Sessions – R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

Nobody Is Above the Law—Mueller Protection Rapid Response

David Posnett — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 07:31:48 +0000

PROTESTS CALLED FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 5 PM LOCAL TIME
Donald Trump has installed a crony to oversee the special counsel’s Trump-Russia investigation, crossing a red line set to protect the investigation. By replacing Rod Rosenstein with just-named Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker as special counsel Robert Mueller’s boss on the investigation, Trump has undercut the independence of the investigation. Whitaker has publicly outlined strategies to stifle the investigation and cannot be allowed to remain in charge of it. The Nobody Is Above the Law network demands that Whitaker immediately commit not to assume supervision of the investigation. Our hundreds of response events are being launched to demonstrate the public demand for action to correct this injustice. We will update this page as the situation develops.

Enter your ZIP code here and find the closest rally to protest: Nobody Is Above the Law

Once you sign up, make sure to invite friends to join you at the event!

In New York State the following towns have rallies planned:

NY: Albany, Auburn, Batavia, Beacon, Binghamton, Bronx, Buffalo, Canandaigua, Canton, Cobleskill, Corning, Cortland, Delhi, Fishkill, Fredonia, Geneseo, Geneva, Glens Falls, Huntington Village, Ithaca, Jamestown, Kinderhook, Kingston, Massapequa Park, Middletown, Mineola, Nanuet, New York, Newark, Olean, Oneonta, Patchogue, Peekskill, Plattsburgh, Port Jefferson Station, Rhinebeck, Riverhead, Rochester, Rockaway Park, Saranac Lake, Saratoga Springs, Syracuse, Utica, Warwick, Watertown, White Plains

The closest events for those on the East End of Long Island are Patchogue (Thursday 5PM) and Riverhead, rescheduled for Sat. at noon.

All Protests:

and here is the News Report in Newsday:

https://www.newsday.com/long-island/fearing-end-of-russia-election-probe-long-islanders-protest-sessions-ouster-1.23140412?fbclid=IwAR2n5zjszcs8fRBr3eFvtapt7dtS6aw_ymuGI3j60q-WKw26o51vEXLZYQc

21 State Attorneys General Demand Sessions End the “Zero Tolerance Policy”

David Posnett — Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:48:29 +0000

Twenty-one State AGs have a demanded that the Trump Administration end the policy that is the root of the disastrous family separation situation unfolding on the South border.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

HECTOR H. BALDERAS ATTORNEY GENERAL

June 19, 2018

The undersigned Attorneys General write to express our strong opposition to the Department of Justice’s new “zero tolerance” policy of forcibly separating all families that cross the border illegally, including those seeking asylum. The policy is not only inhumane, but it also raises serious concerns regarding the violation of children’s rights, constitutional principles of due process and equal protection, and the efforts of state law enforcement officials to stop crime. Because of these concerns, we demand that the Department of Justice immediately cease these draconian practices.

On April 6, 2018, the Attorney General announced a new “zero tolerance” policy, calling for the immediate criminal prosecution of all individuals who illegally enter the United States, including those seeking asylum. Under this policy, adults who enter the United States are brought to federal prisons, instead of immigrant detention centers, and their children are treated as “unaccompanied minors” and forcibly placed into the care of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement.

As you are aware, the fundamental rights of children are expressed in international, federal, and state bodies of law. Each of these laws is, at its core, designed to protect the best interests of children. These laws are representative of the views of millions of Americans that the government, in any process, should first and foremost seek to protect those interests. Almost universally, the statutory mandates and the litany of cases interpreting them overwhelmingly express that a child’s best interests are served by remaining with his or her family, absent a rigorous judicial inquiry resulting in a finding that a parent is unfit or proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. Policies that separate a child from his or her parent absent that level of inquiry, would not only be illegal under most state laws, but also may be contrary to the policy views of state legislatures and their constituents across this country.

These views are complemented by numerous laws and judicial precedent that mandate and hold that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children. This principle is affirmed in both state and federal law, by both statute and judicial precedent. The notion that the government should intrude into the rights of a parent to be with their child has historically been met with extremely high levels of scrutiny. Thus, the deliberate separation of families for the express purpose of furthering an immigration policy is contrary to our laws.

Not only is it highly concerning that current Department of Justice policies may be in contravention of the express purpose of these legal mandates, but these practices directly interfere with the efforts of our offices and other enforcement officials—locally, nationally, and internationally—to prevent and prosecute crime. In most states, Attorneys General are responsible for enforcing laws that include human trafficking, drug trafficking, and gang violence offenses. As you are keenly aware, these issues are rarely local in context; rather, they require the efforts and collaboration of law enforcement officials across both state and international borders to prevent the widespread and syndicated perpetration of these crimes. These efforts rely on reporting and cooperation from survivors of these crimes and victims of criminal organizations. The practice of mandatory family separation is both inhumane and contrary to the efforts of the law enforcement and others who dedicate their tireless efforts to stopping violent criminals.

Put simply, the deliberate separation of children and their parents who seek lawful asylum in America is wrong. This practice is contrary to American values and must be stopped. We demand that you immediately reverse these harmful policies, as it is in the best interests of the children and families affected.

Sincerely,

Hector Balderas Xavier Becerra
Attorney General of California

George Jepsen Matthew P. Denn
Attorney General of Connecticut Attorney General of Delaware

Karl Racine

Attorney General for the District of Columbia

Lisa Madigan
Attorney General of Illinois

Janet Mills
Attorney General of Maine

Maura Healy
Attorney General of Massachusetts

Gurbir Grewal
Attorney General of New Jersey

Russell Suzuki
Attorney General of Hawaii

Thomas J. Miller Attorney General of Iowa

Brian Frosh
Attorney General of Maryland

Lori Swanson
Attorney General of Minnesota

Barbara D. Underwood Attorney General of New York

Josh Stein
Attorney General of North Carolina

Josh Shapiro
Attorney General of Pennsylvania

Thomas J. Donovan, Jr. Attorney General of Vermont

Bob Ferguson
Attorney General of Washington

Ellen Rosenblum
Attorney General of Oregon

Peter F. Kilmartin
Attorney General of Rhode Island

Mark R. Herring
Attorney General of Virginia

Justice demands 1.3M IP addresses related to Trump resistance site — This is 2017, Not 1984

David Posnett — Wed, 16 Aug 2017 23:32:12 +0000

From The Hill

BY MORGAN CHALFANT – 08/14/17

The Department of Justice has requested information on visitors to a website used to organize protests against President Trump, the Los Angeles-based Dreamhost said in a blog post published on Monday.

Dreamhost, a web hosting provider, said that it has been working with the Department of Justice for several months on the request, which believes goes too far under the Constitution.

DreamHost claimed that the complying with the request from the Justice Department would amount to handing over roughly 1.3 million visitor IP addresses to the government, in addition to contact information, email content and photos of thousands of visitors to the website, which was involved in organizing protests against Trump on Inauguration Day.“That information could be used to identify any individuals who used this site to exercise and express political speech protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment,” DreamHost wrote in the blog post on Monday. “That should be enough to set alarm bells off in anyone’s mind.”

When contacted, the Justice Department directed The Hill to the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. The U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment but provided the filings related to the case.

The company is currently challenging the request. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Friday in Washington.

“In essence, the Search Warrant not only aims to identify the political dissidents of the current administration, but attempts to identify and understand what content each of these dissidents viewed on the website,” the company’s general counsel, Chris Ghazarian, said in a legal argument opposing the request.

The web provider published a search warrant issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia that asks for records and information related to the website and its owner, along with information that could be used to identify subscribers of the website.

This includes “names, addresses, telephone numbers and other identifiers, e-mail addresses, business information, the length of service (including start date), means and source of payment for services (including any credit card or bank account number), and information about any domain name registration.”

The warrant, dated July 12, says that authorities will seize any information constituting violations of D.C. code governing riots that involve individuals connected to the protests on Inauguration Day.

More than 200 people were indicted on felony rioting charges in connection with the protests in Washington on Jan. 20.

Trump Administration Quietly Rolls Back Civil Rights Efforts Across Federal Government

David Posnett — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 21:45:13 +0000

Previously unannounced directives will limit the Department of Justice’s use of a storied civil rights enforcement tool, and loosen the Department of Education’s requirements on investigations.

by Jessica Huseman and Annie Waldman
ProPublica, June 15, 2017, 8 a.m.

An American flag outside the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. (Cliff Owen/AP Photo)

For decades, the Department of Justice has used court-enforced agreements to protect civil rights, successfully desegregating school systems, reforming police departments, ensuring access for the disabled and defending the religious.

Now, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the DOJ appears to be turning away from this storied tool, called consent decrees. Top officials in the DOJ civil rights division have issued verbal instructions through the ranks to seek settlements without consent decrees — which would result in no continuing court oversight.

The move is just one part of a move by the Trump administration to limit federal civil rights enforcement. Other departments have scaled back the power of their internal divisions that monitor such abuses. In a previously unreported development, the Education Department last week reversed an Obama-era reform that broadened the agency’s approach to protecting rights of students. The Labor Department and the Environmental Protection Agency have also announced sweeping cuts to their enforcement.

“At best, this administration believes that civil rights enforcement is superfluous and can be easily cut. At worst, it really is part of a systematic agenda to roll back civil rights,” said Vanita Gupta, the former acting head of the DOJ’s civil rights division under President Barack Obama.

Consent decrees have not been abandoned entirely by the DOJ, a person with knowledge of the instructions said. Instead, there is a presumption against their use — attorneys should default to using settlements without court oversight unless there is an unavoidable reason for a consent decree. The instructions came from the civil rights division’s office of acting Assistant Attorney General Tom Wheeler and Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Gore. There is no written policy guidance.

Devin O’Malley, a spokesperson for the DOJ, declined to comment for this story.

Consent decrees can be a powerful tool, and spell out specific steps that must be taken to remedy the harm. These are agreed to by both parties and signed off on by a judge, whom the parties can appear before again if the terms are not being met. Though critics say the DOJ sometimes does not enforce consent decrees well enough, they are more powerful than settlements that aren’t overseen by a judge and have no built-in enforcement mechanism.

Such settlements have “far fewer teeth to ensure adequate enforcement,” Gupta said.

Consent decrees often require agencies or municipalities to take expensive steps toward reform. Local leaders and agency heads then can point to the binding court authority when requesting budget increases to ensure reforms. Without consent decrees, many localities or government departments would simply never make such comprehensive changes, said William Yeomans, who spent 26 years at the DOJ, mostly in the civil rights division.

“They are key to civil rights enforcement,” he said. “That’s why Sessions and his ilk don’t like them.”

Some, however, believe the Obama administration relied on consent decrees too often and sometimes took advantage of vulnerable cities unable to effectively defend themselves against a well-resourced DOJ.

“I think a recalibration would be welcome,” said Richard Epstein, a professor at New York University School of Law and a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, adding that consent decrees should be used in cases where clear, systemic issues of discrimination exist.

Though it’s too early to see how widespread the effect of the changes will be, the Justice Department appears to be adhering to the directive already.

On May 30, the DOJ announced Bernards Township in New Jersey had agreed to pay $3.25 million to settle an accusation it denied zoning approval for a local Islamic group to build a mosque. Staff attorneys at the U.S. attorney’s office in New Jersey initially sought to resolve the case with a consent decree, according to a spokesperson for Bernards Township. But because of the DOJ’s new stance, the terms were changed after the township protested, according to a person familiar with the matter. A spokesperson for the New Jersey U.S. attorney’s office declined comment.

Sessions has long been a public critic of consent decrees. As a senator, he wrote they “constitute an end run around the democratic process.” He lambasted local agencies that seek them out as a way to inflate their budgets, a “particularly offensive” use of consent decrees that took decision-making power from legislatures.

On March 31, Sessions ordered a sweeping review of all consent decrees with troubled police departments nationwide to ensure they were in line with the Trump administration’s law-and-order goals. Days before, the DOJ had asked a judge to postpone a hearing on a consent decree with the Baltimore Police Department that had been arranged during the last days of the Obama administration. The judge denied that request, and the consent decree has moved forward.

The DOJ has already come under fire from critics for altering its approach to voting rights cases. After nearly six years of litigation over Texas’ voter ID law — which Obama DOJ attorneys said was written to intentionally discriminate against minority voters and had such a discriminatory effect — the Trump DOJ abruptly withdrew its intent claims in late February.

Attorneys who worked on the case for years were barely consulted about the change — many weren’t consulted at all, according to two former DOJ officials with knowledge of the matter. Gore wrote the filing changing the DOJ’s position largely by himself and asked the attorneys who’d been involved in the case for years to sign it to show continuity. Not all of the attorneys fell in line. Avner Shapiro — who has been a prosecutor in the civil rights division for more than 20 years — left his name off the filings written by Gore. Shapiro was particularly involved in developing the DOJ’s argument that Texas had intentionally discriminated against minorities in crafting its voter ID legislation.

“That’s the ultimate act of rebellion,” Yeomans, the former civil rights division prosecutor, said. A rare act, removing one’s name from a legal filing is one of the few ways career attorneys can express public disagreement with an administration.

Gore has no history of bringing civil rights cases. A former partner at the law firm Jones Day, he has instead defended states against claims of racial gerrymandering and represented North Carolina when the state was sued over its controversial “bathroom bill,” which requires transgender people to use the facility that matched their birth gender.

All of the internal changes at the DOJ have left attorneys and staff with “a great deal of fear and uncertainty,” said Yeomans. While he says the lawyers there would like to stay at the department, they fear Sessions’ priorities will have devastating impact on their work.

The DOJ’s civil rights office is not alone in fearing rollbacks in enforcement. Across federal departments, the Trump administration has made moves to diminish the power of civil rights divisions.

The Department of Education has laid out plans to loosen requirements on investigations into civil rights complaints, according to an internal memo sent to staff on June 8 and obtained by ProPublica.

Under the Obama administration, the department’s office for civil rights applied an expansive approach to investigations. Individual complaints related to complex issues such as school discipline, sexual violence and harassment, equal access to educational resources, or racism at a single school might have prompted broader probes to determine whether the allegations were part of a pattern of discrimination or harassment.

The new memo, sent by Candice Jackson, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights, to regional directors at the department’s civil rights office, trims this approach. Jackson was appointed deputy assistant secretary for the office in April and will remain as the acting head of the office until the Senate confirms a full-time assistant secretary. Trump has not publicly nominated anyone for the role yet.

The office will apply the broader approach “only” if the original allegations raise systemic concerns or the investigative team argues for it, Jackson wrote in the memo.

As part of the new approach, the Education Department will no longer require civil rights investigators to obtain three years of complaint data from a specific school or district to assess compliance with civil rights law.

Critics contend the Obama administration’s probes were onerous. The office “did such a thorough review of everything that the investigations were demanding and very expensive” for schools, said Boston College American politics professor R. Shep Melnick, adding that the new approach could take some regulatory pressure off schools and districts.

But some civil rights leaders believe the change could undermine the office’s mission. This narrowing of the department’s investigations “is stunning to me and dangerous,” said Catherine Lhamon, who led the Education Department’s civil rights office from August 2013 until January 2017 and currently chairs the United States Commission on Civil Rights. “It’s important to take an expansive view of the potential for harm because if you look only at the most recent year, you won’t necessarily see the pattern,” said Lhamon.

The department’s new directive also gives more autonomy to regional offices, no longer requiring oversight or review of some cases by department headquarters, according to the memo.

The Education Department did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has also proposed cutting over 40 positions from the civil rights office. With reduced staff, the office will have to “make difficult choices, including cutting back on initiating proactive investigations,” according to the department’s proposed budget.

Elsewhere, Trump administration appointees have launched similar initiatives. In its 2018 fiscal plan, the Labor Department has proposed dissolving the office that handles discrimination complaints. Similarly, new leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed entirely eliminating the environmental justice program, which addresses concerns that almost exclusively impact minority communities. The Washington Post reports the plan transfers all environmental justice work to the Office of Policy, which provides policy and regulatory guidance across the agency.

Mustafa Ali, a former EPA senior adviser and assistant associate administrator for environmental justice who served more than 20 years, quit the agency in protest days before the plan was announced. In his resignation letter, widely circulated in the media, Ali suggested the new leadership was abandoning “those who need our help most.”

Ryan Gabrielson contributed to this report.