SMACK-DOWN: CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL VS ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER OVER "DUE PROCESS"

 The following excerpt is from a Congressman Ron Paul e-mail:
Congressman Paul's Texas Straight Talk: Demolishing Due Process
“It is ironic but perhaps sadly appropriate that Attorney General Eric Holder would choose a law school, Northwestern University, to deliver a speech earlier this month in which he demolished what was left of the rule of law in America.

In what history likely will record as a turning point, Attorney General Holder bluntly explained that this administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against Americans if the President determines them to be a threat to the nation. He tells us that this is not a violation of the due process requirements of our Constitution because the President himself embodies “due process” as he unilaterally determines who is to be targeted. As Holder said, “a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’” That means that the administration believes it is the President himself who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner…”


For clarification the speech given by Attorney general Eric Holder at Northwestern University can be read in it's entirety below as posted on the U.S. Department of Justice website:

Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University School of LawChicago ~ Monday, March 5, 2012
As prepared for delivery

Thank you, Dean [Daniel] Rodriguez, for your kind words, and for the outstanding leadership that you provide – not only for this academic campus, but also for our nation’s legal community.   It is a privilege to be with you today – and to be among the distinguished faculty members, staff, alumni, and students who make Northwestern such an extraordinary place.

For more than 150 years, this law school has served as a training ground for future leaders; as a forum for critical, thoughtful debate; and as a meeting place to consider issues of national concern and global consequence.   This afternoon, I am honored to be part of this tradition.  And I’m grateful for the opportunity to join with you in discussing a defining issue of our time – and a most critical responsibility that we share: how we will stay true to America’s founding – and enduring – promises of security, justice and liberty.

Since this country’s earliest days, the American people have risen to this challenge – and all that it demands.   But, as we have seen – and as President John F. Kennedy may have described best – “In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.”

Half a century has passed since those words were spoken, but our nation today confronts grave national security threats that demand our constant attention and steadfast commitment.   It is clear that, once again, we have reached an “hour of danger.”

We are a nation at war.  And, in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated.

Like President Obama – and my fellow members of his national security team – I begin each day with a briefing on the latest and most urgent threats made against us in the preceding 24 hours.  And, like scores of attorneys and agents at the Justice Department, I go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe.
         
I know that – more than a decade after the September 11th attacks; and despite our recent national security successes, including the operation that brought to justice Osama bin Laden last year – there are people currently plotting to murder Americans, who reside in distant countries as well as within our own borders.   Disrupting and preventing these plots – and using every available and appropriate tool to keep the American people safe – has been, and will remain, this Administration’s top priority.

But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we also are a nation of laws and values.  Even when under attack, our actions must always be grounded on the bedrock of the Constitution – and must always be consistent with statutes, court precedent, the rule of law and our founding ideals.   Not only is this the right thing to do – history has shown that it is also the most effective approach we can take in combating those who seek to do us harm.

This is not just my view.   My judgment is shared by senior national security officials across the government.   As the President reminded us in 2009, at the National Archives where our founding documents are housed, “[w]e uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and it keeps us safe.   Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset.”   Our history proves this.   We do not have to choose between security and liberty – and we will not.

Today, I want to tell you about the collaboration across the government that defines and distinguishes this Administration’s national security efforts.   I also want to discuss some of the legal principles that guide – and strengthen – this work, as well as the special role of the Department of Justice in protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.

Before 9/11, today’s level of interagency cooperation was not commonplace.   In many ways, government lacked the infrastructure – as well as the imperative – to share national security information quickly and effectively.   Domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence operated in largely independent spheres.   But those who attacked us on September 11th chose both military and civilian targets.   They crossed borders and jurisdictional lines.   And it immediately became clear that no single agency could address these threats, because no single agency has all of the necessary tools.

To counter this enemy aggressively and intelligently, the government had to draw on all of its resources – and radically update its operations.   As a result, today, government agencies are better postured to work together to address a range of emerging national security threats.   Now, the lawyers, agents and analysts at the Department of Justice work closely with our colleagues across the national security community to detect and disrupt terrorist plots, to prosecute suspected terrorists, and to identify and implement the legal tools necessary to keep the American people safe.   Unfortunately, the fact and extent of this cooperation are often overlooked in the public debate – but it’s something that this Administration, and the previous one, can be proud of.

As part of this coordinated effort, the Justice Department plays a key role in conducting oversight to ensure that the intelligence community’s activities remain in compliance with the law, and, together with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in authorizing surveillance to investigate suspected terrorists.   We must – and will continue to – use the intelligence-gathering capabilities that Congress has provided to collect information that can save and protect American lives.   At the same time, these tools must be subject to appropriate checks and balances – including oversight by Congress and the courts, as well as within the Executive Branch – to protect the privacy and civil rights of innocent individuals.   This Administration is committed to making sure that our surveillance programs appropriately reflect all of these interests.

Let me give you an example.   Under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize annually, with the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, collection directed at identified categories of foreign intelligence targets, without the need for a court order for each individual subject.   This ensures that the government has the flexibility and agility it needs to identify and to respond to terrorist and other foreign threats to our security.   But the government may not use this authority intentionally to target a U.S. person, here or abroad, or anyone known to be in the United States.

The law requires special procedures, reviewed and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to make sure that these restrictions are followed, and to protect the privacy of any U.S. persons whose nonpublic information may be incidentally acquired through this program.    The Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence conduct extensive oversight reviews of section 702 activities at least once every sixty days, and we report to Congress on implementation and compliance twice a year.   This law therefore establishes a comprehensive regime of oversight by all three branches of government.  Reauthorizing this authority before it expires at the end of this year is the top legislative priority of the Intelligence Community.

But surveillance is only the first of many complex issues we must navigate.   Once a suspected terrorist is captured, a decision must be made as to how to proceed with that individual in order to identify the disposition that best serves the interests of the American people and the security of this nation.

Much has been made of the distinction between our federal civilian courts and revised military commissions.   The reality is that both incorporate fundamental due process and other protections that are essential to the effective administration of justice – and we should not deprive ourselves of any tool in our fight against al Qaeda.

Our criminal justice system is renowned not only for its fair process; it is respected for its results.   We are not the first Administration to rely on federal courts to prosecute terrorists, nor will we be the last.   Although far too many choose to ignore this fact, the previous Administration consistently relied on criminal prosecutions in federal court to bring terrorists to justice.   John Walker Lindh, attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, and 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui were among the hundreds of defendants convicted of terrorism-related offenses – without political controversy – during the last administration.

Over the past three years, we’ve built a remarkable record of success in terror prosecutions.  For example, in October, we secured a conviction against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing of an airplane traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.   He was sentenced last month to life in prison without the possibility of parole.  While in custody, he provided significant intelligence during debriefing sessions with the FBI.  He described in detail how he became inspired to carry out an act of jihad, and how he traveled to Yemen and made contact with Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen and a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.   Abdulmutallab also detailed the training he received, as well as Aulaqi’s specific instructions to wait until the airplane was over the United States before detonating his bomb.

In addition to Abdulmutallab, Faizal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square bomber, Ahmed Ghailani, a conspirator in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and three individuals who plotted an attack against John F. Kennedy Airport in 2007, have also recently begun serving life sentences.   And convictions have been obtained in the cases of several homegrown extremists, as well.   For example, last year, United States citizen and North Carolina resident Daniel Boyd pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure persons abroad; and U.S. citizen and Illinois resident Michael Finton pleaded guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction in connection with his efforts to detonate a truck bomb outside of a federal courthouse.

I could go on.   Which is why the calls that I’ve heard to ban the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity are so baffling, and ultimately are so dangerous.  These calls ignore reality.   And if heeded, they would significantly weaken – in fact, they would cripple – our ability to incapacitate and punish those who attempt to do us harm.

Simply put, since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in Article III courts and are now serving long sentences in federal prison.   Not one has ever escaped custody.   No judicial district has suffered any kind of retaliatory attack. These are facts, not opinions.   There are not two sides to this story.   Those who claim that our federal courts are incapable of handling terrorism cases are not registering a dissenting opinion — they are simply wrong.

But federal courts are not our only option.   Military commissions are also appropriate in proper circumstances, and we can use them as well to convict terrorists and disrupt their plots.   This Administration’s approach has been to ensure that the military commissions system is as effective as possible, in part by strengthening the procedural protections on which the commissions are based.   With the President’s leadership, and the bipartisan backing of Congress, the Military Commissions Act of 2009 was enacted into law.   And, since then, meaningful improvements have been implemented.

It’s important to note that the reformed commissions draw from the same fundamental protections of a fair trial that underlie our civilian courts.   They provide a presumption of innocence and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   They afford the accused the right to counsel – as well as the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.   They prohibit the use of statements obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.   And they secure the right to appeal to Article III judges – all the way to the United States Supreme Court.   In addition, like our federal civilian courts, reformed commissions allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence gathering, and for the safety and security of participants.

A key difference is that, in military commissions, evidentiary rules reflect the realities of the battlefield and of conducting investigations in a war zone.   For example, statements may be admissible even in the absence of Miranda warnings, because we cannot expect military personnel to administer warnings to an enemy captured in battle.   But instead, a military judge must make other findings – for instance, that the statement is reliable and that it was made voluntarily.

I have faith in the framework and promise of our military commissions, which is why I’ve sent several cases to the reformed commissions for prosecution.  There is, quite simply, no inherent contradiction between using military commissions in appropriate cases while still prosecuting other terrorists in civilian courts.   Without question, there are differences between these systems that must be – and will continue to be – weighed carefully.   Such decisions about how to prosecute suspected terrorists are core Executive Branch functions.   In each case, prosecutors and counterterrorism professionals across the government conduct an intensive review of case-specific facts designed to determine which avenue of prosecution to pursue.

Several practical considerations affect the choice of forum.

First of all, the commissions only have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who are a part of al Qaeda, have engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, or who have purposefully and materially supported such hostilities.   This means that there may be members of certain terrorist groups who fall outside the jurisdiction of military commissions because, for example, they lack ties to al Qaeda and their conduct does not otherwise make them subject to prosecution in this forum.   Additionally, by statute, military commissions cannot be used to try U.S. citizens.

Second, our civilian courts cover a much broader set of offenses than the military commissions, which can only prosecute specified offenses, including violations of the laws of war and other offenses traditionally triable by military commission.  This means federal prosecutors have a wider range of tools that can be used to incapacitate suspected terrorists.   Those charges, and the sentences they carry upon successful conviction, can provide important incentives to reach plea agreements and convince defendants to cooperate with federal authorities.

Third, there is the issue of international cooperation.   A number of countries have indicated that they will not cooperate with the United States in certain counterterrorism efforts — for instance, in providing evidence or extraditing suspects – if we intend to use that cooperation in pursuit of a military commission prosecution.   Although the use of military commissions in the United States can be traced back to the early days of our nation, in their present form they are less familiar to the international community than our time-tested criminal justice system and Article III courts.   However, it is my hope that, with time and experience, the reformed commissions will attain similar respect in the eyes of the world.

Where cases are selected for prosecution in military commissions, Justice Department investigators and prosecutors work closely to support our Department of Defense colleagues.  Today, the alleged mastermind of the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole is being prosecuted before a military commission.   I am proud to say that trial attorneys from the Department of Justice are working with military prosecutors on that case, as well as others.

And we will continue to reject the false idea that we must choose between federal courts and military commissions, instead of using them both.   If we were to fail to use all necessary and available tools at our disposal, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to protect the Nation and its people.   That is simply not an outcome we can accept.

This Administration has worked in other areas as well to ensure that counterterrorism professionals have the flexibility that they need to fulfill their critical responsibilities without diverging from our laws and our values.   Last week brought the most recent step, when the President issued procedures under the National Defense Authorization Act.   This legislation, which Congress passed in December, mandated that a narrow category of al Qaeda terrorist suspects be placed in temporary military custody.

Last Tuesday, the President exercised his authority under the statute to issue procedures to make sure that military custody will not disrupt ongoing law enforcement and intelligence operations — and that an individual will be transferred from civilian to military custody only after a thorough evaluation of his or her case, based on the considered judgment of the President’s senior national security team.   As authorized by the statute, the President waived the requirements for several categories of individuals where he found that the waivers were in our national security interest.   These procedures implement not only the language of the statute but also the expressed intent of the lead sponsors of this legislation.   And they address the concerns the President expressed when he signed this bill into law at the end of last year.

Now, I realize I have gone into considerable detail about tools we use to identify suspected terrorists and to bring captured terrorists to justice.   It is preferable to capture suspected terrorists where feasible – among other reasons, so that we can gather valuable intelligence from them – but we must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority – and, I would argue, the responsibility – to defend the United States through the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force.

This principle has long been established under both U.S. and international law.   In response to the attacks perpetrated – and the continuing threat posed – by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, Congress has authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups.   Because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerents under international law.   The Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack.   And international law recognizes the inherent right of national self-defense.   None of this is changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war.

Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan.   Indeed, neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan.   We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country.   Over the last three years alone, al Qaeda and its associates have directed several attacks – fortunately, unsuccessful – against us from countries other than Afghanistan.  Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats.

This does not mean that we can use military force whenever or wherever we want.  International legal principles, including respect for another nation’s sovereignty, constrain our ability to act unilaterally.   But the use of force in foreign territory would be consistent with these international legal principles if conducted, for example, with the consent of the nation involved – or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States.

Furthermore, it is entirely lawful – under both United States law and applicable law of war principles – to target specific senior operational leaders of al Qaeda and associated forces.   This is not a novel concept.   In fact, during World War II, the United States tracked the plane flying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – the commander of Japanese forces in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway – and shot it down specifically because he was on board.   As I explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee following the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the same rules apply today.

Some have called such operations “assassinations.”   They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced.   Assassinations are unlawful killings.   Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes.

Now, it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that some of the threats we face come from a small number of United States citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad.   Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during this current conflict, it’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted.   But it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to United States citizens – even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent Americans.   Of these, the most relevant is the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which says that the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law.

The Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process Clause does not impose one-size-fits-all requirements, but instead mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances.   In cases arising under the Due Process Clause – including in a case involving a U.S. citizen captured in the conflict against al Qaeda – the Court has applied a balancing approach, weighing the private interest that will be affected against the interest the government is trying to protect, and the burdens the government would face in providing additional process.  Where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat.

Here, the interests on both sides of the scale are extraordinarily weighty.   An individual’s interest in making sure that the government does not target him erroneously could not be more significant.   Yet it is imperative for the government to counter threats posed by senior operational leaders of al Qaeda, and to protect the innocent people whose lives could be lost in their attacks.

Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen – even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaeda in a foreign land – is among the gravest that government leaders can face.   The American people can be – and deserve to be – assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws.   So, although I cannot discuss or confirm any particular program or operation, I believe it is important to explain these legal principles publicly.

Let me be clear:   an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

The evaluation of whether an individual presents an “imminent threat” incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.   As we learned on 9/11, al Qaeda has demonstrated the ability to strike with little or no notice – and to cause devastating casualties.   Its leaders are continually planning attacks against the United States, and they do not behave like a traditional military – wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, or massing forces in preparation for an attack.   Given these facts, the Constitution does not require the President to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning – when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear.   Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that Americans would be killed.

Whether the capture of a U.S. citizen terrorist is feasible is a fact-specific, and potentially time-sensitive, question.   It may depend on, among other things, whether capture can be accomplished in the window of time available to prevent an attack and without undue risk to civilians or to U.S. personnel.   Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack.   In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.

Of course, any such use of lethal force by the United States will comply with the four fundamental law of war principles governing the use of force.   The principle of necessity requires that the target have definite military value.   The principle of distinction requires that only lawful targets – such as combatants, civilians directly participating in hostilities, and military objectives – may be targeted intentionally.   Under the principle of proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.   Finally, the principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.

These principles do not forbid the use of stealth or technologically advanced weapons.   In fact, the use of advanced weapons may help to ensure that the best intelligence is available for planning and carrying out operations, and that the risk of civilian casualties can be minimized or avoided altogether.

Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces.   This is simply not accurate.   “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.   The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

The conduct and management of national security operations are core functions of the Executive Branch, as courts have recognized throughout our history.   Military and civilian officials must often make real-time decisions that balance the need to act, the existence of alternative options, the possibility of collateral damage, and other judgments – all of which depend on expertise and immediate access to information that only the Executive Branch may possess in real time.   The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential – but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war – even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.

That is not to say that the Executive Branch has – or should ever have – the ability to target any such individuals without robust oversight.   Which is why, in keeping with the law and our constitutional system of checks and balances, the Executive Branch regularly informs the appropriate members of Congress about our counterterrorism activities, including the legal framework, and would of course follow the same practice where lethal force is used against United States citizens.

Now, these circumstances are sufficient under the Constitution for the United States to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen abroad – but it is important to note that the legal requirements I have described may not apply in every situation – such as operations that take place on traditional battlefields.

The unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that – at times – originate with our own citizens.   When such individuals take up arms against this country – and join al Qaeda in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans – there may be only one realistic and appropriate response.   We must take steps to stop them – in full accordance with the Constitution.   In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out – and we will not.

This is an indicator of our times – not a departure from our laws and our values.   For this Administration – and for this nation – our values are clear.   We must always look to them for answers when we face difficult questions, like the ones I have discussed today.   As the President reminded us at the National Archives, “our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights, through World War and Cold War, because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way.”

Our most sacred principles and values – of security, justice and liberty for all citizens – must continue to unite us, to guide us forward, and to help us build a future that honors our founding documents and advances our ongoing – uniquely American – pursuit of a safer, more just, and more perfect union.   In the continuing effort to keep our people secure, this Administration will remain true to those values that inspired our nation’s founding and, over the course of two centuries, have made America an example of strength and a beacon of justice for all the world. This is our pledge.    

Thank you for inviting me to discuss these important issues with you today.

ROBONAUT 2 LENDS A HAND TO GENERAL MOTORS

While Robonaut 2 has been busy testing its technology in microgravity aboard the International Space Station, NASA and General Motors have been working together on the ground to find new ways those technologies can be used. The two groups began working together in 2007 on Robonaut 2, or R2, which in 2011 became the first humanoid robot in space. NASA and GM now are developing a robotic glove that auto workers and astronauts can wear to perform their respective jobs, while reducing the risk of repetitive stress injuries. Officially, it’s called the Human Grasp Assist device, but generally it’s called the K-Glove or Robo-Glove. In this image, Robonaut and a spacesuit-gloved hand are extended toward each other to demonstrate the collaboration between robots and humans in space. Image Credit: NASA

The above photo and excerpt are from the NASA website: 

COURT ORDERS STOCK BROKER TO PAY OVER $500,000 IN FRAUD CASE

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that a federal judge in Massachusetts entered a final judgment on March 14, 2012 ordering defendant James J. Konaxis, formerly a registered representative of Beverly-based broker-dealer Sentinel Securities, Inc., to disgorge more than $483,000 in commissions earned over a two-year period by defrauding a former customer who was left widowed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Together with prejudgment interested and a civil penalty, Konaxis has been ordered to pay a total of $514,954. In granting the Commission’s motion for monetary remedies, Judge Denise L. Casper found that Konaxis was liable in the amount of all commissions earned from three of the victim’s accounts over a two-year period because he “misled the victim into thinking her investments were safe, while churning (e.g., excessively trading) her funds in a manner contrary to her interests[.]”

According to the Commission’s complaint, Konaxis violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by excessively trading his customer’s funds while knowingly or recklessly disregarding her interests. During a two-year period, the Commission alleges that the value of his customer’s accounts (funded by payments made to the victim and her family by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund) decreased from approximately $3.7 million to approximately $1.6 million, much of which was due to Konaxis’s investments and the resulting commissions paid to Konaxis.

At the time the Commission’s complaint was filed, Konaxis entered into a partial settlement with the Commission, in which he consented to be enjoined from future violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and Exchange Act, and to be barred from participating in any offering of penny stock. In addition, as part of the settlement, Konaxis agreed to be barred in related administrative proceedings from any future association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, or transfer agent. However, the Commission also filed a motion with the Court seeking disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus pre-judgment interest, and the imposition of a civil penalty, which Konaxis opposed.

After a hearing on March 1, 2012, Judge Denise L. Casper issued an order granting the Commission’s motion for monetary remedies, including disgorgement in the full amount of Konaxis’ commissions earned over a two-year period from the three accounts churned, totaling $483,460.23, prejudgment interest in the amount of $31,494.44, and a civil penalty of $10,000, for a total of $514,954.

DARK MATTER IN GALAXY CLUSTER ABELL 383

The photo and following excerpt are from the NASA website: 
Two teams of astronomers have used data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes to map the distribution of dark matter in a galaxy cluster known as Abell 383, which is located about 2.3 billion light years from Earth. Not only were the researchers able to find where the dark matter lies in the two dimensions across the sky, they were also able to determine how the dark matter is distributed along the line of sight.

Dark matter is invisible material that does not emit or absorb any type of light, but is detectable through its gravitational effects. Several lines of evidence indicate that there is about six times as much dark matter as "normal," or baryonic, matter in the Universe. Understanding the nature of this mysterious matter is one of the outstanding problems in astrophysics.

Galaxy clusters are the largest gravitationally-bound structures in the universe, and play an important role in research on dark matter and cosmology, the study of the structure and evolution of the universe. The use of clusters as dark matter and cosmological probes hinges on scientists' ability to use objects such as Abell 383 to accurately determine the three-dimensional structures and masses of clusters.

The recent work on Abell 383 provides one of the most detailed 3-D pictures yet taken of dark matter in a galaxy cluster. Both teams have found that the dark matter is stretched out like a gigantic football, rather than being spherical like a basketball, and that the point of the football is aligned close to the line of sight.

The X-ray data (purple) from Chandra in the composite image show the hot gas, which is by far the dominant type of normal matter in the cluster. Galaxies are shown with the optical data from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the Very Large Telescope, and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, colored in blue and white.

Both teams combined the X-ray observations of the "normal matter" in the cluster with gravitational lensing information determined from optical data. Gravitational lensing -- an effect predicted by Albert Einstein -- causes the material in the galaxy cluster, both normal and dark matter, to bend and distort the optical light from background galaxies. The distortion is severe in some parts of the image, producing an arc-like appearance for some of the galaxies. In other parts of the image the distortion is subtle and statistical analysis is used to study the distortion effects and probe the dark matter.

A considerable amount of effort has gone into studying the center of galaxy clusters, where the dark matter has the highest concentration and important clues about its behavior might be revealed. Both of the Abell 383 studies reported here continue that effort.

The team of Andrea Morandi from Tel Aviv University in Israel and Marceau Limousin from Université de Provence in France and University of Copenhagen in Denmark concluded that the increased concentration of the dark matter toward the center of the cluster is in agreement with most theoretical simulations. Their lensing data came from HST images.

The team led by Andrew Newman of the California Institute of Technology and Tommaso Treu of University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) used lensing data from HST and the Japanese telescope Subaru, but added Keck observations to measure the velocities of stars in the galaxy in the center of the cluster, allowing for a direct estimate of the amount of matter there. They found evidence that the amount of dark matter is not peaked as dramatically toward the center as the standard cold dark matter model predicts. Their paper describes this as being the "most robust case yet" made for such a discrepancy with theory.

The contrasting conclusions reached by the two teams most likely stem from differences in the data sets and the detailed mathematical modeling used. One important difference is that because the Newman et al. team used velocity information in the central galaxy, they were able to estimate the density of dark matter at distances that approached as close as only 6,500 light years from the center of the cluster. Morandi and Limousin did not use velocity data and their density estimates were unable to approach as close to the cluster's center, reaching to within 80,000 light years.

Another important difference is that Morandi and Limousin used a more detailed model for the 3-D map of dark matter in the cluster. For example, they were able to estimate the orientation of the dark matter "football" in space and show that it is mostly edge-on, although slightly tilted with respect to the line of sight.

As is often the case with cutting-edge and complex results, further work will be needed to resolve the discrepancy between the two teams. In view of the importance of resolving the dark matter mystery, there will undoubtedly be much more research into Abell 383 and other objects like it in the months and years to come.

If the relative lack of dark matter in the center of Abell 383 is confirmed, it may show that improvements need to be made in our understanding of how normal matter behaves in the center of galaxy clusters, or it may show that dark matter particles can interact with each other, contrary to the prevailing model.

The Newman et al. paper was published in the February 20, 2011 issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letter and the Morandi and Limousin paper has been accepted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Other members of the Newman et al. team were Richard Ellis from Caltech, and David Sand from Las Cumbres Global Telescope Network and UCSB.

Credits: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Caltech/A.Newman et al/Tel Aviv/A.Morandi & M.Limousin; Optical: NASA/STScI, ESO/VLT, SDSS

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON'S MEETINGS IN NORTHERN IRELANDAND

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail:
Remarks With First Minister of Northern Ireland Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland Martin McGuiness Before Their Meeting
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Treaty Room
Washington, DC
March 19, 2012
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s a great pleasure to welcome back to Washington and here to the State Department the first minister and the deputy first minister from Northern Ireland. I have had the great honor of working with these gentlemen for a number of years and have been so impressed at the progress that they are making together. And we look forward to a very close and continuing relationship, and I just can’t thank you both enough for the leadership and the great example that you are setting for the people who you represent but also far beyond.
Peter.

FIRST MINISTER ROBINSON: Well, again, we’re delighted to accept Secretary Clinton’s hospitality. She’s been a very good friend of Northern Ireland. Martin and I are particularly glad to be here because there was an election between when we last met, her and I, and we’ve come back with a reinforced mandate. We’re looking forward to giving details to the Secretary of State of the progress that we’re making in Northern Ireland. We’ve agreed our Programme for Government, our budget, our investment strategy, our economic strategy. We’ve got major reforms on the way and help for local government and in education.
So, it’s normal foreign politics and boring is good for Northern Ireland.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s good.

FIRST MINISTER ROBINSON: So we’re making real progress and we look forward to continuing our discussions with the Administration.

SECRETARY CLINTON: As well, that’s exactly right.

Martin.
DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER MCGUINESS: This is also a great opportunity for Peter and myself to express our deepest thanks and appreciation for the incredible support that we’ve received from Secretary of State Clinton and also from President Obama. They have been very staunch supporters of the peace process. And it’s great for us, in the aftermath of the election that Peter has just spoken about, to be able to come and record the fact that both the peace process and the political process has been considerably strengthened as a result of that election last year.

And as Peter has also said, we are very involved in the very important work of the economy, the great challenges that exist obviously worldwide but how that impacts on us, a very small part of the world, and the need for us to ensure that we are continuing to engage with our friends here in North America who have been incredibly supportive. The number of (inaudible) jobs that we have brought into the north from companies like the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Mercantile, HBO, Citigroup, Allstate – all of these have been providing much needed employment for our people, and that is something for which we are deeply grateful.

Of course, you can’t (inaudible) any of that from the very important economic investment conference that Secretary Clinton hosted here for us not too long ago. So, very important to come here and say how much we admire this woman as a leader and admire her as a true friend of peace and political progress in our part of the world.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks to you both. Thank you all.

FRAUD AND TAX EVASION COST FORMER ARIZONA STATE REP. $140,000

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Former Arizona State Representative Pleads Guilty to Wire Fraud and Tax Evasion Related to the Misuse of More Than $140,000 in Charity Funds
WASHINGTON – Richard David Miranda, a former Arizona state representative, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to a two-count information charging him with defrauding a charity of more than $140,000 and evading income tax related to those unlawfully obtained funds.

The guilty plea was announced by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; Special Agent in Charge James L. Turgal of the FBI’s Phoenix Field Office; and Special Agent in Charge Dawn Mertz of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) Phoenix office.

“Mr. Miranda, a former member of the Arizona legislature and executive director of a non-profit organization, pleaded guilty today to using over $140,000 of the charity’s funds for his personal expenses, and then failing to disclose the extra income on his tax return,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer.   “Having admitted this illegal conduct, Miranda will now face the consequences of his actions.   This Justice Department will continue to hold elected officials, just like ordinary citizens, accountable for their crimes.”

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice remain steadfast in our efforts to combat public corruption at all levels of government by investigating and prosecuting those who deliberately abuse the public’s trust by using their office for personal gain stated,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge James L. Turgal Jr.   “The FBI and our law enforcement partners are committed to holding our elected officials accountable from intentionally engaging in schemes to profit from fraudulent activity and exploiting the faith placed in them by the American public.”  

“It is an embarrassment to the state and its people when a state representative deceives those he was elected to represent,” said IRS Special Agent in Charge Mertz.   “Former Representative Miranda selfishly defrauded a charity that was established to assist disadvantaged members of the community and used the profits for his own benefit.   Those in public office should be held to a higher standard and are not exempt from criminal prosecution.”

Miranda, 55, of Tolleson, Ariz., served as a member of the Arizona House of Representatives for the 13th District from 2011 until his resignation, effective Feb. 20, 2012.   Miranda previously served as a member of the Arizona State Senate from 2002 until 2011, and the Arizona House of Representatives from 1999 until 2002.   According to court documents, since July 2002, Miranda also served as executive director of Centro Adelante Campesino Inc. (Centro), a non-profit charitable organization that provided food, clothing and educational assistance to persons in need, including migrant farm workers, in and around Maricopa County, Ariz.

According to court documents, in May 2005, Miranda initiated a scheme to wind down Centro, sell Centro’s sole remaining asset (a building), and use the proceeds of the sale for personal expenses.   To do so, Miranda removed the charity’s longstanding volunteer accountant as an authorized signer on the charity’s bank and credit union accounts, and assumed sole control of the charity’s accounts and financial records.   He also told the volunteer accountant that the proceeds of the sale would be used to fund scholarships.   In March 2007, the building was sold for $250,000, and on March 7, 2007, a significant portion of the profits of that sale – $144,576 – were wired across state lines into Centro’s credit union account.

According to court documents, within one week of the wire transfer, Miranda began to withdraw the proceeds from Centro’s credit union account without the authorization or knowledge of Centro’s board of directors.   For example, Miranda obtained two checks payable to himself totaling $37,000, and paid off personal credit card debts totaling more than $60,000.   By Dec. 31, 2007, Miranda had withdrawn the remaining proceeds (approximately $46,836) using checks, withdrawals and electronic funds transfers, and used the funds to pay off additional personal debts and make numerous purchases for personal travel, services, clothing, food and household items.   Miranda also failed to report the proceeds of the sale as income on his IRS Form 1040 for calendar year 2007.

The charge of wire fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the amount gained or lost in the scheme.   The charge of attempt to evade or defeat tax carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $100,000 fine.   Sentencing has been scheduled for June 5, 2012.

The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Edward T. Kang, Monique T. Abrishami and Brian A. Lichter of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Battista of the District of Arizona.   The case is being investigated by agents from the FBI Phoenix Field Office and IRS-CI Phoenix Office.

DOD WORKS TO CONTROL LOOSE NUKES

The following excerpt is from a U.S. Defense Department American Forces Press Service e-mail:
Official: DOD Improves Posture on 'Loose Nuke' Threat
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 15, 2012 - Though the Defense Department's role in nuclear nonproliferation centers on dismantling weapons of mass destruction in former Soviet Union states, DOD also plans, equips and trains for scenarios in which terrorists get their hands on nuclear weapons, the principal deputy assistant defense secretary for global strategic affairs said yesterday.

Kenneth B. Handelman testified with colleagues from the State Department, the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration and the Government Accountability Office before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's subcommittee on oversight of government management.

The hearing focused on interagency nuclear nonproliferation efforts around the world.
For fiscal 2013, Handelman said, President Barack Obama's budget request for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, or CTR, is $519 million, roughly $130 million of which would be devoted to nuclear security-related activities, which he called "truly a governmentwide team effort." CTR is an initiative created in 1991 to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction and associated infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.

DOD's contribution to the nuclear security effort "comes primarily through CTR," Handelman said.

"However," he added, "given DOD's overall mission to defend the nation, there's a whole world of separate nuclear-security activities for which my agency plans, equips and trains."

Such activities, he said, "center on a scenario none of us want to confront; namely, what to do when we think the bad guys actually have gotten their hands on really bad things."

Planning for this type of "loose-nukes" situation is evolving substantially, Handelman said, and the watchword for DOD's new thinking focuses on integration across DOD components and across the government.

"For instance," he said, "the instability or collapse of a nuclear-armed state could quickly lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons or materials well beyond the country of origin and involve multiple state and nonstate actors as it moves across the globe."
Today, Handelman said, the services are working to improve DOD's defensive posture against the threat by enhancing the homeland's protective posture, working with the intelligence community to better analyze and track terrorist networks, identifying likely paths to proliferation, and improving the ability to characterize the source and nature of loose-nuke threats.

"Our work at DOD has focused on how U.S. military units would coordinate with other U.S. agencies and with allies and partners in the face of such a loose-nuke threat scenario," Handelman said.

Handelman said the first line of defense in attaining global nuclear security is a group of activities in which agencies from across the U.S. government participate, including DOD.

Thomas Countryman, assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, described for the panel a three-tiered U.S. strategy -- site level, country level and global level -- to lock down or remove vulnerable nuclear materials.
"At the site level," he said, "we work with other countries to minimize the civilian use of highly enriched uranium, to eliminate unneeded weapons-usable material, and to improve security at specific sites."

Where site-level assistance is inappropriate," Countryman added, "we cooperate at the country level with foreign governments to exchange best practices and to demonstrate the safe use of equipment."

At the global level, the assistant secretary said, the United States helps to develop global initiatives through the Nuclear Security Summit process, the United Nations and other means to improve nuclear security around the world."
One example is U.S. engagement with the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, he added, a partnership of 83 nations that conduct activities to strengthen plans, policies and interoperability on the issue of nuclear terrorism.

The National Nuclear Security Administration also makes important contributions at the site and national levels, Anne Harrington said, including working with partner countries on their nuclear security centers of excellence.

"These centers form an important network that will allow countries and regions to strengthen capabilities to secure facilities and to deter, detect and interdict illicit trafficking of nuclear and radiological material," she said.

The NNSA also holds quarterly coordination meetings with DOD colleagues at the assistant-secretary level, Harrington said, "to discuss areas of common interest, coordinate on program ideas and do forward planning."

The United States is looking forward into a global nuclear economy, she added, one that, despite the incidents at the tsunami-damaged Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, will continue to expand in terms of use of nuclear power and uranium commerce.
"As long as nuclear materials exist," Countryman told the panel, "we will have the same need to set the best possible example in the United States of securing those materials and of sharing that capability for protection with other countries, motivating them to do the same."

ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER COMMENTS ON INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCE MANDATE TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING

The following excerpt is from the U.S. Department of Justice website:  
Today Attorney General Eric Holder joined members of the president’s cabinet and other senior advisors at the White House for a meeting of the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.
Speaking at the meeting, the Attorney General said:
For the Department of Justice, our commitment to preventing human trafficking, bringing traffickers to justice, and assisting victims has never been stronger – and our approach has never been more effective. Our work has sent a clear and critical message: that, in this country – and under this Administration – human trafficking crimes will not be tolerated. I’m proud to report that, this past year, we charged nearly 120 defendants – a record number – in human trafficking cases. And, over the last three years, we’ve achieved significant increases in human trafficking prosecutions – including a rise of more than 30 percent in the number of forced labor and adult sex trafficking prosecutions.

This work has saved lives, ensured freedom, and restored dignity to women, men, and children in virtually every corner of the country. We’ve liberated scores of victims; secured long prison sentences against individual traffickers; and dismantled large, transnational organized criminal enterprises.

The Department of Justice’s comprehensive approach to prevent human trafficking involves the work of many offices. That’s why the Attorney General formed the Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team – or “ACTeam” – Initiative, an interagency collaboration among the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Labor aimed at streamlining federal criminal investigations and prosecutions of human trafficking offenses.
The scourge of human trafficking goes beyond our borders. The Department of Justice continues to work closely with our international counterparts. For instance, we’ve advanced the U.S.-Mexico Human Trafficking Bilateral Enforcement Initiative, in collaboration with DHS and Mexican law enforcement counterparts, to develop high-impact bilateral investigations and prosecutions to dismantle international human trafficking networks, resulting in landmark convictions in coordinated prosecutions under both U.S. and Mexican law.

Department officials have also shared their expertise and helped to train hundreds of prosecutors, investigators and law enforcement officials in partner countries abroad through our International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP). ICITAP supported the international anti-human trafficking effort through program activities in seven countries on three continents.

In addition to ensuring those who perpetuate these crimes are found and brought to justice, the department’s anti-trafficking grant programs, training and technical assistance initiatives continue to support communities in building capacity to combat human trafficking and assist victims.

These programs take a multidisciplinary approach to human trafficking prevention and encourage close partnerships among federal prosecutors, state and local law enforcement, victim service providers, and other federal partners, including the FBI, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and State.

Supplementing training and grant programs are resources like the Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force Strategy and Operations eGuide, a comprehensive online resource to assist anti-trafficking task forces in establishing, strengthening, and operating multidisciplinary response teams to identify and assist trafficking victims across the country.

To better understand trafficking, the National Institute of Justice continues to expand its research portfolio to understand how and why trafficking occurs, how to best help victims and examine the reasons why these crimes go under-reported in the United States.

POISONING CAUSES MANY U.S. DEATHS ACCORDING TO THE CDC

The following excerpt is from the CDC website:
Poisoning is a Major Cause of Death from Injury in the U.S.
US Government raising awareness of accidental exposures during National Poison Prevention Week
WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency is joining forces with its federal partners to raise awareness of the dangers of poisoning, especially to children, during National Poison Prevention Week, March 18-24. In just the past year, America’s 57 poison control centers fielded 4 million calls, treating 2.4 million human poison exposures and handling 1.6 million information calls.

EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Health Resources and Services Administration, Consumer Products Safety Commission, Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as the American Association of Poison Control Centers are urging parents and caregivers to be vigilant and take steps now to prevent unnecessary exposures and poisonings throughout the year.

In recognition of National Poison Prevention Week, EPA urges parents and caregivers to secure chemicals and pesticides in locked cabinets out of children's reach. According to recently published poison-center data, annually more than 150,000 calls to poison centers involved pesticides and disinfectants. Greater than half of pesticide exposures involved children five years or younger. Additionally, the top five most-common exposures to children include cosmetics and personal care products, pain medication, cleaning products, foreign objects, and creams.

The development of child-resistant packaging on medicines and household chemicals and the banning of lead-based paint have had a significant impact in preventing poisonings and making homes safer. In addition, new EPA packaging requirements ensure that children and pets cannot access certain pesticides. For example, manufacturers of rodenticides now must enclose the products in plastic bait stations so that only the target pests are affected.

Even though progress has been made there is need for increased awareness about existing hazards posed from pest control products, prescription medicine abuse and household chemicals.

At the front line of the effort to reduce poisonings are the activities of the National Poison Prevention Week Council, which is marking its 50th anniversary this year. The council's key goal is to create national awareness about the risk of injury or death due to poisoning.

The themes for the Seven Days of Poisoning Prevention are:

Sunday:     Poisonings Span a Lifetime
Monday:     Children Act Fast, So Do Poisons
Tuesday:     Poison Centers: Saving Lives 24/7  
Wednesday:     Take Your Medicines Safely
Thursday:     Home, Safe, Home
Friday:         Poison Prevention Superhero: Share Your Stories
Saturday:     50 Ways to Prevent Poisonings

BROTHERS RECALL AFGHANISTAN

The photo and  following excerpt is from the Department of Defense American Forces Press Service website:

Army brothers Spc. Duane Vinson, left, and Sgt. Bryan Vinson, right, returned to Fort Bragg, N.C., after a nine-month deployment to Afghanistan. The brothers, who are both assigned to 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, deployed with the same battalion, but saw each other only five or six times throughout their deployment. U.S. Army photo by Spc. Terrance Payton

Face of Defense: Army Brothers Recall Afghanistan Duty
By Army Sgt. Terrance Payton
82nd Airborne Division Public Affairs
FORT BRAGG, N.C., March 16, 2012 - A nine-month deployment to Afghanistan came easier to two Army brothers with the 82nd Airborne Division, who recently returned here.
Sgt. Bryan Vinson and Spc. Duane Vinson, both infantrymen with the division's 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Battalion, Company C, were among 700 paratroopers who returned home here last month.

The brothers were both in northern Afghanistan and saw each other five or six times during their deployment.

"We really didn't have the capability to contact each other," said Duane, a squad automatic weapon gunner. "It was more knowing when our teams were going to certain areas that we would cross paths."

Even with infrequent encounters, Duane said, it helped having his brother nearby. "It was like a piece of back home over there. I could tell him stories like old times," he said.
Bryan, the older brother and a team leader with the 3rd Platoon, agreed. "It was almost exciting because sometimes we would go out and not know that the other would be somewhere and run into each other. It was a real uplifting thing to see him."
"We were extremely close growing up," he added. "We grew up playing sports and always looking out for each other. Honestly, we've almost been inseparable."
The two soldiers, who are from Hendersonville, Tenn., said they share a special relationship with their father who served as an Army cavalry scout and also is named Duane.

"He made sure that we stayed close to each other," the younger Duane said. "He taught us a lot about being men and a lot about being soldiers."

"He understands the kind of bond that you share with fellow soldiers," Bryan said. "To see him and be able to share our experiences with him; he has an understanding of what we're talking about, that's what so great about him being prior service."
Bryan, who has been at Fort Bragg for about a year longer than his brother, said he worried about his younger brother. "As an older brother, I naturally feel protective of him," he said. "I never really understood how my parents felt about me being here or deploying until he came here and we were deploying together."
The brothers said their father dealt with the deployment well, and helped their mother deal with the absence of her sons.

"My mother was nervous, but she was almost happy that we would be deploying together," Duane said. "She felt that if we deploy together that there would be chances that we would see each other and be able to watch out for each other."
The brothers' deployment together made their already close relationship even closer, they said.

"We grew up in a good family and have been extremely close our entire lives," Bryan said. "We already had a strong bond, but being here together and deploying together, that bond has increased tenfold."

He added that he also is grateful to the Army buddies he deployed with.
"Yeah, I have my biological brother here with me, but none of this deployment would have been possible without the guys in our company, leaders and the guys who followed us," Bryan said. "We were out there together, but those guys looked after us. We couldn't have done any of this deployment or this job without the support of any of those people."

FEMA SAYS DISASTER VICTIMS SHOULD WATCH OUT FOR FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the FEMA website:

FRANKFORT, Ky. -- Survivors of the Feb. 29 and March 2, 2012 tornadoes, straight line winds and flooding and storms in Kentucky should be on the alert for scam artists who may approach you in person, by telephone or via the Internet.

Be alert when your doorbell rings. People going door-to-door to damaged homes or telephoning disaster survivors and claiming to be building contractors could be frauds. If visitors or callers solicit personal information such as Social Security or bank account numbers, or for money, they are not legitimate.

Emails which offer some form of assistance but require personal data such as Social Security numbers or bank account and credit card numbers may be fraudulent and can enable identity theft. FEMA will never ask for this information via email or other electronic communication.

Federal disaster workers do not solicit or accept money.  Remember, FEMA and SBA staff members never charge applicants for disaster assistance, inspections or for help in filling out applications. If in doubt, do not give out information. You should report people claiming to be government workers to local police.

FEMA inspectors only verify damage. They do not determine the amount of a federal grant. FEMA inspectors do not hire or endorse specific contractors to repair damage.

To safeguard against disaster-related fraud, FEMA and Kentucky Emergency Management officials suggest the following precautions:

Ask for official identification. If someone represents him or herself as a federal employee such as an inspector, but doesn't produce identification, you should ask to see the identification. A FEMA shirt or jacket is not absolute proof of someone's affiliation with the government.

Inspectors sent by FEMA, or verifiers from the SBA, carry official, laminated photo identification. Applicants may receive a visit from more than one inspector or verifier.

Safeguard personal information. Do not give your Social Security number, bank account or FEMA registration number to individuals claiming to be affiliated with the federal government. FEMA inspectors never require this information.

When you called FEMA to register, you were asked for your Social Security number. If you asked for direct deposit, you also gave a bank number. If a FEMA representative makes a follow-up call to you, he or she will ask for the last four digits of your Social Security number and then he or she will verify other critical information which may include your banking information, depending on the reason for the call.

If you suspect anyone of committing fraudulent activities, whether it is a contractor, inspector, disaster survivor or someone posing as any of these, call the Disaster Fraud Hotline toll-free at 800-323-8603.  Also let your local law enforcement agencies know.

FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.

NAVY WORKING TO KEEP STRAIT OF HORMUZ OPEN

The following excerpt is from a U.S. Department of Defense American Forces Press e-mail:

Navy Looks to Bolster Capabilities in Persian Gulf

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 16, 2012 - The Strait of Hormuz is a critical global choke point and the U.S. Navy is ensuring it has all the capabilities needed for this transit point to remain open, Navy Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, chief of naval operations, said today.

The admiral told the Defense Writers' Group that the Navy is beefing up capabilities in the Persian Gulf, through which much of the world's oil flows.

On one side of the strait are U.S. allies Oman and the United Arab Emirates. On the other side is Iran, whose leaders have threatened to shut down the strategic body of water.

Greenert spoke with Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis, commander of U.S. Central Command, soon after he became CNO in September 2010. Mattis said there were capabilities he needed more of, the admiral recalled.

Greenert went to the region and assessed what the Navy needed "to set the theater." He was aboard the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis as it exited the Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz.

"I got a good look at the situation," the admiral said. "A lot of the Iranian navy was out there ... not really threatening, but being vigilant, and I thought through that."

He met with Central Command and Navy leaders and laid out what more is needed in the region.

Greenert said he will double the number of mine warfare assets in the region, including mine sweepers -- going from four ships to eight -- and anti-mine aircraft in the form of four more CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters.

The admiral also wants to increase the readiness of the forces in the region. "If I have four out there, how many are ready to go on any given day?" he said. "I wanted to make sure we are good on that and it includes spare parts, maintenance and contractor support."

Greenert said the Navy also is sending more underwater unmanned autonomous mine neutralization units to the region. "They are effective, they work well and our British partners know how to use them as well," he said.

For ships sailing through the strait, the Navy is providing more infrared and electro-optical capabilities. "We want to make sure that all the ships that deploy have the same configuration on board and the crews are proficient," the admiral said.

Navy forces need more short-range defenses in the region, Greenert said. It is a constrained area, he noted, and while carrier battle groups have excellent long-range defenses, they need something more. "It's like being in an alley with a rifle, and maybe what you need is a sawed-off shotgun," he said.

The Navy is looking at placing Mark 38 Gatling guns aboard the escorts or the carriers themselves, the admiral said.

"We have five patrol craft. They are 200-foot vessels that are armed with small arms. There are relatively short-range missiles out there -- roughly four miles -- and they are pretty effective according to special operations command," he said. "I want to look and see if they are compatible with our [patrol craft] ... so they are a more effective, more lethal vessel."

There are five patrol craft in the United States, three more coming back to the Navy from the Coast Guard and five in the Persian Gulf, Greenert said

"I want to move toward upgrading the PCs in the United States with Gatling guns and put them in Bahrain, ultimately, and we'll have 10 [in the Gulf]," the admiral said.

Within a year, most of the capabilities will be in place in region, he said.

SEC CHARGES FORMER EXECUTIVE AT CKE RESTAURANTS WITH INSIDER TRADING

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
March 16, 2012
On March 15, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a former executive at the parent company of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s fast food restaurants with insider trading in the company’s securities based on confidential information he learned on the job.

The SEC alleges that Noah J. Griggs, Jr., who was executive vice president of training and leadership development at CKE Restaurants Inc., made two purchases totaling 50,000 shares of CKE stock after attending an executive meeting during which he learned that the company was in discussions with private equity investors about a possible acquisition. Griggs made a potential profit of $145,430 after the stock price soared when the merger was announced publicly. Griggs has agreed to pay $268,000 to settle the SEC’s charges without admitting or denying the allegations.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Griggs attended a monthly strategic planning meeting on Friday, Nov. 20, 2009. CKE’s CEO cautioned the executives that information about the potential merger was confidential and nonpublic, and that no one should act on it. Nonetheless, on Monday morning November 23, Griggs bought 30,000 shares of CKE. He bought an additional 20,000 shares on Jan. 8, 2010. CKE and Thomas H. Lee Partners (THL) publicly announced a definitive merger on February 26 in which THL would acquire CKE. On news of the announcement, the value of Griggs’s shares increased significantly as CKE stock closed at $11.37 per share, up more than 27 percent from the previous day’s closing price of $8.91.

CKE Restaurants, Inc. is based in Carpinteria, California, and is the parent company of Carl Karcher Enterprises, which owns the fast-food restaurant brands of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s. Its common stock was listed on the NYSE under the ticker symbol CKR until July 13, 2010, when the NYSE suspended trading of the stock following the company’s acquisition by Columbia Lake Acquisition Holdings, Inc.

The SEC’s complaint charges Griggs with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c). Griggs agreed to pay disgorgement of $145,430, prejudgment interest of $11,035.74, and a penalty of $111,730. He also agreed to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years. The settlement is subject to court approval.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Los Angeles Regional Office enforcement staff Lorraine Echavarria and Carol Lally. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of NYSE Regulation, Inc. in this matter.

AIR FORCE SECRETARY DONLEY SAYS AIR FORCE WILL NOT TOLERATE WRONGDOING

The following excerpt is from a Department of Defense American Forces Press Service e-mail:

Donley: Air Force Will Not Tolerate Wrongdoing

By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 16, 2012 - The Air Force will not tolerate wrongdoing, Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley said in a statement today in response to a report by the independent Office of Special Counsel.

The investigative report, released today but presented to the Air Force in late January, found that Air Force officials at Dover Port Mortuary, Del., retaliated against mortuary employees who disclosed wrongdoing there.

"The Air Force will not tolerate wrongdoing, especially prohibited personnel practices, by employees," Donley said. "We continue to work closely with the Office of Special Counsel in addressing this issue."

Incidents of mishandling remains at Dover were reported by staff members and investigated in 2010 by the Army Inspector General, the Air Force Inspector General and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

At the time, the Air Force investigation found that some remains were not handled according to official procedures, and the mortuary leadership implemented corrective actions, including improvements in accountability, processes and procedures, record keeping and human and labor relations.

As a result of the investigation, in 2010 the mortuary commander received a letter of reprimand and two civilian employees were demoted and shifted to nonsupervisory jobs.

At a Nov. 10 news conference, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta noted concerns about this disciplinary action and other matters that were raised in a report by the Office of Special Counsel.

In light of the OSC report, Panetta said, he wanted to make sure the 2010 disciplinary actions were appropriate and that no management reprisals were taken at Dover against four employees who first reported the mishandling of remains.

In today's statement, Donley said the Air Force has reviewed the OSC report of reprisals taken against the whistleblowers. Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, he said, and all decisions should be complete by mid- to late-April.

"We are reviewing all training materials with supervisors and employees to ensure people understand the rights of whistleblowers," Donley said.

"We are committed to a workplace climate that makes individuals feel confident that they can raise any concerns they may have, that those concerns will be taken seriously, and that those raising the concerns will be treated with respect and appreciation," the Air Force secretary added.

The whistleblowers, he said, performed an important service to the Air Force and the nation. They continue in their positions and the Air Force is working with OSC to correct their records.

"In the meantime," Donley said, "we are implementing the recommendations of the Defense Health Board subcommittee to assure the very highest standard of care for our fallen and their families. We are proud of the employees at AFMAO and their continued commitment to this mission."

Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner said the Air Force has committed to improving its internal investigation procedures and the way it remedies whistleblower retaliation claims.

"I am pleased the Air Force has agreed to take further disciplinary action and institute training to prevent whistleblower retaliation in the future," Lerner said.

"The Port Mortuary whistleblowers," she added, " ... courageously stepped forward to report malfeasance and misconduct in the care of our fallen service members."

Their actions, Lerner said, "have resulted in significant improvements at the mortuary."
 

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON SPEAKS AT U.K PRIME MINISTER CAMERON'S LUNCHON

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail: 
Remarks at the Luncheon in Honor of UK Prime Minister David Cameron
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Benjamin Franklin Room
Washington, DC
March 14, 2012
Thank you all very much. Please be seated. Welcome to the State Department. We are thrilled and so pleased to host this luncheon for our very special guests, Prime Minister and Mrs. Cameron. It is wonderful to see all of you celebrating spring with us and knowing that our relationship, it’s always spring. It’s always being renewed, it is always durable, it is a cornerstone of both of our nations’ foreign policies, and it has such a great resonance between our two peoples.

Now I want to recognize our chef today. A native of Birmingham, England – not Alabama – (laughter) – who made herself a home in New York City as the executive chef of a couple of very hip restaurants. One, The Spotted Pig, the other The Breslin. So it’s really a delight to have April Bloomfield with us. She was just talking with the Prime Minister – (applause) – it was a very timely introduction because when the Prime Minister and President Obama exchanged gifts, President Obama gave the Prime Minister a barbeque. I mean a real, down-home American barbeque with a smoking compartment and everything else. So April stands ready to help, Prime Minister.

We joke about the special relationship, but that’s because we’re so comfortable with it. It means such a great deal to us. It is not just because of a wide range of shared interests, but our deeply rooted history and the unbreakable friendship between our countries. Now, of course the President did remind the Prime Minister at the White House ceremony this morning that we are at the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812. (Laughter.)
And I was pleased to tell my counterpart and friend, the Foreign Secretary, and also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was my predecessor in one of my other lives, Dolly Madison, who actually saved the extraordinary portraits of George and Martha Washington. Having received word from her husband, who was truly been a commander-in-chief in the field, that unfortunately the British truly were coming. And – (laughter) – so she rushed from the White House, taking some treasures with her, leaving behind the meal that she had prepared for her husband and his officers. And the British officers ate the meal before they burned the White House. So – (laughter) – we are looking forward, but nevertheless, there are certain memories that are also of significance.

And how wonderful it is, here we are today and working together in so many important parts of the world: helping to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan; helping to promote successful transitions and democratic reforms in the Arab world. We worked alongside each other to end a dictator’s rule in Libya. We are now focused on helping the people of Syria realize a better future for themselves. We are grateful for the leadership that the Prime Minister and his government have shown on so many issues – just recently, I was in London for a conference on Somalia that they sponsored. No matter what the issue, we are standing together. So I know, Prime Minister and Samantha, that this is just a small measure of hospitality to try to demonstrate our commitment and appreciation for this relationship. We were so well treated when the President and I and our teams were on a state visit last year sponsored by the government, of course, her Majesty’s Government. So, we did the best we could with the weather. We think we pulled that off quite well. But it is now my great pleasure to welcome a dear friend, a great American, and a superb vice president, Joe Biden. (Applause.)

THREE NOBLE CORPORATE EXECUTIVES CHARGED BY SEC WITH BRIBERY

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
March 14, 2012
SEC Charges Three Executives At Noble Corporation With Bribing Customs Officials In Nigeria
On February 24, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission today charged three Noble Corporation executives with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by participating in a bribery scheme to obtain illicit permits for oil rigs in Nigeria in order to retain business under lucrative drilling contracts.

The SEC alleges that former Noble CEO Mark A. Jackson along with James J. Ruehlen, who is the current Director and Division Manager of Noble’s subsidiary in Nigeria, bribed customs officials to process false paperwork purporting to show the export and re-import of oil rigs, when in fact the rigs never moved. The scheme was designed to save Noble Corporation from losing business and incurring significant costs associated with exporting rigs from Nigeria and then re-importing them under new permits. Bribes were paid through a customs agent for Noble’s Nigerian subsidiary with Jackson and Ruehlen’s approval.

The SEC separately charged Thomas F. O’Rourke, who was a former controller and head of internal audit at Noble. The SEC alleges that O’Rourke helped approve the bribe payments and allowed the bribes to be booked improperly as legitimate operating expenses for the company. O’Rourke agreed to settle the SEC’s charges and pay a penalty.
Noble Corporation was charged with FCPA violations as part of a sweep of the oil services industry in late 2010. The company cooperated with investigators and agreed to pay more than $8 million to settle civil and criminal cases.

According to the SEC’s complaint against Jackson and Ruehlen filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the executives who perpetrated the scheme worked at Noble and Noble’s Nigerian subsidiary Noble Drilling (Nigeria) Ltd, whose rigs operated in Nigeria on the basis of temporary import permits granted by the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS). These temporary permits allowed the rigs to be in the country for a one-year period. NCS had the discretion to grant up to three extensions lasting six months each, after which the rigs were required to be exported and re-imported under a new temporary permit or be permanently imported with the payment of sizeable duties.
The SEC alleges that Jackson and Ruehlen had a role in arranging, facilitating, approving, making, or concealing the bribe payments to induce Nigerian customs officials to grant new temporary permits illegally and favorably exercise or abuse their discretion to grant permit extensions. Together, Jackson and Ruehlen participated in paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to obtain about 11 illicit permits and 29 permit extensions. Jackson approved the bribe payments and concealed the payments from Noble’s audit committee and auditors. Ruehlen prepared false documents, sought approval for the bribes, and processed and paid the bribes.

The SEC’s complaint against Jackson and Ruehlen alleges they directly violated the anti-bribery provisions of Section 30A of the Securities Exchange Act and the internal controls and false records provisions of Section 13(b)(5) and Rule 13b2-1 of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that they aided and abetted Noble’s violations of Section 30A and the books and records and internal controls provisions of Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act. The complaint further alleges that Jackson directly violated Exchange Act Rule 13b2-2 by misleading auditors and Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 by signing false certifications of Noble’s financial statements. He also is liable as a control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for violations of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions by Noble, Ruehlen, and O’Rourke.

The SEC’s complaint against O’Rourke alleges that he aided and abetted Noble’s violations of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the Exchange Act, and that he directly violated the internal controls and false records provisions of the Exchange Act. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, O’Rourke consented to entry of a court order requiring him to pay a $35,000 penalty and permanently enjoining him from further violations of Sections 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), 13(b)(5) and 30A of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA GIVES INTERVIEW TO AL HURRA TELEVISION

The following excerpt is from a Department of  Defense e-mail:
Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta Interview with Al Hurra Television
             Q:  Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being with Al Hurra.  I would like to start by asking you about what's the purpose of your visit to the UAE, and do you think that the GCC is concerned about Iran's influence -- Iran's nuclear program in the region?  (Continues in Arabic.)
            SECRETARY LEON PANETTA:  The purpose of my visit is to reaffirm the strong relationship that we have with the UAE [United Arab Emirates].  They're one of our strongest allies in the region.  We work very closely with them on a number of areas.  And what I'm here to do is to, again, confirm that relationship, talk with them about some of the issues that obviously are impacting the region.  You mentioned one of them, Iran, and that they have concerns with regards to the situation there.  And we'll have a good discussion on that as well as the situation in Syria.  I'm sure we'll discuss that as well.
             Q:  What do you think -- do you think the policy of sanctions -- what has this policy achieved in regards to the Iranian nuclear program?  (Continues in Arabic.)
             SEC. PANETTA:  You know, for the first time, I think, in a very long time, the international community is unified with regards to its policy towards Iran.  It's very -- it's very clear, the message from the international community, that Iran should not develop a nuclear weapon and that it must become part of the family of international nations and abide by international rules.  That's the main message.
             And the international community has said that because of the behavior of Iran, we're going to make very clear that that has to change.  So it's applied some very strong economic sanctions, very strong diplomatic sanctions, the strongest, I think, that have ever been applied against a nation.
             And the result is that it's impacting on Iran.  It's impacting on their economy, it's impacting on their quality of life, it's impacting on their business community, it's impacting on their energy community, and I think as a result, it is putting pressure on them, isolating them and making it very clear to them that they have to change their ways?
             Q:  When you say Iran shouldn't get the nuclear bomb, do you know if Iran is close to getting it, first?  And do you think the Iranian nuclear weapon is an imminent threat?  (Continues in Arabic.)
             SEC. PANETTA:  I think the intelligence is clear that they have not made a firm decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.  They do, however, continue to develop their nuclear processing capabilities.  They do enrichment, and they're continuing to locate additional enrichment facilities.  All of that concerns us.  We want to be able to have the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], the nuclear agency, be able to go in, to be able to look at their facilities to determine whether or not they are abiding by international rules and international norms.
             They have resisted that ability to inspect those facilities.  We think they should.  If their purposes are peaceful, if their purposes are to develop nuclear power for domestic reasons, then they shouldn't be afraid to allow the IAEA to do its inspection.
             Q:  Mr. Secretary, Iran is not the only country in the region who has a nuclear weapon.  Pakistan has also a nuclear bomb.  Why not -- why the Obama administration cannot live with a nuclear Iran?  (Continues in Arabic.)
             SEC. PANETTA:  The concern is this, that Iran continues to try to destabilize nations, particularly in this region.  They promote terrorism. They have supported terrorist activities throughout the region.  They continue to be a destabilizing force in this area.  And because obviously their intent and their purpose is not to promote stability in this region, for them to obtain a nuclear weapon would be extremely dangerous because it would virtually allow terrorism, then, to have the ability to use a nuclear weapon.  That's dangerous.
             Q:  Mr. Secretary --
             Q:  Lately you were very specific about when Israel is going to attack Iran.  Do you think now the probability that Israel could attack Iran has increased?  (Continues in Arabic.)
             SEC. PANETTA:  I -- as the president -- President Obama has stated and I agree, we do not believe Israel has made a decision to do that.  And as you know, we've engaged in a number of hearings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and have been very clear to him that we have the same concerns as Israel with regards to Iran and their -- and their developing a nuclear weapon, but that the international community is unified in putting pressure on Iran and that Israel should operate with the international community in increasing that pressure on Iran.  That's the better way to go right now.
             We think we have the room and the space to try to conduct diplomacy.  Military action should always be a last resort.  That's our system.
             Q:  Are you confident that Israel will not go unilaterally and attack Iran?  And if Israel will go and attack Iran, does the United States -- will the United States intervene with Israel?  (Continues in Arabic.)
             SEC. PANETTA:  Obviously Israel is an independent country, and they'll make whatever decisions they make on their own based on what they think is in their national interests.  If they should make that decision, then obviously the United States will -- would take action to protect our facilities in this area and protect our interests in this area.
             Q:  Before going to another subject, discussing Syria, why is this impossible to reach a deal, solution with the Iranian government?  (Continues in Arabic.)
             SEC. PANETTA:  Well, there have been efforts to try and negotiate on these issues, and unfortunately they have led nowhere.  In order to be able to reach a deal, it takes two parties who are willing to engage in honest, direct and open discussions regarding this issue.  I think if they are willing to do that, if they are willing to really sit down and negotiate (in seriousness ?) over this very difficult and complicated issue, that obviously that would be the better approach.  But the window for that kind of diplomatic solution, as pointed out by the president and by the prime minister of England, that window is closing.  They have to -- they have to show a willingness to negotiate on these issues and do that soon.
             Q:  I would like to ask you about Syria.  Do you still believe that it's pretty much -- (inaudible) -- to intervene militarily in Syria?  (Continues in Arabic.)
             SEC. PANETTA:  Again, I believe that the best course of action is to maintain the international pressure against Syria.  Again, the international community has been unified, along with the Arab League, in applying sanctions against Syria, making very clear that Assad should step down and allow the Syrian people to control their destiny.  This is the main message.
             We should continue to apply that pressure, continue to use every avenue to try to make very clear to Assad that it is important for him to now step down, to allow the people of Syria to come together and develop the institutions of government that will allow their people to freely exercise the kind of rights that the Syrian people are entitled to.
             Q:  Mr. Secretary, historically the United States is -- has always or used to follow Turkey and Saudi Arabia in dealing with a regional crisis.
             Why not this time the United States didn't follow -- doesn't follow -- didn't follow the Saudi position in regards to arming the rebels in Syria?  (Continues in Arabic.)
             SEC. PANETTA:  Again, I think that the United States believes that it is -- the international community ought to decide what steps should be taken with regards to Syria.  The Arab League has provided leadership on this issue.  As with Libya, it was because the international community was unified, the Arab League was unified with the international community that we ultimately were able to bring down Gadhafi and allow the Libyan people to have Libya.  I think it's going to take that kind of international cooperation working with the Arab League to develop what steps need to be taken now to assure that Assad steps down.
             Q:  Now we are in the Gulf, in the -- in the -- in the UAE.  Would you -- would you ask the GCC to take the -- to take the initiative and create a military coalition to resolve the Syrian crisis?  (Continues in Arabic.)
             SEC. PANETTA:  Again, we think it's important to work with the Arab League in deciding what the next steps are.  We do believe that continuing to put pressure on Syria, both diplomatic and economic, is the better course right now.
             You know, anytime people talk about military action, you have to understand what are the consequences of that.  What -- who is the opposition in Syria?  Who do you help?  What are the -- what are the consequences of taking steps like that?  Those are -- those are serious considerations.
             It's not to say that, you know, options -- all options should be on the table.  But I think right now the better course is for the international community and the Arab League to continue to apply strong diplomatic, economic sanctions, to try to get the U.N. to agree that Assad should step down and that the people of Syria should have the opportunity to govern themselves.
             Q:  You've mentioned consequences.  Do you know what -- to what extent can Syria and Iran retaliate in case of a military intervention in Syria?  (Continues in Arabic.)
             SEC. PANETTA:  It's -- of course, anytime you contemplate military action, you have to consider what are the consequences, what are the ramifications.  And as I pointed out in testimony on -- in the Congress, if we were to -- there were suggestions in the Congress that we should do targeted bombing in Syria.  But Syria does have a very strong air defense system, and that would have to be taken out before you could do that.  That kind of system is located in populated areas, and clearly, there would be a lot of collateral damage if that took place.  So it's those kinds of considerations that have to be thought seriously about.  People who urge military action have to understand that before you take that step, you better understand where that -- where does -- where does that kind of action lead.
             Q:  You've met with the prime minister, Netanyahu, and the defense minister, Ehud Barak.  Have you noticed that Israel has -- is concerned a little bit about a regime change in Syria?  (Continues in Arabic.)
             SEC. PANETTA:  You know, anytime a leader steps like down like Assad, there are always questions about who will take that person's place.  But one thing is for sure, that by virtue of the Syrian government killing a large number of Syrian people that this government has been engaged in, that it has lost its legitimacy as a government, and Assad has lost his legitimacy as a leader.
             When you kill your own people, you reach a point where you have lost your ability to truly govern.  And I think that's happened in Syria.  And the result will be that opposing forces will then have to come together, as they did in Libya, to establish, hopefully, a coalition, a council that can ultimately help decide who should govern that country in the future. That would be much better for the Syrian people than the kind of killing that's going on right now.
             Q:  Are you concerned -- I have two last questions.  Are you concerned about the rise of the Islamists and the Salafists in Egypt and in Libya?  How do you see that?  (Continues in Arabic.)
               SEC. PANETTA:  You know, the one thing you learn is that when a country decides to move towards democracy and allow all people to participate in that government, there are going to be different views.  There are going to be different ideologies that may be represented in that government.  But at the same time, giving all people the ability to participate makes clear that even though there may be some extreme ideologies that are there, that ultimately people recognize that the best way to govern is close to the center, not to the extremes.
             Q:  Last question, Mr. Secretary.  It's about the Quran burning in Bagram base.  You know this incident had caused a lot of anger among -- not only among the Afghan people but with the Arab world.  How would you address that?  (Continues in Arabic.)
             SEC. PANETTA:  Yeah, this was a terrible -- a terrible incident that took place.  I think it was a terrible mistake that was made.  And both the president as well as I and the secretary of state have apologized to the Afghan people for what took place, and we made clear that we will fully investigate this matter and that we will take action against those that are involved and hold them accountable.
             This does not represent, I think, the vast majority of the good men and women in uniform that serve in Afghanistan and that serve alongside the Afghan army and their soldiers.  This is -- this is not reflective of the behavior of most of our men and women, who truly believe that we must respect the sovereignty and the culture of Afghanistan in order for it to be able to succeed as a country.
             Q:  Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being with Al Hurra.
             SEC. PANETTA:  Thanks.

6 PLEAD GUILTY TO STEALING THE IDENTITIES OF DEAD PEOPLE

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Six Plead Guilty in Ohio to Tax and Mail Fraud Conspiracies Involving I.D. Theft of Deceased
Muaad Salem, Hanan Widdi, Najeh Widdi, Hazem Woodi, Daxesj Patel and Fahim Suleiman each entered guilty pleas before the Honorable James S. Gwin today to charges arising from a scheme to obtain false and fraudulent U.S. Treasury tax refund checks, the Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced.   Specifically, Salem, Najeh Widdi and Woodi entered guilty pleas to conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit mail fraud and mail fraud; Hanan Widdi entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to commit mail fraud; Patel entered a guilty plea to two counts of submitting false claims and one count of false statements; and Suleiman entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit mail fraud; mail fraud and aggravated identity theft.

According to the indictment, between April 15, 2009 to at least August 2011, Salem, Suleiman, Najeh Widdi, Hanan Widdi, Woodi, Patel and other unknown co-conspirators defrauded the United States by filing false and fraudulent tax returns, many in the names of recently deceased taxpayers, and directing refunds to controlled locations in the state of Florida.   The U.S. Treasury checks generated by the false and fraudulent returns were then sent by the U.S. mail to co-conspirators in Ohio who sold and distributed the checks for negotiation at various businesses and banking institutions.   As part of their plea agreements, the defendants admitted that the fraud loss caused by their conduct was between $1 and 2.5 million and that the offenses involved more than ten victims.

Sentencing is scheduled on May 29, 2012, for Najeh Widdi and Patel; on May 30, 2012, for Hanan Widdi and Woodi; and on June 1, 2012, for Salem and Suleiman.   Mail fraud is punishable by a maximum potential sentence of 20 years in prison; conspiracy to defraud the United States is punishable by a maximum potential sentence of 10 years; conspiracy to commit mail fraud, making a false claim against the United States and making a false statement are each punishable by a maximum potential sentence of five years in prison; aggravated identity theft is punishable by a mandatory minimum prison sentence of two years to follow conviction on any other offense.   All of the above sentences are also punishable by a fine of $250,000 for each count of conviction.

The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gary D. Arbeznik of the Northern District of Ohio and Trial Attorney Jessica W. Knight of the Justice Department’s Tax Division following investigation by the Cleveland Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS-Criminal Investigation, and the United States Postal Service.

THE TOP 10 FACTS ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL ICE PATROL

The following photos and excerpt are from the Department of Defense website:

A Coast Guard C-130, based out of Air Station Elizabeth City, N.C., flies past an iceberg in the waters near Newfoundland, Canada. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Brandon Brewer. 



1. When was the International Ice Patrol formed?
Shipping areas in the North Atlantic have always been hazardous to navigate. The hazards of the North Atlantic captured global attention in April 1912 when the RMS Titanic sank after it struck an iceberg. The incident prompted maritime nations with ships transiting the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, Canada, to establish an iceberg patrol in the area. Since 1913, the U.S. Coast Guard has been tasked with the management and operation of the patrol. Except for the years of World Wars I and II, the ice patrol has been active each ice season since its inception.

2. What are the specific duties of the ice patrol?
Their mission is to monitor the iceberg danger near the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and provide the iceberg limit to the maritime community, including ice and current conditions.

3. Who makes up the ice patrol?
The ice patrol is a U.S. Coast Guard unit however the Canadian Ice Service, ice patrol and U.S. National Ice Center collaborate under the North American Ice Service. The ice patrol produces North American Ice service reports from February through July when icebergs may be present on the Grand Banks and the Canadian Ice Service produces the reports the rest of the year when icebergs are normally restricted to Canadian coastal waters.

4. Why aren’t there ice patrols in other areas other than the Grand Banks?
This is the only location in the world where icebergs endanger a major shipping route, and the ice patrol provides accurate and timely iceberg information to assist transatlantic mariners in avoiding them. Maritime traffic between Europe and North America typically follows routes that are intersected annually by an average of 500 icebergs.

5. What defines an “ice season” and when is it?
The ice season is the seasonal period when icebergs can be present on the Grand Banks. The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea the “ice season” as the period between February 15 and July 1, however the commander of the ice patrol can extend the period based on conditions.

6. What is the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea?
SOLAS – or the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea – is generally regarded as the most important of international treaties concerning the safety of merchant ships. The first version was adopted in 1914, in response to the sinking of the Titanic. The main objective of SOLAS is to specify minimum standards for the construction, equipment and operation of ships, compatible with their safety.

7. How did the Coast Guard patrol for icebergs in the past?
Iceberg detection in the past relied on visual sightings from boats on patrol in the area. As airplane performance improved however, the ice patrol integrated airplanes into reconnaissance operations and after 1960, surface patrol craft took a secondary role to aerial reconnaissance.

8. How does the Coast Guard patrol for icebergs now?
Iceberg reconnaissance is conducted primarily with aircrews from Air Station Elizabeth City, N.C., in an HC-130J Hercules airplane, the perfect platform for their mission. Using the airplane’s specialized sensors, radar and visual observations are employed for iceberg detection and identification.

9. Why do modern vessels still need the ice patrol?
Icebergs are not sea ice: they’re floating fragments of glaciers or ice shelves. National Science Foundation photo by of Patrick Rowe.
The seas where the North Atlantic shipping lanes pass near the Grand Banks are particularly challenging for mariners due to frequent fog and high seas. The combination can make it extremely difficult for even a modern vessel to detect an iceberg and avoid it. If there were no ice patrol, vessels would have to reduce risk of collision by either slowing speed considerably or avoiding the Grand Banks entirely. Every additional sea mile or hour adds to transportation costs and delivery time. In this age of “just in time” delivery, longer and more costly voyages equal higher costs and higher prices for consumers.

10. Are icebergs really still a danger?
As recently as 2010, a vessel ignoring the ice patrol’s warnings collided with an iceberg. Fortunately the damage was not catastrophic and the vessel was able to divert to a safe port. The vessel required considerable hull repairs and was unable to return to sea for some time. No vessel heeding ice patrol’s warnings has ever collided with an iceberg.

Icebergs are not sea ice: they’re floating fragments of glaciers or ice shelves. National Science Foundation photo by of Patrick Rowe. 

SEC CHARGES INVESTMENT ADVISER WITH GIVING INVESTORS EMBELLISHED AUDIT

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
Washington, D.C., March 15, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a San Francisco-area investment adviser with defrauding investors by giving them a bogus audit report that embellished the financial performance of the fund in which they were investing.

The SEC alleges that James Michael Murray raised more than $4.5 million from investors in his various funds including Market Neutral Trading LLC (MNT), a purported hedge fund that claimed to invest primarily in domestic equities. Murray provided MNT investors with a report purportedly prepared by independent auditor Jones, Moore & Associates (JMA). However, JMA is not a legitimate accounting firm but rather a shell company that Murray secretly created and controlled. The phony audit report misstated the financial condition and performance of MNT to investors.

“An independent financial audit is one of the best protections available to investors,” said Marc Fagel, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office. “Murray conjured up an accounting firm and deliberately faked the audit to induce investors into believing the fund was in better shape than it actually was.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California also has filed criminal charges against Murray in a complaint unsealed yesterday.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in San Francisco, Murray began raising the funds from investors in 2008. The following year, MNT distributed the phony audit report to investors claiming the audit was conducted by a legitimate third-party accounting firm. However, JMA is not registered or licensed as an accounting firm in Delaware, where it purports to do business. JMA’s website was paid for by a Murray-controlled entity and listed 12 professionals with specific degrees and licenses who supposedly work for JMA. However, at least five of these professionals do not exist, including the two named principals of the firm: “Richard Jones” and “Joseph Moore.” Murray has attempted to open brokerage accounts in the name of JMA, identified himself as JMA’s chief financial officer, and called brokerage firms falsely claiming to be the principal identified on most JMA documents.

The SEC alleges that the bogus audit report provided to investors understated the costs of MNT’s investments and thus overstated the fund’s investment gains by approximately 90 percent. The JMA audit report also overstated MNT’s income by approximately 35 percent, its member capital by approximately 18 percent, and its total assets by approximately 10 percent.

The SEC’s complaint charges Murray with violating an SEC rule prohibiting fraud by investment advisers on investors in a pooled investment vehicle. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and financial penalties from Murray.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Karen Kreuzkamp and Robert S. Leach of the San Francisco Regional Office following an examination of MNT conducted by Yvette Panetta and Doreen Piccirillo of the New York Regional Office’s broker-dealer examination program. The SEC’s litigation will be led by Robert L. Mitchell of the San Francisco Regional Office. The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California and the U.S. Secret Service for their assistance in this matter.

THE PASSING OF COPTIC CHRISTIAN POPE SHENOUDA III

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail: 
On the Passing of Pope Shenouda III
Press Statement Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Washington, DC
March 17, 2012
Today, Americans stand alongside Egyptians in offering our deepest condolences on the passing of Coptic Christian Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church for more than 40 years. Pope Shenouda III was a beloved leader of Egypt’s Coptic Christians and an advocate for national unity and religious cooperation. As we reflect on his life and legacy, we reaffirm our support to the future peace and prosperity of Egypt. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Egyptian people and all those who mourn Pope Shenouda III.