Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
xocetaceans
xocetaceans's Journal
xocetaceans's Journal
July 30, 2013
Tony Bologna Loses 10 Days Vacation: No Charges for Police Commanders Over Actions During Protests
This story came out the week of the Boston Marathon Bombings.
Police and Fire | April 19, 2013, 7:44 pm
No Charges for Police Commanders Over Actions During Protests
By ANDY NEWMAN
During the Occupy Wall Street protests and their aftermath, they were the online-video symbols for those who said the New York Police Department was using excessive force:
Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, in his white commander’s shirt, walking up to a crowd of people and appearing to pepper-spray protesters at random. And Deputy Inspector Johnny Cardona, who appears to turn around a protester who is walking away and punch him in the face.
Inspector Bologna was found by the Police Department to have violated internal guidelines and was docked 10 vacation days. Both men are facing civil lawsuits in which the city has declined to defend them.
But there will be no criminal charges against either commander, the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., said Friday afternoon.
...
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/no-charges-for-police-commanders-over-actions-during-protests/?_r=0
No Charges for Police Commanders Over Actions During Protests
By ANDY NEWMAN
During the Occupy Wall Street protests and their aftermath, they were the online-video symbols for those who said the New York Police Department was using excessive force:
Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, in his white commander’s shirt, walking up to a crowd of people and appearing to pepper-spray protesters at random. And Deputy Inspector Johnny Cardona, who appears to turn around a protester who is walking away and punch him in the face.
Inspector Bologna was found by the Police Department to have violated internal guidelines and was docked 10 vacation days. Both men are facing civil lawsuits in which the city has declined to defend them.
But there will be no criminal charges against either commander, the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., said Friday afternoon.
...
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/no-charges-for-police-commanders-over-actions-during-protests/?_r=0
Biography of Cyrus R. Vance, Jr.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., became District Attorney of New York County on January 1, 2010. Mr. Vance is a recognized leader in criminal justice reform and proposed a compelling vision for moving the Manhattan District Attorney's Office forward, with a focus on crime prevention.
Since taking office, Mr. Vance has reorganized and consolidated the resources of the District Attorney’s Office by creating the Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau, the Major Economic Crimes Bureau, the Special Victims Bureau, the Public Integrity Unit, the Violent Criminal Enterprises Unit, and the Hate Crimes Unit. Additionally, the groundbreaking Crime Strategies Unit for the first time gives Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys, in partnership with the New York Police Department, a geographical understanding of the multifaceted crime issues in all of the communities they serve.
Mr. Vance began his legal career in the Manhattan DA's Office during the high-crime era of the 1980s. As an Assistant District Attorney, Mr. Vance handled cases involving murder, organized crime, public corruption, and white-collar crime. After leaving the DA’s Office, Mr. Vance and his wife Peggy McDonnell moved to Seattle, where Mr. Vance co-founded McNaul Ebel Nawrot Helgren & Vance, PLLC, which became one of the pre-eminent litigation firms in the Northwest. During his time in Seattle, Mr. Vance taught trial advocacy as an adjunct professor at Seattle University School of Law.
In 2004, Mr. Vance returned to New York and became a partner at Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, P.C. Mr. Vance is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He served by appointment of the Governor of New York as a member of the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, Judicial Screening Panel, and was a member of the New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform. Mr. Vance previously served as a member of the Criminal Justice Council of the New York City Bar Association, the Federal Bar Council, and the New York Council of Defense Lawyers. He was a member of the Boards of Directors of the Fund for Modern Courts, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, and the Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation.
...
http://manhattanda.org/meet-cy-vance
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., became District Attorney of New York County on January 1, 2010. Mr. Vance is a recognized leader in criminal justice reform and proposed a compelling vision for moving the Manhattan District Attorney's Office forward, with a focus on crime prevention.
Since taking office, Mr. Vance has reorganized and consolidated the resources of the District Attorney’s Office by creating the Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau, the Major Economic Crimes Bureau, the Special Victims Bureau, the Public Integrity Unit, the Violent Criminal Enterprises Unit, and the Hate Crimes Unit. Additionally, the groundbreaking Crime Strategies Unit for the first time gives Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys, in partnership with the New York Police Department, a geographical understanding of the multifaceted crime issues in all of the communities they serve.
Mr. Vance began his legal career in the Manhattan DA's Office during the high-crime era of the 1980s. As an Assistant District Attorney, Mr. Vance handled cases involving murder, organized crime, public corruption, and white-collar crime. After leaving the DA’s Office, Mr. Vance and his wife Peggy McDonnell moved to Seattle, where Mr. Vance co-founded McNaul Ebel Nawrot Helgren & Vance, PLLC, which became one of the pre-eminent litigation firms in the Northwest. During his time in Seattle, Mr. Vance taught trial advocacy as an adjunct professor at Seattle University School of Law.
In 2004, Mr. Vance returned to New York and became a partner at Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, P.C. Mr. Vance is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He served by appointment of the Governor of New York as a member of the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, Judicial Screening Panel, and was a member of the New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform. Mr. Vance previously served as a member of the Criminal Justice Council of the New York City Bar Association, the Federal Bar Council, and the New York Council of Defense Lawyers. He was a member of the Boards of Directors of the Fund for Modern Courts, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, and the Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation.
...
http://manhattanda.org/meet-cy-vance
July 26, 2013
It is interesting to contrast this letter with the original Obama-Biden website promise that whistleblowers would be protected:
The Full Text of AG Holder's Letter to Justice Minister Konovalov
[hr]Office of the Attorney General
Washington, D. C. 20530
July 23, 2013
His Excellency Alexander Vladimirovich Konovalov
Minister of Justice
The Russian Federation
14 Zhitnaya Ulitsa
Moscow 119991
Russia
Dear Mr. Minister:
I am writing concerning the current status of Edward Snowden. As you know, Mr.
Snowden has been charged with theft of government property (in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 641), unauthorized communication of national defense information (in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 793(d)), and willful communication of
classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person (in violation of
Title 18, United States Code, Section 798(a)(3)). According to news reports and information
provided by your government, Mr. Snowden is currently in the transit zone of the Sheremetyevo
Airport.
We understand from press reports and prior conversations between our governments that
Mr. Snowden believes that he is unable to travel out of Russia and must therefore take steps to
legalize his status. That is not accurate; he is able to travel. Despite the revocation of his
passport on June 22, 2013, Mr. Snowden remains a U.S. citizen. He is eligible for a limited
validity passport good for direct return to the United States. The United States is willing to
immediately issue such a passport to Mr. Snowden.
We also understand from press reports that Mr. Snowden has filed papers seeking
temporary asylum in Russia on the grounds that if he were returned to the United States, he
would be tortured and would face the death penalty. These claims are entirely without
merit. Nonetheless, I can report that the United States is prepared to provide to the Russian
government the following assurances regarding the treatment Mr. Snowden would face upon
return to the United States:
First, the United States would not seek the death penalty for Mr. Snowden should he
return to the United States. The charges he faces do not carry that possibility, and the United
States would not seek the death penalty even if Mr. Snowden were charged with additional
death penalty-eligible crimes.
[hr]His Excellency Alexander Vladimirovich Konovalov
Page 2
Second, Mr. Snowden will not be tortured. Torture is unlawful in the United Stales. If
he returns to the United States, Mr. Snowden would promptly be brought before a civilian court
convened under Article III of the United States Constitution and supervised by a United States
District Judge. Mr. Snowden would receive all the protections that United States law provides to
persons charged with federal criminal offenses in Article III courts. In particular, Mr. Snowden
would be appointed (or, if he so chose, could retain) counsel. Any questioning of Mr. Snowden
could be conducted only with his consent: his participation would be entirely voluntary, and his
legal counsel would be present should he wish it. Mr. Snowden would have the right to a public
jury trial: he would have the right to testify if he wished to do so; and the United States would
have to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. If convicted, Mr.
Snowden would have the right to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals.
We believe that these assurances eliminate these asserted grounds for Mr. Snowden's
claim that he should be treated as a refugee or granted asylum, temporary or otherwise. Please
ensure that this letter reaches the head minister for the Federal Migration Service, as well as any
other Russian Federation agency responsible for receiving and considering Mr. Snowden's
application for asylum.
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
[hr]Source (http://www.scribd.com/doc/156173271/Letter-from-Eric-Holder-to-Russian-Minister-of-Justice)
Washington, D. C. 20530
July 23, 2013
His Excellency Alexander Vladimirovich Konovalov
Minister of Justice
The Russian Federation
14 Zhitnaya Ulitsa
Moscow 119991
Russia
Dear Mr. Minister:
I am writing concerning the current status of Edward Snowden. As you know, Mr.
Snowden has been charged with theft of government property (in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 641), unauthorized communication of national defense information (in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 793(d)), and willful communication of
classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person (in violation of
Title 18, United States Code, Section 798(a)(3)). According to news reports and information
provided by your government, Mr. Snowden is currently in the transit zone of the Sheremetyevo
Airport.
We understand from press reports and prior conversations between our governments that
Mr. Snowden believes that he is unable to travel out of Russia and must therefore take steps to
legalize his status. That is not accurate; he is able to travel. Despite the revocation of his
passport on June 22, 2013, Mr. Snowden remains a U.S. citizen. He is eligible for a limited
validity passport good for direct return to the United States. The United States is willing to
immediately issue such a passport to Mr. Snowden.
We also understand from press reports that Mr. Snowden has filed papers seeking
temporary asylum in Russia on the grounds that if he were returned to the United States, he
would be tortured and would face the death penalty. These claims are entirely without
merit. Nonetheless, I can report that the United States is prepared to provide to the Russian
government the following assurances regarding the treatment Mr. Snowden would face upon
return to the United States:
First, the United States would not seek the death penalty for Mr. Snowden should he
return to the United States. The charges he faces do not carry that possibility, and the United
States would not seek the death penalty even if Mr. Snowden were charged with additional
death penalty-eligible crimes.
[hr]His Excellency Alexander Vladimirovich Konovalov
Page 2
Second, Mr. Snowden will not be tortured. Torture is unlawful in the United Stales. If
he returns to the United States, Mr. Snowden would promptly be brought before a civilian court
convened under Article III of the United States Constitution and supervised by a United States
District Judge. Mr. Snowden would receive all the protections that United States law provides to
persons charged with federal criminal offenses in Article III courts. In particular, Mr. Snowden
would be appointed (or, if he so chose, could retain) counsel. Any questioning of Mr. Snowden
could be conducted only with his consent: his participation would be entirely voluntary, and his
legal counsel would be present should he wish it. Mr. Snowden would have the right to a public
jury trial: he would have the right to testify if he wished to do so; and the United States would
have to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. If convicted, Mr.
Snowden would have the right to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals.
We believe that these assurances eliminate these asserted grounds for Mr. Snowden's
claim that he should be treated as a refugee or granted asylum, temporary or otherwise. Please
ensure that this letter reaches the head minister for the Federal Migration Service, as well as any
other Russian Federation agency responsible for receiving and considering Mr. Snowden's
application for asylum.
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
[hr]Source (http://www.scribd.com/doc/156173271/Letter-from-Eric-Holder-to-Russian-Minister-of-Justice)
It is interesting to contrast this letter with the original Obama-Biden website promise that whistleblowers would be protected:
Sunday, November 16, 2008 | 65 Days Until Inauguration
CHANGE.GOV
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ELECT[hr]
Agenda Ethics[hr]
The Obama-Biden Plan
Barack Obama has led efforts to reform government both in the Illinois State Senate and in the United States Senate. He will bring this commitment to making government work for the people, not the special interests, to the White House. Obama will ensure Washington works for the people, not the special interests.
...
Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.
...
http://web.archive.org/web/20081116143814/http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/
CHANGE.GOV
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ELECT[hr]
Agenda Ethics[hr]
"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."
-- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
November 10, 2007
The Obama-Biden Plan
Barack Obama has led efforts to reform government both in the Illinois State Senate and in the United States Senate. He will bring this commitment to making government work for the people, not the special interests, to the White House. Obama will ensure Washington works for the people, not the special interests.
...
Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.
...
http://web.archive.org/web/20081116143814/http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/
July 26, 2013
Here are some excerpts of a purported NSA document which was released by The Guardian on Thursday, 27 June 2013:
Thus, it would appear that Rep. Pelosi has been involved with the NSA surveillance program since almost the program's inception.
Here is Rep. Pelosi declaring impeachment to be "off the table"?
Is Rep. Pelosi as deeply associated with the NSA surveillance program as the Bush Administration was?
Rep. Nancy Pelosi: Has She Been Involved With NSA Surveillance From the Beginning?
The defeat of Rep. Amash's amendment by a vote of 217-205 (with 12 not voting) casts several Democratic Representatives in an seemingly unusual light. They have now become defenders of an NSA program that many Democrats feel is wrong to continue.
Here are the Democrats that voted against Rep. Amash's amendment - including House Democratic Leader Pelosi and House Democratic Whip Hoyer:
Andrews, Barber, Barrow (GA), Bera (CA), Bishop (GA), Bishop (NY), Brown (FL), Brownley (CA), Butterfield, Carney, Castor (FL), Castro (TX), Cooper, Costa, Cuellar, Davis (CA), Delaney, Duckworth, Engel, Enyart, Esty, Foster, Frankel (FL), Gallego, Garcia, Green, Al., Gutiérrez, Hanabusa, Heck (WA), Higgins, Himes, Hinojosa, Hoyer, Israel, Jackson Lee, Johnson (GA), Johnson, E. B., Kaptur, Kelly (IL), Kennedy, Kilmer, Kind, Kirkpatrick, Kuster, Langevin, Larsen (WA), Levin, Lipinski, Lowey, Maloney, Se., Matheson, McIntyre, McNerney, Meeks, Meng, Murphy (FL), Payne, Pelosi, Peters (CA), Peters (MI), Peterson, Price (NC), Quigley, Ruiz, Ruppersberger, Ryan (OH), Schakowsky, Schneider, Schwartz, Scott, Da., Sewell (AL), Sinema, Sires, Slaughter, Smith (WA), Thompson (CA), Titus, Van Hollen, Vargas, Veasey, Visclosky, Wasserman Schultz, Wilson (FL)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml
Here are some excerpts of a purported NSA document which was released by The Guardian on Thursday, 27 June 2013:
TOP SE CRE OMIN ONW OF ORN
1109-0002 WORKING DRAFT
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE
24 March 2009
...
Background
TOP SE CRE OMIN OF ORN
1109-0002 WORKING DRAFT
I. INTRODUCTION
(U) This Report
On 4 October 2001, President George W. Bush issued a
memorandum entitled FOR SPECIFIED
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES DURING A LIMITED
PERIOD TO DETECT AND PREVENT ACTS OF TERRORISM
WITHIN THE UNITED The memorandum was based on the
President's determination that after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks
in the United States, an extraordinary emergency existed for national
defense purposes.
The 4 October 2001 Presidential authorization delegated
authority to the Secretary of Defense, who further delegated it to the
Director of National Securitv Agencv/Chief. Central Securitv Service
to conduct specified electronic surveillance on targets
related to Afghanistan and intemational terrorism for 30 days. Because the
surveillance included wire and cable communications carried into or out of
the United States, it would otherwise have required FISC authority.
...
(U) Access to Program Information
Between 4 October 2001 and 17 January 2007, NSA
cleared over 3,000 people for the PSP. The majority worked at NSA.
Others were fiom the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Justice, Congress,
the FISC, the ODNI, the White House, and the
PSP Clearance Totals
Agency Number of Cleared
Personnel
NSA 1,936
CIA 460
FBI 467
DOJ 64
Congress 60
TOP SE CRE OMIN 0NflV 0F ORN
23
T-09-0002
WORKING DRAFT
TOP SE CRE ONW 0F ORN
FISC 14
ODNI 13
White House 14
DOD (excluding NSA) 5
Total 3,033
Within the first 30 days of the Program, over 190
people were cleared into the Program. This number included Senators
Robert Graham and Richard Shelby, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi,
President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Counsel to the
Vice President David Addington, and Presidential Assistant 1. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby. By 31 January 2002, FISC Judge Royce Lamberth was
cleared. By June 2002, over 500 people had been cleared, including two
additional members of Congress, Senator Daniel Inouye and former
Senator Theodore Stevens, as well as FISC Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
See Appendix for a list, by date, of the number of people briefed into the
Program.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/27/nsa-inspector-general-report-document-data-collection
1109-0002 WORKING DRAFT
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE
24 March 2009
...
Background
TOP SE CRE OMIN OF ORN
1109-0002 WORKING DRAFT
I. INTRODUCTION
(U) This Report
On 4 October 2001, President George W. Bush issued a
memorandum entitled FOR SPECIFIED
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES DURING A LIMITED
PERIOD TO DETECT AND PREVENT ACTS OF TERRORISM
WITHIN THE UNITED The memorandum was based on the
President's determination that after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks
in the United States, an extraordinary emergency existed for national
defense purposes.
The 4 October 2001 Presidential authorization delegated
authority to the Secretary of Defense, who further delegated it to the
Director of National Securitv Agencv/Chief. Central Securitv Service
to conduct specified electronic surveillance on targets
related to Afghanistan and intemational terrorism for 30 days. Because the
surveillance included wire and cable communications carried into or out of
the United States, it would otherwise have required FISC authority.
...
(U) Access to Program Information
Between 4 October 2001 and 17 January 2007, NSA
cleared over 3,000 people for the PSP. The majority worked at NSA.
Others were fiom the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Justice, Congress,
the FISC, the ODNI, the White House, and the
PSP Clearance Totals
Agency Number of Cleared
Personnel
NSA 1,936
CIA 460
FBI 467
DOJ 64
Congress 60
TOP SE CRE OMIN 0NflV 0F ORN
23
T-09-0002
WORKING DRAFT
TOP SE CRE ONW 0F ORN
FISC 14
ODNI 13
White House 14
DOD (excluding NSA) 5
Total 3,033
Within the first 30 days of the Program, over 190
people were cleared into the Program. This number included Senators
Robert Graham and Richard Shelby, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi,
President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Counsel to the
Vice President David Addington, and Presidential Assistant 1. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby. By 31 January 2002, FISC Judge Royce Lamberth was
cleared. By June 2002, over 500 people had been cleared, including two
additional members of Congress, Senator Daniel Inouye and former
Senator Theodore Stevens, as well as FISC Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
See Appendix for a list, by date, of the number of people briefed into the
Program.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/27/nsa-inspector-general-report-document-data-collection
Thus, it would appear that Rep. Pelosi has been involved with the NSA surveillance program since almost the program's inception.
Here is Rep. Pelosi declaring impeachment to be "off the table"?
Is Rep. Pelosi as deeply associated with the NSA surveillance program as the Bush Administration was?
July 25, 2013
President Obama's Theory of Executive Branch Accountability
This interview brings up some interesting points:
July 25, 2013
The Democrats who voted against the Amash Amendment are:
The roll call for this vote is as follows:
On what grounds would Democrats object to this amendment? Is it necessary for certain Democrats to vote NAY as a procedural matter?
Limitation of the NSA in the U.S. House: Roll Call for the Failed Amash Amendment 217-205
6:53:20 P.M. H.R. 2397 On agreeing to the Amash amendment; Failed by recorded vote: 205 - 217 (Roll no. 412).
The Democrats who voted against the Amash Amendment are:
Andrews, Barber, Barrow (GA), Bera (CA), Bishop (GA), Bishop (NY), Brown (FL), Brownley (CA), Butterfield, Carney, Castor (FL), Castro (TX), Cooper, Costa, Cuellar, Davis (CA), Delaney, Duckworth, Engel, Enyart, Esty, Foster, Frankel (FL), Gallego, Garcia, Green, Al., Gutiérrez, Hanabusa, Heck (WA), Higgins, Himes, Hinojosa, Hoyer, Israel, Jackson Lee, Johnson (GA), Johnson, E. B., Kaptur, Kelly (IL), Kennedy, Kilmer, Kind, Kirkpatrick, Kuster, Langevin, Larsen (WA), Levin, Lipinski, Lowey, Maloney, Se., Matheson, McIntyre, McNerney, Meeks, Meng, Murphy (FL), Payne, Pelosi, Peters (CA), Peters (MI), Peterson, Price (NC), Quigley, Ruiz, Ruppersberger, Ryan (OH), Schakowsky, Schneider, Schwartz, Scott, Da., Sewell (AL), Sinema, Sires, Slaughter, Smith (WA), Thompson (CA), Titus, Van Hollen, Vargas, Veasey, Visclosky, Wasserman Schultz, Wilson (FL)
The roll call for this vote is as follows:
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 412
H R 2397 RECORDED VOTE 24-Jul-2013 6:51 PM
AUTHOR(S): Amash of Michigan Amendment No. 100
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment
Party Affiliation----Ayes----Noes----NV
Republican-----------94-----134-----6
Democratic----------111------83-----6
Independent
TOTALS-------------205-----217----12
---- AYES 205 ---
Amash
Amodei
Bachus
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Capps
Capuano
Cárdenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Daines
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Hahn
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kildee
Kingston
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Luján, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Mica
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Nugent
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salmon
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Vela
Velázquez
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
---- NOES 217 ---
Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews
Bachmann
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Delaney
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Esty
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutiérrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Schakowsky
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
---- NOT VOTING 12 ---
Barletta
Beatty
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pallone
Rokita
Schock
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml
H R 2397 RECORDED VOTE 24-Jul-2013 6:51 PM
AUTHOR(S): Amash of Michigan Amendment No. 100
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment
Party Affiliation----Ayes----Noes----NV
Republican-----------94-----134-----6
Democratic----------111------83-----6
Independent
TOTALS-------------205-----217----12
---- AYES 205 ---
Amash
Amodei
Bachus
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Capps
Capuano
Cárdenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Daines
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Hahn
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kildee
Kingston
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Luján, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Mica
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Nugent
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salmon
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Vela
Velázquez
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
---- NOES 217 ---
Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews
Bachmann
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Delaney
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Esty
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutiérrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Schakowsky
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
---- NOT VOTING 12 ---
Barletta
Beatty
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pallone
Rokita
Schock
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml
On what grounds would Democrats object to this amendment? Is it necessary for certain Democrats to vote NAY as a procedural matter?
July 24, 2013
It has never been about Snowden and Greenwald. It is about the NSA Surveillance program, its overreach and President Obama's apparent complicity.
DNI Clapper Lies to Congress: Does President Obama Condone Lying to Congress?
At time index 6:37 in the first video:
It has never been about Snowden and Greenwald. It is about the NSA Surveillance program, its overreach and President Obama's apparent complicity.
July 24, 2013
For further enjoyment, one should read the Constitutional Security Force's "Mission Statement":
There is more:
There is still more - a forum:
Please note the following:
Mark Kessler's Constitution(al) Security Force, Inc. : Oath, Mission Statement Et Cetera
The oath of the CSF (Chief Kessler's caps) is the following:
CSF OATH
I WILL NEVER BETRAY OUR COUNTRY, OUR INTEGRITY, OUR CHARACTER, OUR HONOR
I WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE COURAGE TO HOLD MYSELF AND OTHERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS,
I WILL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR COUNTRY IN WHICH WE SERVE, I WILL NEVER SPEAK ILL OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, I WILL NEVER DISARM AMERICAN CITIZENS, I WILL NEVER UNLAWFULLY DETAIN AMERICAN CITIZEN, I WILL RESPOND TO THE CALL IF I AM EVER NEEDED TO RESIST TYRANNY THAT SEEKS TO DESTROY OUR REPUBLIC
Chief Mark Kessler
http://www.chiefkessler.com/index.php/csf-information/csf-oath
I WILL NEVER BETRAY OUR COUNTRY, OUR INTEGRITY, OUR CHARACTER, OUR HONOR
I WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE COURAGE TO HOLD MYSELF AND OTHERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS,
I WILL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR COUNTRY IN WHICH WE SERVE, I WILL NEVER SPEAK ILL OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, I WILL NEVER DISARM AMERICAN CITIZENS, I WILL NEVER UNLAWFULLY DETAIN AMERICAN CITIZEN, I WILL RESPOND TO THE CALL IF I AM EVER NEEDED TO RESIST TYRANNY THAT SEEKS TO DESTROY OUR REPUBLIC
Chief Mark Kessler
http://www.chiefkessler.com/index.php/csf-information/csf-oath
For further enjoyment, one should read the Constitutional Security Force's "Mission Statement":
MISSION STATEMENT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SECURITY FORCE WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RIGHTS IT SETS FORTH BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AIDING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTITUTION PERSEVERATION, PREPARATION, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION, ORGANIZATION, AND SKILL SET
What we are not
We are NOT a militia but support the concept of constitutional militias!
We are NOT advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether, local, state or Federal
We are NOT advocating violence towards any organization's, groups or persons
We are not advocating or promoting any constitutional changes EVER! nor we will support such acts Nor are we asking for any amendment to said constitution
We are NOT advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any reason including but not limited to ; Race, Religion, National Origin, Political Affiliation, Gender or Sexual Orientation
...
WHAT WE WILL NOT DO
WE WILL NOT ASSIST OR AID ANY GOVERNMENT, MILITARY, OR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT GOES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, OUR COUNTRY OR OUR FREEDOM
(EVER)
...
3) You must swear an OATH the protect and defend the constitutions as written by our founding fathers ANY INFRINGEMENT against the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bear arms or the constitution itself SHALL NOT BE RECOGNIZED BY THE (CONSTITUTIONAL SECURITY FORCE) (it is our GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS one not granted by any government)
...
9) You must be willing to supply your own ammunition, ( reloaded ammunition will not be accepted)
...
http://www.chiefkessler.com/index.php/csf-information/mission-statement
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SECURITY FORCE WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RIGHTS IT SETS FORTH BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AIDING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTITUTION PERSEVERATION, PREPARATION, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION, ORGANIZATION, AND SKILL SET
What we are not
We are NOT a militia but support the concept of constitutional militias!
We are NOT advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether, local, state or Federal
We are NOT advocating violence towards any organization's, groups or persons
We are not advocating or promoting any constitutional changes EVER! nor we will support such acts Nor are we asking for any amendment to said constitution
We are NOT advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any reason including but not limited to ; Race, Religion, National Origin, Political Affiliation, Gender or Sexual Orientation
...
WHAT WE WILL NOT DO
WE WILL NOT ASSIST OR AID ANY GOVERNMENT, MILITARY, OR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT GOES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, OUR COUNTRY OR OUR FREEDOM
(EVER)
...
3) You must swear an OATH the protect and defend the constitutions as written by our founding fathers ANY INFRINGEMENT against the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bear arms or the constitution itself SHALL NOT BE RECOGNIZED BY THE (CONSTITUTIONAL SECURITY FORCE) (it is our GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS one not granted by any government)
...
9) You must be willing to supply your own ammunition, ( reloaded ammunition will not be accepted)
...
http://www.chiefkessler.com/index.php/csf-information/mission-statement
There is more:
Girls Of CSF Calander
for information on modeling for our calendar please email us at
chiefmarkkessler@gmail.com
http://www.chiefkessler.com/index.php/equpiment/gils-of-csf-callander
for information on modeling for our calendar please email us at
chiefmarkkessler@gmail.com
http://www.chiefkessler.com/index.php/equpiment/gils-of-csf-callander
There is still more - a forum:
Welcome to CSF / Welcome to Constitution Security Force Forum
« on: April 27, 2013, 08:49:50 PM »
http://chiefkessler.com/forum/index.php?topic=2.msg2#msg2
« on: April 27, 2013, 08:49:50 PM »
i would like the welcome each and every one of you to Constitutional Security Force ( CSF ) forum we are a friendly forum that like chilling with friends and shooting some rounds.
This forum was started because CSF founder Chief Mark Kessler keeps getting deleted off Facebook so we took the liberty to give him a place that he can talk do and or say anything he wants and will not be punished
please bare with us as the forum is brand new and i am aware that it needs work so if you have any suggestions please leave them in the suggestion area
http://chiefkessler.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0
cosmetics and bells and whistles are still to come
http://chiefkessler.com/forum/index.php?topic=2.msg2#msg2
Please note the following:
- "Reloaded ammunition will not be accepted."
- per·sev·er·a·tion noun
- 1.
the act or process of perseverating. - 2.
- Psychiatry. the pathological, persistent repetition of a word, gesture, or act, often associated with brain damage or schizophrenia. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perseveration)
- 1.
- "cosmetics and bells and whistles are still to come"
- "Fuck all you libtards out there." --Mark Kessler
- Mark Kessler really is a chief of police - http://www.co.schuylkill.pa.us/info/Towns/Info.csp#Here
- The Onion pales by comparison.
July 24, 2013
This partial argument is intended to support the appeal of the United States v. Blewett decision (a decision which is the second excerpt below).
It is a telling argument - to wit, justice is apparently less important than "...the costs and disruption associated with resentencing...."
A Guardian article on this topic is posted immediately below:
12-5226/12-5582
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
CORNELIUS BLEWETT
JARREOUS BLEWITT
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
___________________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE JOSEPH H. McKINLEY, JR.
___________________________________________
UNITED STATES’ PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
...
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 14
...
ARGUMENT
I. The Majority Opinion is Seriously Flawed.
The majority’s holding is legally in correct, in conflict with prior Sixth
Circuit decisions, in conflict with the law of every other circuit, and inconsistent
with Dorsey. Moreover, the effect of the decision will be widespread if it is
allowed to stand. The panel majority’s core reasoning is seriously flawed in
multiple respects, but two central errors highlight the need for en banc
consideration.
A. No Equal Protection Clause Violation Can Exist Without
Discriminatory Intent.
The majority believed that the FSA must be interpreted to apply
retroactively to already-final sentences in order to avoid a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause. The panel conceded that “when the old 100-to-1 crack cocaine
statute was adopted [in 1986] it presumably did not violate the Equal Protection
9
[hr]
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 15
Clause because there was no intent or design to discriminate on a racial basis.”
Blewett, slip op. at 8. But the majority believed that, with current knowledge of
the racially discriminatory impact of the 100:1 ratio, construing the FSA not to
apply to final sentences would amount to intentional discrimination. See ibid.
(“Like slavery and Jim Crow laws, the intentional maintenance of discriminatory
sentences is a denial of equal protection.”). That analysis overlooks that a decision
not to apply the FSA retroactively would violate equal protection only if the
purpose of such a decision was itself discriminatory. Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442
U.S. 256 (1979), cited by the majority, makes that clear: “Discriminatory
purpose,” the Court said, “implies more than intent as volition or intent as
awareness of consequences. It implies that the decision maker, in this case a state
legislature, selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part
because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.”
Id. at 279 (citation, footnotes, and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis
added). No evidence suggests that Congress drew the line for the application of
the FSA at post-enactment sentencings, thereby leaving final sentences
undisturbed, for the purpose of perpetuating racially disparate effects. Rather, the
purpose of the FSA was to eradicate the unfairness of the 100:1 ratio in cases going
forward, while respecting finality interests in already-sentenced cases (where the
costs and disruption associated with resentencing are substantial). See United
10
[hr]
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 16
States v. Bigesby, 685 F. 3d 1060, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (rejecting argument “that
not giving the FSA retroactive effect raises equal-protection concerns,” because
“any such concerns are resolved by Congress’ rational basis for limiting the FSA’s
retroactive effect—its ‘interest in the finality of sentences.’”) (quoting Johnson v.
United States, 544 U.S. 295, 309 (2005)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 981 (2013).
Background principles of federal sentencing law, on which the Supreme
Court relied in Dorsey, draw the same line. Dorsey ascribed significance to the
“background principle” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii) that a sentencing court
uses the law in effect on the date of sentencing, 132 S. Ct. at 2332-33, while
recognizing that applying the “new minimums to pre-Act offenders sentenced after
August 3 will create a new set of disparities,” i.e., with defendants sentenced
earlier. Id. at 2335. But the Court was untroubled by those disparities because
they reflected a “line-drawing effort” that is inevitable “whenever Congress enacts
a new law changing sentences (unless Congress intends re-opening sentencing
proceedings concluded prior to a new law’s effective date).” Ibid. Dorsey gave no
hint that it perceived any congressional intent to reopen final sentences; to the
contrary, the Court’s analysis presupposes that such sentences remain undisturbed.
The legislative decision to limit the retroactive effect of an ameliorative law, in
order to avoid disruption to final sentences, is thus not a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause. And for the courts to apply the law as Congress wrote it, and
11
[hr]
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 17
not to overturn sentences without legal authority to do so, implicates no
discriminatory judicial purpose. The majority’s reliance (Blewett, slip op. at 10-
11) on cases such as Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is entirely misplaced.
A court does not give effect to “[p]rivate biases,” or biases of any kind, by
adhering to statutory limitations on the reach of a remedial sentencing law.
Accordingly, the majority’s “constitutional avoidance” rationale rests on a non-
existent equal-protection problem.
B. The Sentencing Commission Cannot Alter Statutory Sentencing
Direction Enacted By Congress.
The majority held, purportedly as an independent basis for its decision, that
the Sentencing Commission’s lowering of the crack guidelines and its decision to
make those changes retroactive somehow authorizes courts to disregard the
mandatory minimum sentences. In the court’s view, because the mandatory
minimum brackets are interwoven into the Guidelines and incorporated into them,
“[t]he new minimums ordered by the Fair Sentencing Act to be incorporated into
the guidelines are no longer ‘statutory’ only,” but are “just as much a part of the
retroactive guidelines as other guidelines.” Blewett, slip op. at 13-14. It is true
that the new 18:1 ratio in the FSA formed the basis for the Commission’s new
crack guidelines—“[t]he Fair Sentencing Act . . . required the Commission to write
new Guidelines consistent with the new law”— and that in order to function
harmoniously, both the mandatory minimums and the guidelines must reflect the
12
[hr]
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 18
same ratio—“[A]pplication of the 1986 Drug Act’s minimums to pre-Act offenders
sentenced after the new Guidelines take effect would produce a crazy quilt of
sentences, at odds with Congress’ basic efforts to achieve more uniform, more
proportionate sentences.” See Dorsey, 132 S. Ct. at 2334-35. But the mandatory-
minimum provisions establish a statutory constraint that falls well outside the
Commission’s power to control. The Sentencing Commission cannot, by making
the new crack guidelines retroactive, alter a statutory sentencing direction enacted
by Congress and addressed to sentencing courts. Cf. Kimbrough v. United States,
552 U.S. 85, 107 (2007).
The Sentencing Commission recognized this point, both in amending USSG
§1B1.10 to authorize retroactive application of the reduced post-FSA crack
guidelines and in the accompanying statements announcing that change. As the
Sentencing Commission said in its press release on making the crack guidelines
retroactive:
http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Newsroom/Press_Releases/20110630_Press_Release.pdf. The Commission’s Federal Register notice was
13
[hr]
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 19
equally emphatic: the Commission did not assert authority to make the FSA’s
statutory changes retroactive, but recognized that the issue lay beyond its grasp:
“It is important to note that the inclusion of [the post-FSA crack guidelines] in
§1B1.10(c) only allows the guideline changes to be considered for retroactive
application; it does not make any of the statutory changes in the Fair Sentencing
Act of 2010 retroactive.” http://www.ussc.gov/Legal/Federal_Register_Notices/20110707_FR_Amendment_on_Retroactivity.pdf.
The Commission’s amended retroactivity policy statement, which governs
motions to reduce sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and “bind[s] the courts”
(see Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691, 2693 (2010)), echoes the
recognition that mandatory-minimum provisions remain applicable. Section
1B1.10 provides: “[A] reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not
authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with this policy
statement if . . . the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the
defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another
guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment).” USSG §1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)). The majority rejected the
United States’ reliance on that provision, concluding that the Commission’s
reference to a “statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment,” which
operates as a hard stop on a sentencing reduction motion, was ambiguous—it
14
[hr]
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 20
could, the majority thought, refer to the “new, more lenient ones,” rather than the
“old, discriminatory minimums.” Blewett, slip op. at 16. Quite apart from the
bootstrapping inherent in the majority’s reasoning (it assumes what it needs to
prove, i.e., that the Commission could alter the mandatory minimum provisions by
substituting the FSA thresholds for the prior thresholds), the Commission plainly
had no such intention. It believed (correctly) that its authority to apply a reduced
guidelines range retroactively gave it no power to apply a reduced statutory range
retroactively.
CONCLUSION
This Court should grant the United States’ petition for rehearing en banc,
vacate the panel’s opinion, and affirm the district court’s orders below.
...
http://sentencing.typepad.com/files/blewett_petition-for-rehearing.pdf
Crack Cocaine versus Powder Cocaine - Does The DOJ Prioritize Cost over Justice?
As seen in boldface in the third excerpt below, the following text is a partial argument made by the DOJ:
"Rather, the purpose of the FSA was to eradicate the unfairness of the 100:1 ratio in cases going forward, while respecting finality interests in already-sentenced cases (where the costs and disruption associated with resentencing are substantial)."
This partial argument is intended to support the appeal of the United States v. Blewett decision (a decision which is the second excerpt below).
It is a telling argument - to wit, justice is apparently less important than "...the costs and disruption associated with resentencing...."
A Guardian article on this topic is posted immediately below:
Why US v Blewett is the Obama Justice Department's greatest shame
Explain the paradox that the US still jails thousands of African Americans on sentences it admits were unfair? It can't be done
Alec Karakatsanis
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 23 July 2013 11.44 EDT
The differential treatment of crack cocaine and powder cocaine by America's criminal "justice" system has been exposed as discriminatory and admitted to be unfair. Yet, the secret nightmare continues for thousands of African Americans still in prison for crack cocaine offenses, while people convicted of powder cocaine offenses – the majority of whom are white or Hispanic – have served far shorter sentences. Even as the US government has reformed the injustice of punitive sentencing for crack, it has doubled down on the injustice for those imprisoned before the reforms.
I'll never forget the first time I had to explain federal crack cocaine laws to a client. I was 25 years old, fresh out of law school, and working as a public defender in Alabama. I had come to the local jail, where my client was being held in a 6ft x 8ft cell with three other men and no access to fresh air or to a single window.
My client thought he would be released from jail and home with his family after our first appearance in court. Instead, I told him, the tiny bag of crack cocaine that police had found in his car – less than half the size of a ping-pong ball – meant that he would likely spend the next five to 40 years in prison.
Last month, President Obama quietly did something that should shake every American to the core. Seeking to enforce federal crack cocaine laws that have since been repealed, the Obama administration asked a federal appeals court to ensure that thousands of human beings, mostly poor and mostly black, remain locked in prison – even though everyone agrees that there is no justification for them to be there.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/us-v-blewett-obama-justice-department-shame
Explain the paradox that the US still jails thousands of African Americans on sentences it admits were unfair? It can't be done
Alec Karakatsanis
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 23 July 2013 11.44 EDT
The differential treatment of crack cocaine and powder cocaine by America's criminal "justice" system has been exposed as discriminatory and admitted to be unfair. Yet, the secret nightmare continues for thousands of African Americans still in prison for crack cocaine offenses, while people convicted of powder cocaine offenses – the majority of whom are white or Hispanic – have served far shorter sentences. Even as the US government has reformed the injustice of punitive sentencing for crack, it has doubled down on the injustice for those imprisoned before the reforms.
I'll never forget the first time I had to explain federal crack cocaine laws to a client. I was 25 years old, fresh out of law school, and working as a public defender in Alabama. I had come to the local jail, where my client was being held in a 6ft x 8ft cell with three other men and no access to fresh air or to a single window.
My client thought he would be released from jail and home with his family after our first appearance in court. Instead, I told him, the tiny bag of crack cocaine that police had found in his car – less than half the size of a ping-pong ball – meant that he would likely spend the next five to 40 years in prison.
Last month, President Obama quietly did something that should shake every American to the core. Seeking to enforce federal crack cocaine laws that have since been repealed, the Obama administration asked a federal appeals court to ensure that thousands of human beings, mostly poor and mostly black, remain locked in prison – even though everyone agrees that there is no justification for them to be there.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/us-v-blewett-obama-justice-department-shame
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 13a0141p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CORNELIUS DEMORRIS BLEWETT(12-5226)
and JARREOUS JAMONE BLEWITT(12-5582),
Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 12-5226/5582
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green.
No. 1:04-cr-36—Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Decided and Filed: May 17, 2013
Before: MERRITT, MARTIN, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
...
[hr]
Page 16
...
IV. Conclusion
The old crack cocaine statutory minimums are racially discriminatory as the
legislative history of the Fair Sentencing Act makes clear, as the Dorsey case states, and
[hr]
Page 17
as the Sentencing Commission reports to Congress advise. Perpetuation of such racially
discriminatory sentences by federal courts is unconstitutional and therefore the
sentencing guidelines must be interpreted to eliminate such a result. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded for the resentencing of plaintiffs
in accordance with this opinion.
...
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0141p-06.pdf
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 13a0141p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CORNELIUS DEMORRIS BLEWETT(12-5226)
and JARREOUS JAMONE BLEWITT(12-5582),
Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 12-5226/5582
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green.
No. 1:04-cr-36—Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Decided and Filed: May 17, 2013
Before: MERRITT, MARTIN, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
...
[hr]
Page 16
...
IV. Conclusion
The old crack cocaine statutory minimums are racially discriminatory as the
legislative history of the Fair Sentencing Act makes clear, as the Dorsey case states, and
[hr]
Page 17
as the Sentencing Commission reports to Congress advise. Perpetuation of such racially
discriminatory sentences by federal courts is unconstitutional and therefore the
sentencing guidelines must be interpreted to eliminate such a result. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded for the resentencing of plaintiffs
in accordance with this opinion.
...
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0141p-06.pdf
12-5226/12-5582
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
CORNELIUS BLEWETT
JARREOUS BLEWITT
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
___________________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE JOSEPH H. McKINLEY, JR.
___________________________________________
UNITED STATES’ PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
...
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 14
...
ARGUMENT
I. The Majority Opinion is Seriously Flawed.
The majority’s holding is legally in correct, in conflict with prior Sixth
Circuit decisions, in conflict with the law of every other circuit, and inconsistent
with Dorsey. Moreover, the effect of the decision will be widespread if it is
allowed to stand. The panel majority’s core reasoning is seriously flawed in
multiple respects, but two central errors highlight the need for en banc
consideration.
A. No Equal Protection Clause Violation Can Exist Without
Discriminatory Intent.
The majority believed that the FSA must be interpreted to apply
retroactively to already-final sentences in order to avoid a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause. The panel conceded that “when the old 100-to-1 crack cocaine
statute was adopted [in 1986] it presumably did not violate the Equal Protection
9
[hr]
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 15
Clause because there was no intent or design to discriminate on a racial basis.”
Blewett, slip op. at 8. But the majority believed that, with current knowledge of
the racially discriminatory impact of the 100:1 ratio, construing the FSA not to
apply to final sentences would amount to intentional discrimination. See ibid.
(“Like slavery and Jim Crow laws, the intentional maintenance of discriminatory
sentences is a denial of equal protection.”). That analysis overlooks that a decision
not to apply the FSA retroactively would violate equal protection only if the
purpose of such a decision was itself discriminatory. Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442
U.S. 256 (1979), cited by the majority, makes that clear: “Discriminatory
purpose,” the Court said, “implies more than intent as volition or intent as
awareness of consequences. It implies that the decision maker, in this case a state
legislature, selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part
because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.”
Id. at 279 (citation, footnotes, and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis
added). No evidence suggests that Congress drew the line for the application of
the FSA at post-enactment sentencings, thereby leaving final sentences
undisturbed, for the purpose of perpetuating racially disparate effects. Rather, the
purpose of the FSA was to eradicate the unfairness of the 100:1 ratio in cases going
forward, while respecting finality interests in already-sentenced cases (where the
costs and disruption associated with resentencing are substantial). See United
10
[hr]
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 16
States v. Bigesby, 685 F. 3d 1060, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (rejecting argument “that
not giving the FSA retroactive effect raises equal-protection concerns,” because
“any such concerns are resolved by Congress’ rational basis for limiting the FSA’s
retroactive effect—its ‘interest in the finality of sentences.’”) (quoting Johnson v.
United States, 544 U.S. 295, 309 (2005)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 981 (2013).
Background principles of federal sentencing law, on which the Supreme
Court relied in Dorsey, draw the same line. Dorsey ascribed significance to the
“background principle” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii) that a sentencing court
uses the law in effect on the date of sentencing, 132 S. Ct. at 2332-33, while
recognizing that applying the “new minimums to pre-Act offenders sentenced after
August 3 will create a new set of disparities,” i.e., with defendants sentenced
earlier. Id. at 2335. But the Court was untroubled by those disparities because
they reflected a “line-drawing effort” that is inevitable “whenever Congress enacts
a new law changing sentences (unless Congress intends re-opening sentencing
proceedings concluded prior to a new law’s effective date).” Ibid. Dorsey gave no
hint that it perceived any congressional intent to reopen final sentences; to the
contrary, the Court’s analysis presupposes that such sentences remain undisturbed.
The legislative decision to limit the retroactive effect of an ameliorative law, in
order to avoid disruption to final sentences, is thus not a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause. And for the courts to apply the law as Congress wrote it, and
11
[hr]
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 17
not to overturn sentences without legal authority to do so, implicates no
discriminatory judicial purpose. The majority’s reliance (Blewett, slip op. at 10-
11) on cases such as Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is entirely misplaced.
A court does not give effect to “[p]rivate biases,” or biases of any kind, by
adhering to statutory limitations on the reach of a remedial sentencing law.
Accordingly, the majority’s “constitutional avoidance” rationale rests on a non-
existent equal-protection problem.
B. The Sentencing Commission Cannot Alter Statutory Sentencing
Direction Enacted By Congress.
The majority held, purportedly as an independent basis for its decision, that
the Sentencing Commission’s lowering of the crack guidelines and its decision to
make those changes retroactive somehow authorizes courts to disregard the
mandatory minimum sentences. In the court’s view, because the mandatory
minimum brackets are interwoven into the Guidelines and incorporated into them,
“[t]he new minimums ordered by the Fair Sentencing Act to be incorporated into
the guidelines are no longer ‘statutory’ only,” but are “just as much a part of the
retroactive guidelines as other guidelines.” Blewett, slip op. at 13-14. It is true
that the new 18:1 ratio in the FSA formed the basis for the Commission’s new
crack guidelines—“[t]he Fair Sentencing Act . . . required the Commission to write
new Guidelines consistent with the new law”— and that in order to function
harmoniously, both the mandatory minimums and the guidelines must reflect the
12
[hr]
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 18
same ratio—“[A]pplication of the 1986 Drug Act’s minimums to pre-Act offenders
sentenced after the new Guidelines take effect would produce a crazy quilt of
sentences, at odds with Congress’ basic efforts to achieve more uniform, more
proportionate sentences.” See Dorsey, 132 S. Ct. at 2334-35. But the mandatory-
minimum provisions establish a statutory constraint that falls well outside the
Commission’s power to control. The Sentencing Commission cannot, by making
the new crack guidelines retroactive, alter a statutory sentencing direction enacted
by Congress and addressed to sentencing courts. Cf. Kimbrough v. United States,
552 U.S. 85, 107 (2007).
The Sentencing Commission recognized this point, both in amending USSG
§1B1.10 to authorize retroactive application of the reduced post-FSA crack
guidelines and in the accompanying statements announcing that change. As the
Sentencing Commission said in its press release on making the crack guidelines
retroactive:
The Commission’s vote to give retroactive application to the proposed
amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines does not give
retroactive effect to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Only Congress
can make a statute retroactive. Many crack offenders will still be
required under federal law to serve mandatory five- or 10-year
sentences because of the amount of crack cocaine involved in their
offenses.
http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Newsroom/Press_Releases/20110630_Press_Release.pdf. The Commission’s Federal Register notice was
13
[hr]
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 19
equally emphatic: the Commission did not assert authority to make the FSA’s
statutory changes retroactive, but recognized that the issue lay beyond its grasp:
“It is important to note that the inclusion of [the post-FSA crack guidelines] in
§1B1.10(c) only allows the guideline changes to be considered for retroactive
application; it does not make any of the statutory changes in the Fair Sentencing
Act of 2010 retroactive.” http://www.ussc.gov/Legal/Federal_Register_Notices/20110707_FR_Amendment_on_Retroactivity.pdf.
The Commission’s amended retroactivity policy statement, which governs
motions to reduce sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and “bind[s] the courts”
(see Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691, 2693 (2010)), echoes the
recognition that mandatory-minimum provisions remain applicable. Section
1B1.10 provides: “[A] reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not
authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with this policy
statement if . . . the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the
defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another
guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment).” USSG §1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)). The majority rejected the
United States’ reliance on that provision, concluding that the Commission’s
reference to a “statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment,” which
operates as a hard stop on a sentencing reduction motion, was ambiguous—it
14
[hr]
Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 20
could, the majority thought, refer to the “new, more lenient ones,” rather than the
“old, discriminatory minimums.” Blewett, slip op. at 16. Quite apart from the
bootstrapping inherent in the majority’s reasoning (it assumes what it needs to
prove, i.e., that the Commission could alter the mandatory minimum provisions by
substituting the FSA thresholds for the prior thresholds), the Commission plainly
had no such intention. It believed (correctly) that its authority to apply a reduced
guidelines range retroactively gave it no power to apply a reduced statutory range
retroactively.
CONCLUSION
This Court should grant the United States’ petition for rehearing en banc,
vacate the panel’s opinion, and affirm the district court’s orders below.
...
http://sentencing.typepad.com/files/blewett_petition-for-rehearing.pdf
July 19, 2013
Both arguments can be read at links in the aforementioned article on badscience.net. However, one construction in Castellani's argument stands out. He states the following:
The idea that science should be proprietary is wholly wrong-headed. Science requires an open pursuit of the truth. Pharmaceutical companies should only be allowed to exist as corporations if they agree to share all of the data that results from their clinical trials.
This is a matter of scientific integrity and public safety.
Transparency and PhRMA...
Recently, Ben Goldacre has engaged in a public debate with John Castellani of PhRMA over the sharing of clinical trial data:
Head-to-Head with PhRMA on transparency in the BMJ
July 12th, 2013 by Ben Goldacre
This week in the BMJ there’s a head-to-head on trials transparency between me and PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry representative body in the US. My article is here, PhRMA’s is here, both articles are open access for one week (since it was press released, them’s the rules at the BMJ…) but mine is open access forever, I think, on this link.
The article from PhRMA is remarkable. Firstly, they imply that people like me, who call for all trial results to be reported, also somehow call for the reckless disclosure of individual patients’ electronic health records online. This is untrue.
More disturbing is PhRMA’s suggestion that the problem has already been fixed. For example, John Castellani says that “information on clinical trials for potential new medicines is already required by US law to be posted on ClinicalTrials.gov“. As I explain in my piece, the best available published evidence on compliance with this law comes from Prayle et al, BMJ 2012: in reality, the legislation here has been very widely ignored.
We need to fix the problem of withheld results. Doctors (and patients, and researchers, and payers, and the public) need access to all the results, of all the trials, on all the uses, of all the treatments currently being prescribed, in order to make informed decisions about which is best.
...
http://www.badscience.net/2013/07/head-to-head-with-phrma-on-transparency-in-the-bmj/
July 12th, 2013 by Ben Goldacre
This week in the BMJ there’s a head-to-head on trials transparency between me and PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry representative body in the US. My article is here, PhRMA’s is here, both articles are open access for one week (since it was press released, them’s the rules at the BMJ…) but mine is open access forever, I think, on this link.
The article from PhRMA is remarkable. Firstly, they imply that people like me, who call for all trial results to be reported, also somehow call for the reckless disclosure of individual patients’ electronic health records online. This is untrue.
More disturbing is PhRMA’s suggestion that the problem has already been fixed. For example, John Castellani says that “information on clinical trials for potential new medicines is already required by US law to be posted on ClinicalTrials.gov“. As I explain in my piece, the best available published evidence on compliance with this law comes from Prayle et al, BMJ 2012: in reality, the legislation here has been very widely ignored.
We need to fix the problem of withheld results. Doctors (and patients, and researchers, and payers, and the public) need access to all the results, of all the trials, on all the uses, of all the treatments currently being prescribed, in order to make informed decisions about which is best.
...
http://www.badscience.net/2013/07/head-to-head-with-phrma-on-transparency-in-the-bmj/
Both arguments can be read at links in the aforementioned article on badscience.net. However, one construction in Castellani's argument stands out. He states the following:
Head to Head
Are clinical trial data shared sufficiently today? Yes
BMJ 2013; 347 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1881 (Published 9 July 2013)
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f1881
John Castellani, president and chief executive officer, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
Contact via Matthew Bennett: MBennett@phrma.org
...
Mandatory public disclosure of intellectual property, confidential commercial information, and proprietary scientific methods found in clinical trials could stifle discovery and open the possibility of competitors or unscrupulous actors using the information for their own products in other markets or countries. Without appropriate protection for intellectual property to incentivize the enormous investment risk involved, biopharmaceutical companies will be discouraged from investing in the next generation of new medicines, leading to patients and physicians being deprived of innovative therapies to tackle the serious and life threatening diseases of the 21st century.
...
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f1881
Are clinical trial data shared sufficiently today? Yes
BMJ 2013; 347 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1881 (Published 9 July 2013)
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f1881
John Castellani, president and chief executive officer, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
Contact via Matthew Bennett: MBennett@phrma.org
...
Mandatory public disclosure of intellectual property, confidential commercial information, and proprietary scientific methods found in clinical trials could stifle discovery and open the possibility of competitors or unscrupulous actors using the information for their own products in other markets or countries. Without appropriate protection for intellectual property to incentivize the enormous investment risk involved, biopharmaceutical companies will be discouraged from investing in the next generation of new medicines, leading to patients and physicians being deprived of innovative therapies to tackle the serious and life threatening diseases of the 21st century.
...
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f1881
The idea that science should be proprietary is wholly wrong-headed. Science requires an open pursuit of the truth. Pharmaceutical companies should only be allowed to exist as corporations if they agree to share all of the data that results from their clinical trials.
This is a matter of scientific integrity and public safety.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Sep 25, 2008, 03:38 PMNumber of posts: 3,873
