(c)
Privileges and immunities of mission of nonparty to Vienna Convention 22USC§254b
Providing technical assistance to State and local governments 18USC§4042
Provision of material support for terrorists 18USC§2339A
Pub. L. 113–287, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272
Public Health Service officers serving correctional institutions 18USC§4005
Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987)
Puglise, Nicole. Black Americans Incarcerated five times more than white people. Guardian. 18 June 2016
Purposes of Sentencing 18USC§3553
Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America) (1992-2003)
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. Definitions 18USC§1961
Racketeering 18USC§1956, §1957, §1961
Rakas v. Illinois 439U.S.128 (1978)
Rasul v. Bush No. 03-334 (2004)
Recidivism 34USC§60501
Recommendation in Clemency Cases 28 CFR I 0.36
Recounts Fla. Stat. §102.141(4) (2000)
Recovery of Civil Damages 18USC(119)§2520
Reductions in Force 5 CFR Part 351
Reduction in Force in the Senior Executive Service 5USC§3595
Re-employment rights 28USC§569
Registration of Firearms. National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR), pursuant to section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26USC§5841
Regulation of Department of Justice Applicable 28 CFR I 0.32
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 29USC§794
Release and detention pending judicial proceedings 28 USC§3141-3156
Release of a Prisoner 18USC§3624
Removal from Senior Executive Service 5USC§3592
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1966
Representation to Federal Officials for Private Litigation 42 U.S.C. 2000d
Representing the United States in proceedings before courts of appeals 28 U.S.C. chapter 158 §2341-2350
Required Disclosure of Customer Communication or Records 18USC§2703
Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 S. 576 and HR 1415
Retaliation against victims, witnesses and informants 18USC§1513
Right to Bear Arms 16USC§1a-7b
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998
Rosenmerkel, Sean; Durose, Matthew; Farole, Donald Jr. Felony Sentences in State Courts 2006. Bureau of Justice Statistics. December 2009
Rules and regulations governing the payment of compensation to Inmates 18U.S.C.4126
Rules of Court of International Trade
Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court. 3-10 September 2002
Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee 26 July 1989
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Rules of the Supreme Court
R. v. Couture 2007 SCC 28 June 15
R. v. Davis [2008] UKHL 36 June 18
R. v. Spencer, SCC 11 2007: March 8
Saks, Michael J. Jury Verdicts. Lexington Books. D.C. Heath and Company. Lexington, Massachusetts. 1977
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (2006)
Sanford Levinson, Assessing the Supreme Court’s Current Caseload: A Question of Law or Politics?, 119 Yale L.J. 99 (2010)
Schedules of Controlled Substances 21USC§812
Scheidler v. National Org. for Women, Inc., 547 U.S. 9, 23 (2006)
Schriro, Dora. Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations. Homeland Security. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. October 6, 2009
Searches and Seizures by Government Officers and Employees in Connection with Investigation or Prosecution of Criminal Offenses 42USC§2000a
Second Optional Protocol aiming at the abolition of the death penalty of 15 December 1989
Sec. 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
Sec. 108 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
Seizure of Gambling Devices 28CFR§0.86
Set Timber Afire 18USC§1855
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, as amended in the 1972 Protocol
Skelly v. United States C. C. A. Okl. 1935, 76 F. 2d 483
Skinner vs. Railway Executives Association (1989) 489 US 602
Slobodan Milosevic v. Int’l Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia HA-25-12-04
Smith v Illinois 390 US 129, 131 (1968)
Sparf and Hansen v. U.S 1895
Spooner, Lysander. An Essay on The Trial By Jury. 1852
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1977)
Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Strasbourg Agreement Concerning International Patent Classification of March 24, 1971
Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc. 2007 SCC 24 June 1
Subornation of perjury 18USC§1622
Suits for compensation for the unauthorized communication of restricted data by the Atomic Energy Commission to other nations 42 U.S.C. 2223
Support 18USC§5040
Supreme Court of the United States Title 28USC§1
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 30 CFR part 706
Tampering with victims, witnesses and informants 18USC§1512
Tariff Act 1930
Tax Division 28 CFR I 0.70
Taxy, Sam; Samuels, Julie; Adams, William. Drug Offenders in Federal Prison: Estimates of Characteristics Based on Linked Data. Bureau of Justice Statistics. October 2015
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 42USC(IV-D)§601
Temporary Release of Prisoner 18USC§3622
Terrorism 18USC§2331
Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse (A-FRaI-D)
Trade Act 1974
Transportation Expenses 18USC§4008
Tennessee v. Culbreath, 30 S.W.3d 309, 314 (Tenn. 2000); KBA E-275 (July 1983)
The Special Court for Sierra Leone will use ICC Facilities for Trial of Charles Taylor. The Hague, 21 June 2006
Three Judge District Court Panel 28 U.S. Code chapter 157 §2321-2325
Tort filings 28U.S.C.2671-2680
Transfer of prisoner to appropriate hospital 18USC4245
Treaties Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court 1982
Treatment referrals for individuals with alcoholism or drug addiction condition 42USC§1383e
Trees Cut or Injured 18USC§1853
Tullock, Gordon. Trials on Trial: The Pure Theory of Legal Procedure. Columbia University Press. New, York. 1980
Twain, Mark. Roughing It. Limited Editions Club. New York, 1972, 1st printed Jan. 30, 1872
Unauthorized Access to Stored Documents 18USC§2701
Unauthorized intrusion and violation of rules and regulations 24USC§154
Uniform Commercial Code. The American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. 1978, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2001
United Kingdom Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights Fourth Report on the Mental Health Bill 4 February 2007
UN Centre for Human Rights, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Human Rights and Pre-Trial Detention, 1994. (UN Sales No. E.94.XIV.6)
United Nations Charter. San Francisco. 26 June 1945
UN Chronicle: Human Rights Council HA-30-3-06
United Nations Convention Against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988
United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network
United Nations Law Commission. Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts of 2001 with Comments
United Nations privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes under 22USC§254b
Unlawful Intrusion; Violation of Rules and Regulations 24USC§154
U.S. Attorney’s Manual
U.S. Attorney's Annual Statistical Report. Fiscal Year 2016
U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
U.S. Court of Federal Claims 28 USC Chapter 7 §171-179
U.S. Court of International Trade 28 U.S.C. Chapter 11 §251-258
US Customs and Border Protection. Vision and Strategy 2020. No. 0215-0315. March 2015
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran) (1979-1981)
United States District Court. 28US Code Chapter 5 § 81-144
US Marshal Service. General Functions 28CFR§0.111
US Parole Commission 28CFR§0.124
United States Marshals Service 28 CR I 0.111
U.S. Parole Commission 28 CFR I 0.124-0.127
US Sentencing Commission 28USC§991-998
United States v. Booker No. 04-104 (2005)
U.S. v One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S 618 F2d 453 [1980]
U.S. v. Dougherty. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (1973)
United States v. Hodorowicz, C. C. A. Ill. 1939, 105 F. 2d 218
United States v. Internet Research et al. District of Columbia. Grand Jury Indictment. Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Feb. 16, 2018
US v. Jerry Chung Shing Lee, aka Zhen Cheng Li Criminal No. 1: 18 – MJ – 18 Jan. 14, 2018
United States v. Lettiere, 640 F.3d 1271, 1273 (9th Cir. 2011)
United States v. Mandel, 647 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2011)
United States v. Preacher, 631 F.3d 1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2011)
U.S. v. Simpson (1973)
United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908, 913 (4th Cir. 1980).
United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights December 10, 1948
Unlawful Acts 18USC§922
Unlawful Intrusion Violation of Rules and Regulations 24USC§154
Use of the Interstate Commercial Facility in the Commission of Murder for Hire 18USC§1958
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 (T.I.A.S. numbered 7502; 23 U.S.T. 3227) 1963
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America) (1998)
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action 25 June 1993
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-322)
Voting Rights Act, adopted initially in 1965 and extended in 1970, 1975, and 1982 and 2005
Walmsley, Roy. World Prison Brief. World Prison Population List. 11th ed. Institute for Criminal Policy Research. London. 2016
Weir, Alison. If Americans Knew. Censored 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories. Seven Stories Press. 2004
Weissbrodt, David. "International Trial Observers", Stanford Journal of International Law, Volume 18, Issue 1, Spring 1982.
Weissbrodt, David and Wolfrum, Rüdiger. The Right to a Fair Trial, Beiträge zum Ausländischen Recht öffentichen und Völkerrecht, Vol. 129, Springer, Berlin 1998.
Whisner, Mary. The United States Code: Prima Facie Evidence and Positive Law. Law Library Journal. Vol. 101:4 [2009-30]
Wilderness Preservation System 16USC§1131
Wild Horses and Wild Burros Act 16USC§1338
William A. Schabas, The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law, second edition, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1997
Williams v. Florida (1970)
Will of Mr. Lee Jong-wook HA-31-3-06
Witness Fees 28USC§1821
Witness Relocation and Protection Program 18USC§3521
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)
World Health Organization. Working Paper on Patent Issues Relating to the influenza Virus and their Genes. And Annex November 17, 2007
World Prison Population HA-16-12-04
Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 609 (2001)
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- ohio attorney general file complaint
- louisiana attorney general safety box
- ohio attorney general consumer complaints
- ohio attorney general website
- california attorney general complaint form
- oregon state attorney general office
- ohio state attorney general complaints
- washington state attorney general election
- washington attorney general candidates 2020
- attorney general complaint form pa
- attorney general new york complaints
- attorney general california online complaint