Scarlet-Letter Passports Are Unjust and Irrational

11-1-17 Washington DC:

The new "unique identifier" for sex offenders stigmatizes people who pose no threat.

The notice, which will appear on the second-to-last page of U.S. passports, is officially known as an "endorsement," but it is more like a badge of shame. "The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor," it says, "and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(l)."

The scary notation, which was revealed this week, is the State Department's response to a 2016 law requiring that the passports of certain registered sex offenders include a "unique identifier" to help maintain their status as pariahs wherever they travel. Although the warning is supposedly aimed at stopping sexual predators from abusing children in other countries, it will mark the passports of many people who pose no such threat. ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Supreme Court asked to review McLean County sex offender issue

6-4-17 Illinois:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a case against a Normal man to determine the constitutionality of Illinois' rules mandating that sex offenders report all their internet activity to authorities.

In a petition filed with the nation's highest court, lawyers for Mark Minnis, 24, are asking for a review of whether offenders' First Amendment rights are violated by a requirement that they report all internet activity to police who then disclose that information to the public.

Minnis was 16 when he was deemed a delinquent juvenile in 2010 for having sex with a 14-year-old girl. He was required to register as a sex offender for 10 years for criminal sexual abuse, a misdemeanor offense.

In August 2014, Minnis was charged with failure to register as a sex offender, a felony, after he failed to include a previously disclosed Facebook account on a registration form.

McLean County Judge Robert Freitag dismissed the charges on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional based on the breadth of information an offender is required to report.

The Illinois State Supreme Court reversed Freitag's ruling in a 2016 decision that recognized that the right to "publish and distribute writings while remaining anonymous" extends to internet speech but, the court ruled, that right is "not absolute."

Minnis' case is on hold in McLean County until a decision by the high court is made about whether to review the case.

In their petition, filed in February, Minnis' lawyers with the State Appellate Defender's Office note "the issues in this case have been percolating through state and federal courts for years now as variations of this scheme have proliferated across the states, part of a flood of ever-more draconian restrictions on sex offenders."

The Illinois Supreme Court decision is contrary to rulings in similar cases in other states, claim Minnis' attorneys. "Illinois is now a national outlier on this issue," said the court filing.

Defense lawyers also criticize Illinois' handling of youth sex offenders, citing research included in a state Juvenile Justice Commission report that juvenile sex offenders are "highly amendable to treatment and highly unlikely to sexually reoffend."

It opposing the review, the Illinois Attorney General's office argues that public availability of sex offenders' internet identities "allows the public to recognize sex offenders when they encounter them online, just as the public availability of sex offenders' current photographs allows the public to recognize sex offenders when they encounter them face-to-face."

People vs. Minnis is not an appropriate case for the First Amendment challenge, the state argues, because the information released on juvenile offenders is far less than what is available for adult offenders.

The Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this year in a North Carolina case involving a sex offender charged with violating the state's ban on internet access. A decision in that case, along with a potential ruling in the Minnis matter, could change sex offender rules across the nation. ..Source.. by Edith Brady-Lunny

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

U.S. Senate declares April 'Second Chances Month' in support of former inmates

4-30-17 Washington DC:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution Wednesday declaring April as "Second Chances Month" for people who were once incarcerated and are trying to break back into mainstream society.

The resolution - sponsored by Ohio Sen. Rob Portman and supported by a bipartisan group of colleagues - asks that citizens nationwide observe Second Chance Month by supporting "actions and programs that promote awareness of collateral consequences and provide closure for individuals who have paid their debts," a news release from the national prison ministry network Prison Fellowship.

Prison Fellowship declared April 2017 "Second Chance Month" weeks ago in an effort to "reduce social stigma and barriers that plague Americans with criminal records," the news release states.

Even though April has nearly come to a close, the ministry organization encourages a continued effort to change public ideas of formerly incarcerated people by asking churches to hold a "Second Chance Sunday" to preach about redemption and second chances, for example.

"There is no such thing as a throwaway person, and by granting second chances to those who have earned them, we will be contributing to the restoration of families, communities and our nation," Craig DeRoche, the senior vice president of Prison Fellowship, said in the release. ..Source.. by Jane Morice, cleveland.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Congress and Second Chances

4-30-17 Washington DC:

The Senate, on 4-25-17, in a Senate Resolution (S.Res 129) declares April as "Second Chance Month."

The House, not to be outdone, on 4-26-17 in a House Resolution (H.Res 281) declares April as "Second Chance Month."

Given today is 4-30-17 I guess we are ready to celebrate next year in April.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

DEA Seized $4 Billion From People Since 2007. Most Were Never Charged with a Crime

4-8-17 National:

A new government watchdog report finds the DEA grabs cash just for the sake of grabbing cash, raising civil liberties concerns.

The Drug Enforcement Administration seized more than $4 billion in cash from people suspected of drug activity over the last decade, but $3.2 billion of those seizures were never connected to any criminal charges.

A report by the Justice Department Inspector General released Wednesday found that the DEA's gargantuan amount of cash seizures often didn't relate to any ongoing criminal investigations, and 82 percent of seizures it reviewed ended up being settled administratively—that is, without any judicial review—raising civil liberties concerns.

In total, the Inspector General reports the DEA seized $4.15 billion in cash since 2007, accounting for 80 percent of all Justice Department cash seizures. Those figures do not include other property, such as cars and electronics, which are favorite targets for seizure by law enforcement.

All of this is possible through civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize property if they suspect it's connected to criminal activity, without having to file criminal charges against the owner. While law enforcement groups say civil asset forfeiture is a vital tool to disrupt drug traffickers and organized crime, the Inspector General's findings echo the concerns of many civil liberties groups, which say asset forfeiture creates perverse incentives for law enforcement to seize property.

"When seizure and administrative forfeitures do not ultimately advance an investigation or prosecution, law enforcement creates the appearance, and risks the reality, that it is more interested in seizing and forfeiting cash than advancing an investigation or prosecution," the Inspector General warned.

Darpana Sheth, an attorney for the libertarian-leaning nonprofit law firm Institute for Justice, said in a statement that the report's findings "fundamentally undercut law enforcement's claim that civil forfeiture is a vital crime-fighting tool."

"Americans are already outraged at the Justice Department's aggressive use of civil forfeiture, which has mushroomed into a multibillion dollar program in the last decade," she continued. "This report only further confirms what we have been saying all along: Forfeiture laws create perverse financial incentives to seize property without judicial oversight and violate due process." ..Continued.. by C.J. Ciaramella

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACTION ALERT: New bill in Congress affecting certain sex offenders

Updated 4-16: Strengthening Children’s Safety Act closes loopholes in existing laws and Lawmakers pushing legislation to strengthen punishment for child sexual abusers

4-1-17 Washington DC:

Bill: HR 1842 To amend title 18, United States Code, to include State crimes of violence as grounds for an enhanced penalty when sex offenders fail to register or report certain information as required by Federal law, to include prior military offenses for purposes of recidivist sentencing provisions, and for other purposes. eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACTION ALERT: Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2017

3-26-17 Washington DC:

The Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2017 (HR 1188) is up for a vote.

Purpose: To reauthorize certain programs established by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, and for other purposes..

This bill includes several provisions folks can review at the link above, but there is one very important one we will make a point of:

SEC. 7. Additional information to be included in annual report on enforcement of registration requirements. Section 635 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16991) is amended— ... ... ...

(5) by adding after paragraph (5) the following:

“(6) the number of sex offenders registered in the National Sex Offender Registry;

“(7) the number of sex offenders registered in the National Sex Offender Registry who—

“(A) are adults;
“(B) are juveniles;
“(C) are adults, but who are required to register as a result of conduct committed as a juvenile; and
“(D) were convicted of statutory rape as a result of conduct committed as a juvenile; and

“(8) to the extent such information is obtainable, of the number of sex offenders registered in the National Sex Offender Registry who are juveniles—

“(A) the percentage of such offenders who were adjudicated delinquent; and
“(B) the percentage of such offenders who were prosecuted as adults.”.

Many folks have been looking for such numbers.
So, there is more in the bill click on the link above to see all of it.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ISPs can now sell your browsing history without permission, thanks to the U.S. Senate

Republicans want to let internet providers sell your data without your consent

3-23-2017 Washington DC:

The US Senate has voted to overturn consumer privacy laws enacted last year by the FCC. The rules, which forced internet service providers to actually get permission before selling your data, were overturned using the little-used Congressional Review Act (CRA).

Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal said before the vote that “This resolution is a direct attack on consumer rights, on privacy, on rules that afford basic protection against intrusive and illegal interference with consumers’ use of social media sites and websites that often they talk for granted.” Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.

Assuming that this resolution passes through the House, which seems likely at this point, your broadband and wireless internet service provider will have free reign to collect and sell personal data along to third parties. That information may include (but is not limited to!) location, financial, healthcare and browsing data scraped from customers. As a result of the ruling, you can expect ISPs to begin collecting this data by default. Some ISPs may choose to include an opt-out from data collection in account settings.

The privacy rules were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission last October, under Obama-era chairman Tom Wheeler. The new chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, is trying to rebrand the Commission as a technological regulator that manages things like spectrum, with the minimum possible amount of regulation of the telecoms industry as a whole.

That might sound like an ideal situation for light-touch regulation, but with the wireless and cable industries both operating as powerful oligopolies, consumers will be left with zero protection against price-gouging, no advocate for net neutrality, and as today demonstrates, far less control over their own data. ..Source.. by Chris Mills

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Goodlatte Statement at Markup of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act

Does anyone have some authority for the highlighted comment below? Some real research or other authority? The comment below is found HERE (remarks pg-2) but still no authority! Is there any other authority? YES see links to 13%

3-22-17 Washington DC:

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) today delivered the following remarks during the House Judiciary Committee’s markup of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2017 (H.R. 1188).

ChairmanGoodlatte: It has been over a decade since President George W. Bush signed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The Walsh Act was a monumental bill, changing how this nation addresses registering, monitoring, and apprehending sex offenders. Research shows that sexual crimes reported to police decline by an average of 13% within a jurisdiction after enacting a registry. What cannot be quantified, however, is the prevented harm, or the damage to our children that has been averted thanks to the presence of a sex offender registry. Prevention is key, and that is precisely the goal of the Adam Walsh Act. We must never take that for granted.

That is why today we will consider the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2017, introduced by Congressman Sensenbrenner, the author of the original Walsh Act. This bill reauthorizes the Sex Offender Management Assistance Program, and provides funding for the United States Marshals Service, which is tasked with identifying and apprehending unregistered sex offenders. Additionally, the bill expands the time in which a victim of child exploitation or trafficking may pursue a civil remedy.

The bill also aims to improve the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA, and make it easier for states to comply. Thus far 17 states, 108 tribes, and 3 territories are in substantial compliance with the law. The intent of this bill is to ensure many more jurisdictions come into compliance. Over the past several years, DOJ has worked closely with states to achieve this goal, by promulgating flexible guidelines and via the continued hard work of the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, or the “SMART” office.

The bill takes several concrete steps to encourage compliance. For example, it addresses concerns many have expressed about juvenile offenders. It is important to keep in mind that only juveniles who have committed the most serious sex offenses, such as first degree rape, are subject to registration under SORNA. Nevertheless, HR 1188 lessens the amount of time a juvenile who keeps a clean record must be on the registry. If these youths keep a clean record for 15 years, they may petition to leave the registry. Additionally, under the DOJ guidelines, states who choose to do so may forego putting certain juveniles on the public registry.

Further, the bill alleviates the costs of implementation by explicitly permitting alternative means for in-person check-ins for registrants, and lessening the number of required check-ins. This is a reasonable amendment that will help states with significant rural populations achieve compliance.

Last year, the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act passed the Senate by a unanimous, bipartisan vote of 89-0. Notably, our bill here today goes further than the Senate bill did, by including specific provisions to encourage further implementation of the Act.

As we heard at last week’s hearing: There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children. I implore my colleagues to take that to heart and support H.R. 1188 to reauthorize the Adam Walsh Act. ..Continued.. by Goodlatte

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Congress Had to Tell Donald Trump to Stop Deleting His Tweets

3-14-17 Washington DC:

Donald Trump might be done tweeting and deleting-at least if he listens to Congress. This weeks, two members of Congress sent the White House a letter warning them that Trump and his staff might be violating federal law when they delete tweets from the president's official accounts, according to Teen Vogue.

The letter (which is available to read in full here) warns that tweets from both the @realDonaldTrump and the official @POTUS accounts "are likely to be presidential records and therefore must be preserved." If those deleted tweets aren't archived, then Trump and his staff could be violating the Presidential Records Act.

Trump infamously deleted a tweet less than 24 hours after taking office, when he misspelled "honored" and has tweeted and deleted after similar errors since.

Hi just a reminder, donald trump uses the words: bigly, unpresidented, and now honered (lol of course he would misspell honored) pic.twitter.com/7HUWU3LbDi

- Candace ⚛️✊🏽 (@basedlightskin) January 21, 2017

Trump spelled "hereby" wrong. Took two minutes to correct it. Got it wrong again. Let's see if third time's the charm... pic.twitter.com/UajEXbxc1C

- Marlow Stern (@MarlowNYC) March 3, 2017

As Teen Vogue notes, in January, Ezra Mechaber, a deputy director of digital strategy during Obama's presidency addressed how the previous administration handled social media archives.

@ZekeJMiller We eventually set up auto-archiving for official platforms, so errors could be corrected while preserving the original. ..Continued.. by From Harper's BAZAAR

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

A major Supreme Court case could affect the way you access Twitter and Facebook

3-10-17 Washington DC:

A Supreme Court case could affect the way Americans access social media.

The justices heard arguments for Peckingham v. North Carolina on Monday, over a law the state passed preventing sex offenders from using social networking sites.

While the law may seem targeted, constitutional scholars warn it could have chilling effects on many Americans’ First Amendment rights.

David Post, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and retired law professor from Temple University, filed a friend of the court brief with 14 other First Amendment scholars. They argue that the North Carolina law violates the sex offenders’ constitutional right to free speech.

Sex offenders are entitled to the same rights to free speech that any American does, Post told Business Insider.

They already served their time in prison, and are off probation, so, the state shouldn’t be able to violate their constitutional rights, according to Post.

“Not to be too extreme or hysterical about it, but I think this is the opening ledge in an attack on social networking,” Post said. “That could be very dangerous, and the court has a chance to really nip that in the bud and reaffirm that this is what the First Amendment is about — protecting these forms of communication between citizens for good and for ill. That’s just the price we pay for having the First Amendment.” ..Continued.. by Rebecca Harrington

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Argument preview: Removal of an immigrant for “sexual abuse of a minor”

3-1-17:

Over the last few years, the Supreme Court has decided a number of criminal-removal cases. Next week, the justices will hear oral argument in another one, Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, which stems from the government’s effort to remove a lawful permanent resident for a “sex crime.”

The facts of the case sound like an episode of “Law and Order SVU.” In 2000, Juan Esquivel-Quintana’s parents lawfully brought him to the United States and settled in Sacramento, California. When he was 20 years old, Esquivel-Quintana had consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend.

He later pleaded no contest to violating California Penal Code § 261.5(c), which criminalizes sex with a person “under the age of 18 years” when the age difference between the parties is more than three years.

Esquivel-Quintana was sentenced to 90 days in jail and five years’ probation. After his release from jail, he moved from California to Michigan, a state in which the conduct underlying his criminal conviction would not have been a crime. ..Continued.. by Kevin Johnson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

White House circulates talking points ahead of speech to Congress

2-28-17 Washington DC:

President Donald Trump’s highly-anticipated first address to Congress on Tuesday will detail an “optimistic vision” for the nation that vows to push a “bold agenda” on tax and regulatory overhauls, reforms in the workplace and a promise to “sav[e] American families from the disaster of Obamacare.”

That’s according to a list of 11 key bullet points outlining Trump’s speech from the White House that was obtained by POLITICO in advance of the address. In it, Trump will also paint his agenda with broad, unifying tones, saying he will “invite Americans of all backgrounds to come together in the service of a stronger, brighter future for our nation.”

“All Americans share a desire for safe communities for themselves and their families,” reads one of the points. “All Americans want their children to have access to good schools. And all Americans deserve good jobs that allow them to prosper and dream. For far too many people – “the forgotten men and women” – these fundamental desires have been out of reach for too long.”

Here is the outline of Trump’s address, distributed by the White House: ..Continued.. by Seung Min Kim

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Renounce U.S., Here's How IRS Computes 'Exit Tax'

2-28-17 Washington DC:

There is considerable talk today about leaving America, and the head count is up. Of course, the numbers are still small compared to those who are arriving. And despite the rhetoric, it is rarely political. Some of it is about family, and about the pressures of America’s global tax reporting and compliance regime, including FATCA (the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act).

Giving up a U.S. passport is not to be taken lightly, nor is giving up a long term (8 years or more) green card. For some, there is even an IRS tax on your exit. You pay tax on all your income every year. The Exit Tax is like an estate tax on the gain in your assets, even though you are not actually selling anything. It is the IRS’s last chance to tax you.

The Exit Tax is computed as if you sold all your assets on the day before you expatriated, and had to report the gain. Currently, net capital gains can be taxed as high as 23.8%, including the net investment income tax. For a time, Congress talked of hiking the tax to 30% after Eduardo Saverin of Facebook fame took off for Singapore. Still, 23.8% is nothing to sneeze at. There are three triggers for the Exit Tax, and any one of them will make you a “covered expatriate.”

First, is your net worth over $2 million? This is the aggregate net value of worldwide assets. It is not just your U.S. assets. For married taxpayers, each spouse’s net worth is calculated separately from the other. If they own their assets relatively equally, a married couple could have a total net worth of up to $4 million without triggering the Exit Tax.

On the other hand, if one spouse owns most of the assets, that spouse could be a covered expatriate, even if the other spouse owns significantly less than $2 million of assets. Thankfully, some couples can gift assets to each other to bring both spouses’ net worths to below $2 million. If the spouse receiving the gifts is a U.S. citizen, these gifts may escape U.S. gift tax. ..Continued.. by Robert W. Wood

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court may strike law barring sex offenders from social media

see: Amy Howe "Argument analysis: Justices skeptical about social media restrictions for sex offenders" or Oral Argument Transcript and Different Formats

2-27-17 Washington DC:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court appears likely to strike down a North Carolina law that prohibits sex offenders from using Facebook and other social networking sites.

At least five justices suggested during argument Monday they would rule for North Carolina resident Lester Packingham Jr. He was convicted of violating a 2008 law aimed at keeping sex offenders off internet sites children might use. Packingham used Facebook to boast about beating a traffic ticket.

Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the law is so broad it also prevents people from reading the Twitter accounts of President Donald Trump, all 50 governors and members of Congress.

The state's lawyer said the law deals with the virtual world in the same way that states keep sex offenders out of playgrounds and other places children visit. ..Source.. by AP

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ALERT: Packingham case, Oral Argument Monday 27th

See also: NC law banning registered sex offenders from social media faces challenge at Supreme Court

2-21-17 Washington DC:

Issue: Whether, under the court’s First Amendment precedents, a law that makes it a felony for any person on the state's registry of former sex offenders to “access” a wide array of websites – including Facebook, YouTube, and nytimes.com – that enable communication, expression, and the exchange of information among their users, if the site is “know[n]” to allow minors to have accounts, is permissible, both on its face and as applied to petitioner, who was convicted based on a Facebook post in which he celebrated dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring “God is Good!”

All briefs on the SCOTUS blog

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

New bill would require Donald Trump's White House to hire a psychiatrist amid fears for President's mental health

2-9-17 Washington DC:

'If there are questions about the mental health of the president of the United States, what may be the best way to get the president treatment?'

A Democratic congressman has said he plans to file a bill to require the White House to hire an in-house psychiatrist for Donald Trump.

“I’m looking at it from the perspective of, if there are questions about the mental health of the president of the United States, what may be the best way to get the president treatment?” California's representative Ted Lieu told The Huffington Post.

Mr Lieu added: “We’re now in the 21st century. Mental health is just as important as physical health."

He said he was planning to introduce the legislation early next week.

In 1928, Congress passed a law requiring a physician in the White House, but the law stopped short of calling for a psychiatrist because of the stigma around mental health issues at the time.

Last week, Mr Lieu criticised Mr Trump for his tweets attacking the New York Times and defending his executive order on immigration, which banned people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US. ..Continued.. by Samuel Osborne

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

New Legislation Introduced To Remove Bannon From Trump Cabinet

2-8-2017 National:

This week, Congresswoman Murphy will introduce the Protect National Security Council from Political Interference Act of 2017 (HR 804). Below is the letter sent to her fellow congressional colleagues asking for support on this bill:

Dear Colleague,

I respectfully invite you to become a cosponsor of legislation I will introduce early this week, entitled the Protect the National Security Council from Political Interference Act of 2017. The bill is a response to the President’s January 28, 2017 national security memorandum organizing the National Security Council (NSC).

The NSC was created by the National Security Act of 1947 as an inter-agency body to advise the president “with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security so as to enable the Armed Forces and the other departments and agencies of the United States Government to cooperate more effectively in matters involving the national security.” In 1989, President George H.W. Bush established three NSC sub-groups, including the NSC Principals Committee, which is chaired by the National Security Advisor. Since that date, the Principals Committee has served as the senior interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security.

My bill contains two provisions.

First, the bill amends the 1947 law to ensure that no individual whose “primary or predominant responsibility is political in nature” shall be designated as a member of the Council or be authorized to regularly attend meetings of the Council or meetings of sub-groups within the Council like the Principals Committee. This is a response to language in the January 28th memorandum authorizing the “Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist”—a title held by Stephen K. Bannon—to be a permanent member of the NSC and to attend all NSC and Principals Committee meetings. Mr. Bannon’s role in the administration clearly has a strong political component, in addition to a policy component. According to David J. Rothkopf, the author of what has been called the “definitive history” of the NSC, there appears to be no precedent for a political advisor so deeply enmeshed in domestic politics serving as a permanent member of the NSC. Senator John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, described Mr. Bannon’s appointment as a “radical departure from any National Security Council in history.”

To be sure, presidents should have broad discretion to shape the NSC according to their preferences. However, there should be limits to this discretion, particularly if the proposed changes inject, or could reasonably be perceived as injecting, domestic politics into the process of making national security policy. During a 2016 panel discussion, Josh Bolten, who served as chief of staff to President George W. Bush, made this precise point:

[U]nder the Bush NSC, one thing that I found incredibly important and valuable was that there was a separation between debate over policy and domestic politics.I don’t think in the many years that I was there . . . . [T]he reason you never saw Karl Rove in a national security meeting was that the President told Karl Rove, you may never come to a National Security Council meeting. . . . We didn’t advertise that, but the President made that clear right at the beginning. If it’s an NSC meeting, you may not appear. And it wasn’t because he didn’t respect Karl’s advice or didn’t value his input.He valued it enormously, and Karl is one of the—one of the brightest and most eclectically informed and bright individuals I’ve ever known, who could have substantially useful input on almost any issue. But the President also knew that the signal he wanted to send to the rest of his administration, the signal he wanted to send to the public, and the signal he especially wanted to send to the military is that the decisions I’m making that involve life and death for the people in uniform will not be tainted by any political decisions.” (emphasis added)

Second, the bill expresses the Sense of Congress that there should be no limit on the ability of the Director of National Intelligence (the chief intelligence advisor to the president) or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the principal military advisor to the president, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council) to attend Principals Committee meetings. This is a response to language in the January 28th memorandum limiting the attendance of these two individuals to only those meetings “where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.” This language is not unprecedented—similar language appeared in the 2001 memorandum issued by President George W. Bush—but it has caused concern among experts of all political stripes, particularly when it is juxtaposed against the decision to give Mr. Bannon unfettered access to NSC and Principals Committee meetings. The DNI and the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, given their importance to national security, should have a standing invitation to attend all Principals Committee meetings.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Murphy ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Packingham v. North Carolina: Oral Argument

1-27-17 National:

Oral argument is Feb 27, 2017:

See HERE for complete information.

Issue: Whether, under the court’s First Amendment precedents, a law that makes it a felony for any person on the state's registry of former sex offenders to “access” a wide array of websites – including Facebook, YouTube, and nytimes.com – that enable communication, expression, and the exchange of information among their users, if the site is “know[n]” to allow minors to have accounts, is permissible, both on its face and as applied to petitioner, who was convicted based on a Facebook post in which he celebrated dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring “God is Good!”

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Supreme Court Lets Stand Websites’ Liability Shield in Child Sex Trafficking Case

1-11-17 National:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court’s decision that an online advertising site accused by three young women of facilitating child sex trafficking was protected by a federal law that has shielded website operators from liability for content posted by others.

The refusal by the justices to take up the women’s appeal in the case involving the advertising website Backpage.com marked a victory for the tech industry, which could have faced far-reaching consequences had the Supreme Court decided to limit the scope of the Communications Decency Act, passed by Congress in 1996 to protect free speech on the internet. ..Source.. by Andrew Chung

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...