NEUROSURGEON PLEADS GUILTY TO PERFORMING UNNECESSARY SURGERIES

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Friday, May 22, 2015
Detroit-Area Neurosurgeon Admits Causing Serious Bodily Injury to Patients in $11 Million Health Care Fraud Scheme

A Detroit-area neurosurgeon pleaded guilty in two separate criminal cases that resulted in serious bodily injury to his patients and more than $11 million in Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance companies.

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade of the Eastern District of Michigan, Special Agent in Charge Paul M. Abbate of the FBI’s Detroit Field Office, Assistant Director in Charge David L. Bowdich of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office, Special Agent in Charge Lamont Pugh III of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), Special Agent in Charge Glenn R. Ferry of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s (HHS-OIG) Los Angeles Region and Special Agent in Charge Marlon Miller of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations’ (ICE-HSI) Detroit Field Office made the announcement.

“Disregarding his Hippocratic oath to do no harm, Dr. Sabit enriched himself by performing unnecessary, invasive spinal surgeries and implanting costly and unnecessary medical devices, all at the expense of his patients’ health and welfare,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell.  “Doctors who sell their medical judgment and ethics for personal profit endanger the lives and safety of vulnerable patients who count on their advice to make life-altering decisions.  The Criminal Division of the Department of Justice will continue to prioritize the prosecution of doctors whose criminal behavior puts patients at risk.”

“This case of health care fraud is particularly egregious because Dr. Sabit caused serious bodily injury to his patients by acting out of his own greed instead of the best interests of his patients,” said U.S. Attorney McQuade.  “Not only did he steal $11 million in insurance proceeds, but he also betrayed his trust to patients by lying to them about the procedures that were medically necessary and that were actually performed.”

Aria O. Sabit, M.D., 39, of Birmingham, Michigan, entered his guilty pleas in both criminal cases at a hearing before U.S. District Judge Paul D. Borman of the Eastern District of Michigan.  Sabit pleaded guilty to four counts of health care fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and one count of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, resulting in losses to Medicare, Medicaid and various private insurance companies.  A sentencing hearing is scheduled for Sept. 15, 2015.

According to court documents, Sabit was a licensed neurosurgeon who owned and operated the Michigan Brain and Spine Physicians Group with various locations in the Eastern District of Michigan, including Southfield, Michigan, Clinton Township, Michigan, and Dearborn, Michigan, which opened in approximately April 2011.

During his guilty plea today, Sabit admitted that he derived significant profits by convincing patients to undergo spinal fusion surgeries with instrumentation (meaning specific medical devices designed to stabilize and strengthen the spine), which he never rendered, and subsequently billing public and private healthcare benefit programs for those fraudulent services.

Sabit further admitted he operated on patients and dictated in his operative reports—that he knew would later be used to support his fraudulent insurance claims—that he had performed spinal fusion with instrumentation, which he never performed.  This invasive surgery caused serious bodily injury to the patients.  Sabit admitted that his operative reports and treatment records contained false statements about the procedures performed, and the instrumentation used in the procedures.  Sabit also admitted that, on occasion, he would implant cortical bone dowels and falsely dictate in his operative reports that he had implanted instrumentation.  Sabit, then fraudulently billed public and private health care programs for instrumentation, when in fact the implants were tissue.  Sabit admitted he failed to render services in relation to lumbar and thoracic fusion surgeries, including in certain instances, billing for implants that were not provided.

Sabit also admitted that, prior to moving to Michigan, he was a resident of Ventura, California, and a licensed neurosurgeon in California.  He admitted that in approximately February 2010, he became involved with Apex Medical Technologies LLC (Apex) while he was on the staff of a California hospital.

Apex was owned by another neurosurgeon and three non-physicians who operated Apex as a physician-owned distributorship and paid neurosurgeons lucrative illegal kickbacks tied directly to the volume and complexity of the surgeries that the surgeons performed, and the number of Apex spinal implant devices the surgeons used in their spine surgeries.

In exchange for the opportunity to invest in Apex and share in its profits, Sabit admitted that he agreed to convince his hospital to buy spinal implant devices from Apex and use a sufficient number of Apex spinal implant devices in his spine surgeries.  Sabit further admitted that he and Apex’s co-owners used Apex to operate an illegal kickback scheme.  In doing so, they concealed Sabit’s involvement in Apex from outsiders.  Sabit then required the hospitals and surgical centers where he and his fellow neurosurgeon performed surgeries to purchase spinal implant devices from Apex.

Sabit admitted that his involvement in Apex, and the financial incentives provided to him by Apex and his co-conspirators, caused him to compromise his medical judgment and cause serious bodily injury to his patients by performing medically unnecessary spine surgeries on some of the patients in whom he implanted Apex spinal implant devices.  Sabit admitted that on a few occasions, the money he made from using Apex spinal implant devices motivated him either to refer patients in for spine surgery who did not medically need surgery or refer his patients for more complex surgeries, such as multi-level spine fusions, that they did not need.

Sabit also admitted that the financial incentives provided to him by Apex and his co-conspirators caused him to “over instrument” his patients (meaning Sabit used more spinal implant devices than were medically necessary to treat his patients) in order to generate more sales revenue for Apex, which resulted in serious bodily injury to his patients.

The Michigan case was investigated by the FBI, HHS-OIG and ICE.  The California case—which was subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan—was investigated by the FBI and HHS-OIG.  The Michigan case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Regina R. McCullough and Philip A. Ross of the Eastern District of Michigan.  The California case was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, under the supervision of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Michigan, and is being prosecuted by Senior Trial Attorney Jonathan T. Baum and Trial Attorneys Dustin Davis and Blanca Quintero of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.

Sabit is also a defendant in two civil False Claims Act cases brought by the Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California.

Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged nearly 2,100 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $6.5 billion.  In addition, the HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with the HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

YEMENI NATIONAL AND AL-QAEDA MEMBER PLEADS GUILTY TO CONSPIRING TO KILL U.S. SOLDIERS

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Senior Member of Al-Qaeda Pleads Guilty to Conspiring to Kill U.S. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and Providing Material Support to Al-Qaeda

Defendant Tried to Lure American Solders to a Compound in Afghanistan that Was Rigged with Explosives; Also Facilitated the Entry of an American Citizen into Al-Qaeda

Earlier today, Saddiq al-Abbadi, 40, a Yemeni national, pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder U.S. nationals abroad, providing and conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaeda and using a machine gun in furtherance of those crimes.

The guilty plea was announced by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, Acting U.S. Attorney Kelly T. Currie of the Eastern District of New York and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew G. McCabe of the FBI’s Washington, D.C., Field Office.  Today’s guilty plea proceeding took place before U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York.  At sentencing, al-Abbadi faces a maximum of life imprisonment.

“With the guilty plea entered today, Saddiq al-Abbadi will be held accountable for conspiring to kill Americans overseas and providing material support to al-Qaeda,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin.  “Seeking to identify, thwart and hold accountable those who target U.S. citizens and interests around the world will remain a top priority of the National Security Division.”

“The defendant was a high-level al-Qaeda operative with ties to the terrorist group’s senior leadership in both Pakistan and Yemen,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Currie.  “He fought in battles against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, tried to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan by luring them to a compound rigged with explosives, and helped an American citizen gain entry to al-Qaeda.  We stand resolute in our commitment to bring to justice those who would try to harm members of our military or who assist al-Qaeda’s efforts to kill Americans at home or abroad.”

“With today’s guilty plea, Al-Abbadi admitted to directly supporting the mission of a designated terrorist organization through planning an operation designed to kill U.S. forces and for engaging in recruitment efforts on behalf of al-Qaeda,” said Assistant Director in Charge McCabe.  “This plea is due in no small part to the many FBI Special Agents, intelligence analysts, and linguists from the Washington and New York Field Offices as well as our interagency and international partners who spent countless hours investigating terrorism actors and al-Abbadi’s actions.  The FBI will not rest until we find and hold accountable those who provide support to terrorist groups and ensure that they are brought to justice.”

According to court filings, al-Abbadi traveled from his home country of Yemen to Iraq where, from approximately late 2005 through early 2007, he fought alongside al-Qaeda affiliated battalions against U.S. troops stationed in Iraq.

In early 2008, al-Abbadi traveled to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan in order to fight for al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  While in the FATA, al-Abbadi – who had longstanding ties to senior members of al-Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) – engaged directly with senior al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan, including Sheikh Saeed al-Masri, the then-third ranking member of al-Qaeda.

During the late spring and summer of 2008, Al-Abbadi crossed from Pakistan into Afghanistan for the purpose of fighting and killing members of the U.S. military stationed in Afghanistan.  In June 2008, he planned an operation designed to lure U.S. forces to a compound in Ghazni, Afghanistan, that was rigged with explosives set to detonate upon their entry.  When U.S. forces arrived at the compound, they found rocket-propelled grenades and artillery rounds littered about.  One soldier observed wiring running from the exterior gate to the inside of the compound and recognized the trap.  The military evacuated and subsequently leveled the compound.

In addition to fighting against the U.S. military, al-Abbadi used his connections with al-Qaeda’s leadership to help U.S. citizen Bryant Neal Vinas gain entry into al-Qaeda.  Vinas had traveled to Pakistan from Long Island, New York, in the hopes of joining al-Qaeda and fighting against U.S. military forces in Afghanistan.  As a result of al-Abbadi’s assistance, Vinas was allowed to join al-Qaeda.  After participating in al-Qaeda’s military training program, Vinas developed a plan with senior al-Qaeda external operations leadership to conduct an attack on the Long Island Railroad in New York.  Vinas was arrested before he could carry out this attack.

Assistant Attorney General Carlin extended his grateful appreciation to the FBI.  The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Zainab Ahmad, Michael P. Canty and Douglas M. Pravda of the Eastern District of New York, with assistance provided by Trial Attorney Josh Parecki of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section and by the Office of International Affairs.

F-35B LIGHTNING II MAKES VERTICAL TAKEOFF FRO USS WASP

FROM:  U.S. NAVY  

150520-M-XX999-003 ATLANTIC OCEAN (May 20, 2015) An F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter lands on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) during short take-off, vertical landing operations. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Remington Hall/Released.)

U.S. CONGRATULATES PEOPLE OF GEORGIA ON THEIR NATIONAL DAY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
On the Occasion of Georgia's National Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
May 22, 2015

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate the people of Georgia as you celebrate your Independence Day on May 26.

We greatly value our strong partnership with Georgia. The United States is firmly committed to Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty within its internationally recognized borders. We strongly support Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations. We are committed to helping Georgia implement its European Union Association Agreement and advance on the path toward NATO membership. And we honor the dedication and sacrifices of your troops serving around the world, including in Afghanistan.

On this day of celebration, I wish the Georgian people peace, unity, and prosperity.

FTC SAYS COURTS HALT DEBT COLLECTION OPERATIORS WHO ALLEGEDLY SENT THREATENING, DECEPTIVE TEXT MESSAGES

FROM:  U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Halts Three Debt Collection Operations That Allegedly Threatened and Deceived Consumers via Illegal Text Messages

At the Federal Trade Commission’s request, federal courts in New York and Georgia have temporarily halted three debt collection operations that allegedly violated federal law by threatening and deceiving consumers via text messages, emails, and phone calls. The FTC seeks to permanently end the unlawful practices.

“Legitimate debt collectors know the rules,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “They can’t harass or lie to you, whether they send a text, email, or call you.”

According to the FTC, the defendants used text messages, emails, and phone calls to falsely threaten to arrest or sue consumers. They also unlawfully contacted friends, family members, and employers, withheld information consumers needed to confirm or dispute debts, and did not identify themselves as debt collectors, as required by law.

The defendants in the law enforcement sweep called “Messaging for Money” are known as Unified Global Group, Premier Debt Acquisitions, and The Primary Group.

The FTC’s complaint against Unified Global Group names several companies through which the defendants operated. According to the FTC, the companies at times sent texts to trick consumers into calling them back. The texts included false statements such as, “YOUR PAYMENT DECLINED WITH CARD ****-****-****-5463 . . . CALL 866.256.2117 IMMEDIATELY,” even though consumers had never arranged to make payments to the defendants. The texts failed to identify the senders as debt collectors. The defendants also used deceptive emails and robocalls, and unlawfully contacted consumers’ friends, families, and co-workers about the supposed debts.

In its complaint against Premier Debt Acquisitions, the FTC alleged that the defendants impersonated state or law enforcement officials, falsely threatened consumers with a lawsuit or arrest, and even falsely threatened to charge some consumers with criminal fraud, garnish their wages, or seize their property. In texts, they claimed they would sue the consumers and threatened to seize their possessions unless they paid. In voicemails, the defendants also falsely claimed a “uniformed officer” was on the way to the consumers’ home, and asked them to “secure any large animals or firearms” before the “officer” arrived.

Premier Debt Acquisitions also sent deceptive emails claiming that making a payment would help a consumer’s credit report, but the defendants had no ability to make good on that claim. They also kept trying to collect after consumers challenged the debt or its amount, without investigating the dispute. In one instance, they persisted despite written evidence that the debt was a result of identity theft and a prior debt collector had marked it fully paid. In other instances, the defendants tried to collect a payment even after they had received it, and hounded one person for two years about someone else’s debt.

The FTC’s complaint against the Primary Group alleged that the defendants sent consumers a series of text messages, typically not disclosing that the company is a debt collector.  The defendants threatened consumers with false statements such as “I’m a process server with Primary Solutions, appointed to serve you papers for case [eight-digit number]. . .” and “Please have proper ID and a witness present who can provide a signature. If there’s no reply I’ll have to bring the document to your employer.”

The Unified Global Group defendants are Unified Global Group LLC; ARM WNY LLC, also doing business as Accredited Receivables Management; Audubon Financial Bureau, also doing business as AFB;  Domenico D’Angelo, also known as Dominick D’Angelo; and Anthony Coppola. The Premier Debt Acquisitions defendants are Premier Debt Acquisitions LLC, also d/b/a PDA Group LLC; Prizm Debt Solutions LLC, also d/b/a PDS LLC; Samuel Sole and Associates LLC, also d/b/a SSA Group LLC and Imperial Processing Solutions; Charles Glander; and Jacob E. Kirbis. The Primary Group defendants are The Primary Group Inc., formerly known as A Primary Systems Group Inc., also d/b/a Primary Solutions and PSA Investigations; Gail Daniels; and June Fleming.

The FTC has charged the defendants with violating the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

CDC REPORTS ON CIGARETTE SMOKING AND SMOKELESS TOBACCO USE AMONG ADULTS

FROM:  CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
State-specific Prevalence of Current Cigarette Smoking and Smokeless Tobacco Use Among Adults Aged ≥18 years — United States, 2011–2013

These findings underscore the importance of effective population-based interventions focused on reducing the use of all tobacco products. From 2011 to 2013, there was a decline in current cigarette smoking prevalence in 26 states. During the same period, use of smokeless tobacco significantly increased in Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, and West Virginia. Additionally, the concurrent use of cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco significantly increased in Delaware, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and West Virginia. The use of more than one tobacco product is concerning because adults who use both cigarettes, and smokeless tobacco have higher levels of nicotine dependence and are less likely to report planning to quit than those who exclusively smoke cigarettes. Evidence-based, statewide tobacco control programs that are comprehensive, sustained, and accountable have been shown to reduce smoking rates, as well as tobacco-related diseases and deaths.

STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL'S REMARKS TO AIA ANNUAL MEETING

FROM:  THE STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks to the AIA Annual Spring Board of Governors Meeting
Remarks
Puneet Talwar
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Williamsburg, VA
May 21, 2015

Good morning, everyone. It’s a privilege to be here and let me thank David Joyce and Marilyn Hewson for inviting me here today.

As all of you know, at the State Department – in the Political-Military Affairs Bureau and the Economic and Business Affairs Bureau – we have re-energized our outreach to industry, and as part of that push we are glad to have such a strong presence here today.

It’s also a real pleasure to be here with my colleagues, Admiral Rixey and Assistant Secretary Jadotte – we work closely together on defense trade and so many other issues as well.

In the face of multiple crises around the world, today I’d like to speak about how America is leading in the context of today’s security environment, and how government and industry can work together – particularly in the arena of defense trade advocacy.

As President Obama has said, the question we face given the array of threats and opportunities across the globe, “is not whether America leads in the world, but how.”

There are two fundamental facts in today’s geostrategic environment that, I think, drive our leadership today.

The first is that the world’s greatest challenges do not affect any one nation alone. Terrorism; climate change; public health; territorial aggression – these are issues that affect many, if not all countries.

And the second truth is that no single nation can solve these problems alone. Of course, the United States has a unique leadership position in the world, and people look to us to step up. But we also have to recognize that even if we did everything perfectly on terrorism; even if we reduced our greenhouse gas emissions to zero… it wouldn’t be enough.

That’s why President Obama has put so much emphasis on strengthening our alliances and partnerships around the globe. Because we need our partners to step up so we can solve these problems together, in a durable and lasting way.

Defense trade is an important tool for us to be able to do that… whether it’s building the capabilities of the Israeli Defense Forces or the Iraqi Security Forces; whether it’s empowering our partners in South America or Southeast Asia.

That’s why our work together – between government and industry – is so critical. The fact is, we benefit from the American brand that you help build overseas. American companies create the most innovative, most effective solutions to meet our partners’ needs. And you have all made American products the gold standard in the defense industry. As Secretary Kerry said this week at Boeing, “the world wants what America makes.” We in government would be foolish if we did not use that to our advantage as we press forward on our national security interests.

And likewise, you in industry benefit from having U.S. leadership that’s trusted and strong, clear and coherent. The truth is that we each have a stake in each other’s success.

So when we decide that security cooperation with a foreign partner will further our national security, it’s deeply in our interest to work in an organized, collaborative, and proactive way to advocate for American interests and yes, American industry.

Now, many of you know that there are serious challenges in today’s defense trade market. It’s a competitive marketplace with other technology. The defense budget is tight here at home. Other governments can be more aggressive and often have fewer restrictions on what they are willing to sell and to whom.

We also realize that our licensing and regulatory system is imperfect… that sometimes the waits are too long or the process too opaque. And that’s exactly why we are implementing Export Control Reform – to unshackle ourselves from Cold War regulations and adapt to the 21st century… to focus our efforts on a narrower set of items that really matter… and to provide greater clarity and transparency to you in industry.

But Export Control Reform is not a panacea. Which is why we’re also refining other tools at our disposal.
Today, I’d like to discuss three objectives we have outlined in this area – and three specific actions we are taking to improve our defense trade advocacy.

First, when we in government work together, we are much more effective and powerful. It’s true that there are many players in the security cooperation enterprise and we do a lot to coordinate. I could throw so many acronyms and names at you: the Arms Transfer Technology Steering Group; the Security Cooperation Enterprise Group; the Senior Warfighter Integration Group’s work to expedite procurement.

But there are instances – specific sales – that require a tailored, unified effort to advocacy. That’s why we are building a single group, the Defense Advocacy Working Group, to identify areas that require heightened communication and an extra advocacy effort. At our different agencies, we share the same goals, but we don’t always synchronize our actions as well as we should. One central list and one central advocacy working group will lock in coordination from start to finish.

I’ll give you an example. Over the past year, we’ve piloted this process for our advocacy with Poland, which as many of you know is engaged in a historic $45 billion defense modernization program. Across every agency, we supported and advocated for U.S. solutions to Poland’s missile defense needs. Deputy Assistant Secretary Greg Kausner and Admiral Rixey travelled to Warsaw. You may have seen in the press that the Defense Department put PATRIOTs on display at a strategic time. And we had senior-level engagement to help move the ball forward. And as a result, the successful sale means supporting American jobs at home, deepening interoperability, and strengthening the security of Poland, a stalwart NATO ally.

This approach is proven – and we are now working to build on the success we saw with Poland elsewhere around the world.

Second, we in government need to project power in a more coordinated way at trade shows. Running into each other for the first time at the pavilions just doesn’t cut it. We need to do a better job coordinating our meetings, delivering consistent messages, and identifying areas we want to target. Some of you have likely seen progress already, as we are getting more in sync with each other. We want to build on this progress and are establishing an interagency working group to ensure that this coordination becomes institutionalized. Admiral Rixey’s deputy, Jenn Zakriski and I will be going to the Paris Air Show next month, and we’re looking forward to arriving ready with a common strategy for targeted outreach and advocacy.

Third, we need to be more transparent and responsive to industry. As our partners in the private sector, you should be able to ask us any time about our objectives. And you shouldn’t have to go agency to agency to agency to get answers.

That’s why, starting in July, we are launching a senior-level, quarterly industry outreach forum to have a two-way conversation with you. This quarterly forum will allow us to get input from you, assess upcoming sales, and build an advocacy strategy rooted in unity.

I know these three changes may not seem earth-shattering. But as leaders of large companies, you know that sometimes different arms of your organizations don’t talk to each other as well as they should. You’ve probably spent a lot of time on breaking down stovepipes, and you know it can have a huge impact. When we have all the oars in the water, rowing at the same time, we improve the outcome for all of us.

Yes, these are targeted actions, but we think their impact can be quite significant. Coordinating earlier and more often. Projecting our power, together, at trade shows. And continuing to deepen our engagements with industry.

Again, we have to do these things because it’s in our interest. Because the demands for our leadership are growing. Because we are more engaged in more places than ever before. You can see it in the headlines – whether it’s in the GCC or talks with Iran – but you can also see it in the trendlines that we’re so focused on, in the Asia-Pacific, where 60 percent of the world’s population is… where half of all GDP growth outside the U.S. is expected to come from in the next four years… where over half the world’s maritime commerce flows. And it’s security that underpins the economic growth – and the tremendous potential – that we are seeing in that region.

I could go on, but I’ll turn it over to Admiral Rixey and am happy to take any questions in the Q&A.

DOD REPORTS MORE AIRSTRIKES AGAINST ISIL

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Airstrikes Against ISIL Targets Continue in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release

SOUTHWEST ASIA, May 25, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

Officials reported details of the latest strikes, which took place between 8 a.m. yesterday and 8 a.m. today, local time, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.

Airstrikes in Syria

Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 10 airstrikes in Syria:

-- Near Hasakah, seven airstrikes struck two large and four small ISIL tactical units, destroying four ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL checkpoint, an ISIL excavator, an ISIL vehicle bomb and an ISIL vehicle. No civilian casualties from the airstrikes were observed, officials said, adding that Kurdish fighters reported an ISIL vehicle bomb detonation that resulted in an undetermined number of civilians injured in the area.

-- Near Raqqah, two airstrikes destroyed an ISIL excavator and an ISIL tank.

-- Near Dayr Az Zawr, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL multiple rocket launcher vehicle.

Airstrikes in Iraq

Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 25 airstrikes in Iraq, approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:

-- Near Baghdadi, five airstrikes struck one large and two small ISIL tactical units, destroying four ISIL structures, two ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL armored excavator, an ISIL heavy machine gun and an ISIL vehicle bomb.

-- Near Beiji, three airstrikes destroyed an ISIL dump truck, an ISIL excavator and an ISIL tanker.

-- Near Fallujah, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL anti-aircraft artillery piece and an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Hit, an airstrike struck an ISIL vehicle-bomb facility.

-- Near Mosul, nine airstrikes struck five ISIL tactical units and an ISIL staging area, destroying four ISIL heavy machine guns, three ISIL buildings, an ISIL armored vehicle, an ISIL excavator and an ISIL vehicle bomb.

-- Near Ramadi, an airstrike struck an ISIL vehicle.

-- Near Sinjar, two airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units, destroying two ISIL buildings, two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL rocket-propelled grenade.

-- Near Tal Afar, three airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and an ISIL vehicle, destroying two ISIL buildings, two ISIL heavy machine guns and two ISIL mortar systems.

Part of Operation Inherent Resolve

The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations, officials said.

Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

U.S. CONDEMNS KILLING OF OPPOSITION PARTY LEADER IN BURUNDI

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
United States Calls for Peaceful Resolution to Crisis in Burundi
Press Statement
Marie Harf
Deputy Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 25, 2015

The United States strongly condemns the May 23 killing of the leader of the opposition party Union for Peace and Development (UPD), Zedi Feruzi, and his bodyguard. We also strongly condemn the May 22 grenade attack in a market that killed several people and wounded many more. These attacks only undermine ongoing efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the current crisis through dialogue.

We call on all parties to immediately renounce the use of violence. We urge the Burundian government to conduct timely and credible investigations of the recent attacks to bring to justice those responsible and to take concrete steps to ensure the safety of political actors during the electoral process.

The United States supports the consultative political dialogue facilitated by the UN Special Envoy, Said Djinnit, and envoys from the African Union, the East African Community, and the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR), and we strongly urge all stakeholders to continue to participate in good faith in this dialogue to achieve a peaceful resolution to the crisis. We welcomed the May 18 communique by the ICGLR announcing a heads of state visit to Burundi, which we believe could contribute to facilitating this dialogue.

We call on the Burundian government to provide the political space needed for a peaceful and credible electoral process, including through respect for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression. In this regard, we urge the Burundian government to permit the immediate resumption of broadcasts by independent radio stations, end the use of the term “insurgents” to refer to peaceful protesters, and withdraw the proclamation by the Burundian National Security Council prohibiting future demonstrations.

The United States continues to monitor the situation in Burundi closely and is prepared to take additional measures against those who commit, incite or ‎promote violence or other human rights abuses and violations.

NSF VIDEO: ASSEMBLY LINE OF THE FUTURE

RECENT DOD PHOTOS AT BAGRAM AIRFIELD, AFGHANISTAN

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

A U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft lands at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, May 13, 2015. The pilot is assigned to the 555th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron from Aviano Air Base, Italy. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Joseph Swafford.

An Afghan air force C-130H Hercules aircraft takes off from Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, May 13, 2015. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Joseph Swafford.

"FLAGS IN" AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Carrying bundles of small Amercian flags in backpacks, soldiers march out to their assigned sections during “Flags In” at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Va., May 21, 2015. U.S. Army photo by Spc. Steven Hitchcock.

A total of 228,000 American flags stand at every headstone during “Flags In” at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Va., May 21, 2015. U.S. Army photo by Rachel Larue.

U.S. CONDEMNS VIOLENCE IN NORTHERN MALI

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Violence and Human Rights Violations in Mali
Press Statement
Marie Harf
Deputy Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 23, 2015

The United States condemns the ongoing violence in northern Mali, including reports of summary executions of civilians in Tin Hama, and other human rights abuses and violations. We call on all parties to respect human rights and international humanitarian law, recommit to applicable cease-fire agreements and begin implementation of the May 15 Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. The United States reiterates its strong support for the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) and calls for the investigation of these alleged human rights violations, to ensure perpetrators are held accountable.

SECRETARY CARTER SAID IRAQI FORCES FAILED TO FIGHT

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Carter: Iraqi Forces Failed to Fight for Ramadi
By Terri Moon Cronk
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, May 24, 2015 – Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant extremists took control of Ramadi last week when Iraqi forces failed to fight for the city and instead withdrew, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in an interview broadcast on CNN’s “State of the Union” program this morning.

“What apparently happened is the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight,” Carter told Barbara Starr, CNN’s Pentagon correspondent. Iraqi security forces must have the will to fight and defend themselves against ISIL extremists, he added.

Iraqi Forces Vastly Outnumbered ISIL Fighters

Iraq’s forces were not outnumbered in the fight for Ramadi when ISIL gained control of the city, the secretary said. “[They] vastly outnumbered the opposing force, and yet they failed to fight,” the secretary said. “They withdrew from the site, and that says to me -- and I think most of us -- that we have an issue with the will of Iraqis to fight ISIL and defend themselves.”

U.S. military forces can provide the Iraqis with equipment and training, but “we obviously can’t give them the will to fight,” Carter said. With equipment, training, coalition support and some time, the secretary added, he hopes the Iraqis will develop that will.

Only Iraqis can defeat ISIL in their own country, the secretary told Starr. “If there comes a time where we need to change the kind of support we’re giving to the Iraqi forces, we’ll make that recommendation,” he said.

Airstrikes Work, But Iraqi Forces Are Necessary

U.S. military and coalition forces have made regular airstrikes against ISIL and its facilities in Iraq since August, but those airstrikes have limitations, the secretary noted. “Airstrikes are effective, but neither they nor anything we do can substitute for the Iraqi forces’ will to fight,” Carter said.

U.S. forces can participate in ISIL’s defeat, the secretary said. “But we can’t make Iraq run as a decent place where people live,” he added. “We can’t sustain the victory.”

No Plans for U.S. Controllers

Carter denied that the Defense Department has recommended putting U.S. forward air controllers –- military personnel who direct fighter pilots to targets -- on the ground in Iraq.

“What happened in Ramadi was a failure of the Iraqi forces to fight,” Carter said. DoD’s efforts, he added, are devoted to providing Iraqi ground forces with equipment, training, “and to try to encourage their will to fight so that our campaign enabling them can be successful, both in defeating ISIL and keeping ISIL defeated in a sustained way.”

TWO CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS CHARGED WITH CONSPIRING TO PROVIDE MATERIAL SUPPORT TO ISIL

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Friday, May 22, 2015
Two California Men Arrested on Charges of Conspiring to Provide Material Support to ISIL

Two California men, one of whom attempted to travel to the Middle East to allegedly join ISIL, have been arrested on charges of conspiring to provide material support to the designated foreign terrorist group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), announced Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin and Acting U.S. Attorney Stephanie Yonekura of the Central District of California.

Muhanad Badawi, 24, and Nader Elhuzayel, 24, both of Anaheim, California, were arrested late Thursday afternoon by the FBI.  Badawi and Elhuzayel were charged in a criminal complaint filed today in U.S. District Court of the Central District of California, and both men are expected to make their initial court appearance this afternoon.

The affidavit in support of the criminal complaint outlines a scheme in which Badawi and Elhuzayel used social media to discuss ISIL and terrorist attacks, expressed a desire to die as martyrs and made arrangements for Elhuzayel to leave the United States to join ISIL.

According to the affidavit, on May 3, 2015, Elhuzayel saw a tweet from Elton Simpson, one of the two gunmen who were killed trying to attack a conference in Garland, Texas.  In this tweet, Simpson stated that he and his “bro” had pledged allegiance to the leader of ISIL.  In response, Elhuzayel tweeted his support for the attempted attack and praised Simpson as a “martyr.”

In recorded conversations last month, Badawi and Elhuzayel “discussed how it would be a blessing to fight for the cause of Allah, and to die in the battlefield,” and they referred to ISIL as “we.” When Badawi expressed concerns about ISIL struggling due to airstrikes by Coalition forces, Elhuzayel responded that they had to be patient and “can you imagine when al-Qaeda joins with Islamic State”?  According to the affidavit, Badawi responded: “We will be huge.”  The two men also discussed local Muslim leaders and Elhuzayel complained that these leaders were not “legitimate” because they believed in democracy and were not fighting for an Islamic State.

The men discussed where in the Middle East they would rather be, and Elhuzayel said he wanted to fight and did not want to be in the United States, according to the conversations recounted in the affidavit.

On May 7, Badawi allowed Elhuzayel to use his credit card to purchase a one-way airline ticket for travel from Los Angeles to Tel Aviv, Israel, via Istanbul, Turkey, on a Turkish Airlines flight scheduled to depart on May 21.  Badawi indicated that he would be traveling to the Middle East in the future, according to the affidavit.

Elhuzayel was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport.  According to the allegations in the complaint, Elhuzayel admitted after being read Miranda rights that he planned to disembark in Istanbul to join ISIL and did not intend to travel on to Israel.

If convicted of the charge in the criminal complaint, Badawi and Elhuzayel each would face a statutory maximum sentence of 15 years in prison for conspiring to provide material support to ISIL.

A criminal complaint contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime.  Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.

The investigation in this case was conducted by members of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Orange County, California.

SEC ANNOUNCES FINAL JUDGEMENT AGAINST CHINA VALVES TECHNOLOGY, INC., AND SENIOR OFFICERS

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 23266 / May 20, 2015
Securities and Exchange Commission v. China Valves Technology, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01630 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia)
SEC Obtains Final Judgments Against China Valves Technology, Inc. and Two Senior Officers in Fraud Case

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced today that on May 13, 2015, the Honorable Reggie B. Walton of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered final judgments by consent against defendants China Valves Technology, Inc. ("China Valves"), its Chairman and former CEO, Siping Fang ("Fang"), and its CFO, Renrui Tang ("Tang"). The final judgments: (i) permanently enjoin the defendants from future violations of the anti-fraud, reporting, recordkeeping, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws; (ii) order China Valves, Fang, and Tang to pay civil penalties of $575,000, $75,000, and $40,000, respectively; (iii) bar Fang from serving as an officer and director for five years; and (iv) bar Tang from serving as an officer and director for three years. The Commission today also issued an order pursuant to Rule 102(e)(3)(i) denying Tang the privilege of appearing or practicing as an accountant before the Commission with the right to apply for reinstatement after three years.

The case is the latest from the SEC's Cross-Border Working Group that focuses on companies with substantial foreign operations that are publicly traded in the U.S. China Valves was a China-based U.S. issuer formed through a reverse merger in 2007. On March 4, 2015, the Commission issued an order revoking the registration of China Valves securities pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act.

The Commission's complaint, filed on September 29, 2014, alleged that China Valves, Fang, Tang, and Jianbao Wang ("Wang"), China Valves's former CEO, intentionally misled investors about the nature of China Valves's 2010 acquisition of Watts Valve Changsha Co., Ltd. ("Changsha Valve") in an effort to mask the subsidiary's prior investigation of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") and China Valves's decision to pay sales commissions to employees that potentially violated the FCPA. The complaint further alleged that, in 2011, China Valves materially overstated income and understated liabilities incurred by a wholly-owned subsidiary, Shanghai Pudong Hanwei Valve Co., Ltd ("Hanwei Valve"), when it mischaracterized certain value added tax payments in an attempt to hide the purchase of a valve that it intended to reverse engineer.

The Commission's complaint alleged that China Valves, Fang, Wang, and Tang violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5. The complaint further alleged that China Valves violated reporting, recordkeeping, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13. Finally, the complaint alleged that Fang, Wang, and Tang falsely certified that China Valves's filings contained no material misstatements in violation of Exchange Act Rule 13a-14, and aided and abetted China Valves's violations of the reporting and books and records provisions.

China Valves, Fang, and Tang settled the Commission's charges without admitting or denying the charges in the complaint. The litigation is continuing against Wang.

The SEC's continuing investigation has been conducted by Patrick Feeney, Sarah Nilson, Kelly Dragelin, and Janet Yang, and supervised by Melissa Hodgman. Alfred Day leads the litigation team.

NSF VIDEO: Shoe-based sensor system smartens up gait rehabilitation and therapy

CDC SAYS SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION FOUND BETWEEN SEVERE VISION LOSS AND POVERTY

FROM:  CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
Geographic Disparity of Severe Vision Loss in the United States, 2009–2013

An analysis of U.S. county-level data  found a significant correlation between severe vision loss and poverty. Southern states had the highest prevalence of severe vision loss and poverty. Severe vision loss (SVL) often affects activities of daily living, leads to depression and social isolation, and increases the risk of falls and injuries. Limited data and research are available at the local levels, where interventions and policy decisions to reduce the burden of vision loss and eliminate disparities are often developed and implemented. After examining county-level data from the American Community Survey, SVL prevalence was strongly correlated with poverty. The majority of counties in the top 25 percent for both SVL and poverty were primarily in the southern United States.

MANUFACTURER OF WET WIPES SETTLES FLUSHABLE ISSUE WITH FTC

FROM:  U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Wet Wipe Manufacturer Agrees To Substantiate “Flushability” Advertising Claims under Settlement with FTC
Nice-Pak Products Were also Sold under Costco, CVS, and Target’s Private Labels

Under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, Nice-Pak Products, Inc., a manufacturer of wet wipes, has agreed to stop advertising moist toilet tissue as flushable unless it can substantiate that the product is safe to flush. Similarly, Nice-Pak agreed to not claim that its moist toilet tissue is safe for sewer and septic tanks unless it has substantiation for those claims.

In addition, Nice-Pak will stop providing trade customers, such as retailers, with information to make such unsubstantiated claims. Costco, CVS, Target, and BJ’s Wholesale Club were Nice-Pak customers that sold the formulation of the company’s moist toilet tissue that was the subject of the complaint under their own private labels.

Nice-Pak logo, 'breaks apart after flushing'“The evidence didn’t back up Nice-Pak’s claims that their wipes were safe to flush,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “If you claim a product is flushable, it needs to flush in the real world, without clogging household plumbing or sewer and septic systems.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, Nice-Pak violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting that a certain formulation of its wipes: 1) are safe for sewer systems; 2) are safe for septic systems; 3) break apart shortly after being flushed; and 4) are safe to flush. The FTC also alleges Nice-Pak provided the means and instrumentalities for retailers and others that marketed the product under their own label to make similar misrepresentations. The company’s tests did not reflect, real world household plumbing or septic conditions, the FTC alleged.

The proposed administrative consent order settling the FTC charges prohibits Nice-Pak from misrepresenting that any wipe is safe to flush, unless it can substantiate that the wipe will disperse in a “sufficiently short amount of time” after flushing to prevent clogging and/or damage to household plumbing, sewage lines, septic systems, and other standard wastewater treatment equipment. The test must also replicate the physical conditions of the environment where the wipes will be disposed.

In addition, the proposed order prohibits Nice-Pak from making representations about the benefits, performance, or efficacy of moist toilet tissue, unless the statements are not misleading and the company relies on competent and reliable evidence, which in some instances must be competent and reliable scientific evidence, to support the claims made.  The proposed order also prohibits Nice-Pak from providing the means and instrumentalities to anyone else to make the prohibited misrepresentations.

The Commission vote issuing the complaint and approving the proposed consent order was 5-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through June 19, 2015, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Comments can be submitted electronically.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FELL IN FY 2013

FROM:  NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Latest figures show decline in federal funding for R&D, equipment, facilities in FY 2013
Projections show rising federal agency obligations in FY 2014 and FY 2015

Federal agency funding for research and development and R&D plant (facilities and fixed equipment used for R&D) fell by 9 percent in fiscal year 2013, according to a new InfoBrief from the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES).

NCSES found that total federal agency obligations dropped from $141 billion to $127 billion between fiscal 2012 and fiscal 2013. Funding dropped by 4 percent for research, 14 percent for development and 11 percent for R&D plant, according to the NCSES report.

The fiscal 2013 figures represent the most recent actual data available. Estimates project that combined funding for R&D and R&D plant will rise by 3 percent ($4 billion) in fiscal 2014 and 2 percent ($3 billion) in fiscal 2015.

Changes in agency obligation levels between fiscal 2012 and fiscal 2013 include the following:

14 percent drop ($10 billion) at the Department of Defense, which accounted for just over half of all federal R&D obligations in fiscal 2013
6 percent drop ($2 billion) at the Department of Health and Human Services, which accounted for 23 percent of federal R&D obligations
3 percent drop at NASA, which accounted for 8 percent of federal R&D obligations
1 percent drop at the Department of Energy, which accounted for 8 percent of federal R&D obligations
4 percent drop at the National Science Foundation (NSF), which accounted for 4 percent of federal R&D obligations
NCSES found that federal obligations for basic research declined by 4 percent. Basic research obligations are estimated to increase by 6 percent in fiscal 2014, then decrease by less than 1 percent in fiscal 2015.

REAL ESTATE INVESTOR PLEADS GUILTY TO BID RIGGING, FRAUD CONSPIRACIES AT FORECLOSURE AUCTIONS

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Georgia Real Estate Investor Pleads Guilty to Bid Rigging and Fraud Conspiracies at Public Foreclosure Auctions

A Georgia real estate investor pleaded guilty today for his role in conspiracies to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Georgia, the Department of Justice announced.

Felony charges against Eric Hulsman were filed on March 27, 2015, in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta.  According to court documents, from at least as early March 6, 2007, and continuing at least until Dec. 6, 2011, in Fulton County, Georgia, and from at least as early as Jan. 2, 2007, and continuing at least until Jan. 1, 2008, in DeKalb County, Georgia, Hulsman conspired with others not to bid against one another, but instead designated a winning bidder to obtain selected properties at public real estate foreclosure auctions.  Hulsman was also charged with a conspiracy to use the mail to carry out a scheme to fraudulently acquire title to selected Fulton and DeKalb properties sold at public auctions, to make and receive payoffs and to divert money to co-conspirators that would have gone to mortgage holders and others by holding second, private auctions open only to members of the conspiracy.  The selected properties were then awarded to the conspirators who submitted the highest bids in the second, private auctions.

“Homeowners and lenders in Fulton and DeKalb counties deserved free and fair public real estate foreclosure auctions,” said Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.  “The defendant conspired with others to keep for themselves money that should have gone to those homeowners and lenders.  The division remains committed to rooting out this kind of anticompetitive conduct at foreclosure auctions.”

The primary purpose of the conspiracies was to suppress and restrain competition and to conceal payoffs in order to obtain selected real estate offered at Fulton and DeKalb county public foreclosure auctions at non-competitive prices.  When real estate properties are sold at these auctions, the proceeds are used to pay off the mortgage and other debt attached to the property, with remaining proceeds, if any, paid to the homeowner.  According to court documents, these conspirators paid and received money that otherwise would have gone to pay off the mortgage and other holders of debt secured by the properties, and in some cases, the defaulting homeowner.

“Today’s guilty plea of another real estate investor engaged in unfair bidding practices is further evidence of the FBI’s support for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division in ensuring that public foreclosure auctions remain a level playing field for all,” said Special Agent in Charge J. Britt Johnson of the FBI’s Atlanta Field Office.  “Anyone with information regarding such criminal activities as seen in this case should promptly call their nearest FBI field office.”

A violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals.  The maximum fine for a Sherman Act charge may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime if either amount is greater than the statutory maximum fine.  A count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine in an amount equal to the greatest of $250,000, twice the gross gain the conspirators derived from the crime or twice the gross loss caused to the victims of the crime by the conspirators.

Including Hulsman, eight cases have been filed as a result of the ongoing investigation being conducted by Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal II Section and the FBI’s Atlanta Division, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Georgia.  Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to public real estate foreclosure auctions in Georgia should contact Washington Criminal II Section of the Antitrust Division at 202-598-4000, call the Antitrust Division’s Citizen Complaint Center at 1-888-647-3258 or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.

The charges were brought in connection with the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.  The task force was established to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. attorneys’ offices, and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud.  Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets; and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations.  Since fiscal year 2009, the Justice Department has filed over 18,000 financial fraud cases against more than 25,000 defendants.

AG LYNCH VISITS CINCINNATI, OHIO

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Readout of Attorney General Lynch's Visit to Cincinnati, Ohio

 Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch traveled to Cincinnati, Ohio, for the first stop in her national Community Policing Tour to highlight collaborative programs and policing practices designed to advance public safety, strengthen police-community relations and foster mutual trust and respect.  The Attorney General also announced that she will visit Birmingham, Alabama; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; East Haven, Connecticut; Seattle, Washington; and Richmond, California.

The Attorney General was joined by U.S. Attorney Carter M. Stewart for the Southern District of Ohio, Director Ron Davis for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, Mayor John Cranley for the city Cincinnati, and Cincinnati Police Chief Jeffrey Blackwell.

While in Cincinnati, the Attorney General met with youth and law enforcement at Chase Elementary School to witness firsthand the city’s Right to Read Program in which Cincinnati police officers work with University of Cincinnati students to mentor and tutor children.  At Chase Elementary, the Attorney General played “Jeopardy” with the elementary school students.  She, the Attorney General, was gratified to hear how the young students described police as peace keepers and protectors of the community.  In her remarks to the students and local officers, the Attorney General said, “It’s tremendous what you’ve been doing,” to show how integral law enforcement can be in the lives of our communities.  She also described the innovative approach in Cincinnati as a model for other departments to follow.

After visiting the school, the Attorney General spoke briefly to reporters and took a few questions about her interactions with the children and the importance of community policing.

“What I saw were children being engaged, children learning, children finding that learning can be fun, children learning about senses – about the world around them –  at an age where, I think educators will tell you, it is really crucial that we not lose our children and they not fall out of the educational system and that they develop that love for learning,” Attorney General Lynch told reporters.  “But I also saw children who were aware of the larger community around them and had a very good sense of what law enforcement does – law enforcement at its best because they are seeing law enforcement at best. So in their interactions in the future they will have that context into which to put them as well as law enforcement will have those interactions into which to put them.”

The Attorney General also visited the Cincinnati Police Department for a meet and greet with police officers.  She commended the department’s efforts to reach out to the community, saying, “It's very easy for the cameras to show up when something's on fire, but we also want them to see the work that you're doing day in and day out.”  She also thanked the officers on behalf of the Justice Department for the “hard work” they do every day and spoke to officers that were hired with COPS Office hiring grants.  The Justice Department through its COPS Office yesterday announced five separate grant funding opportunities of up to $163 million for law enforcement agencies to help implement the recommendations made by the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing.

Following her meeting with police officers, the Attorney General ate lunch with U.S. Attorney Stewart, COPS Director Davis, and Cincinnati Police Chief Blackwell at local restaurant Skyline Chili.

Following a tour led by the curator of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, the Attorney General convened a meeting with city officials, law enforcement, local and faith leaders, young people and other members of the community to discuss ways in which the success Cincinnati has seen in building trust between law enforcement and the community can be replicated in cities across the nation.

“Every city deserves an outstanding, world-class police force that works alongside local residents to protect public safety,” said Attorney General Lynch. “And every officer deserves the tools, training, and support they need to do their jobs as safely and effectively as possible.”  Her full remarks can be found here.

The Attorney General also visited with Department of Justice employees at the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio.  Following that meeting, the Attorney General met with the family of John Crawford III, a 22-year African-American man, was shot and killed by a Beavercreek, Ohio police officer inside a Wal-Mart store while Crawford held a BB gun.

REPORT SHOWS WHO EARNS A DOCTORATE IN THE U.S.

FROM:  NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Who earns a doctorate? More women, more foreigners, more minorities

The number of research doctorate degrees awarded by U.S. institutions in 2013 grew by 3.5 percent over the previous year, a single-year increase that has only been exceeded twice in the past two decades, according to a new report from the National Science Foundation's (NSF) National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES).

The report, Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2013, presents data on degree recipients--broken down by categories including citizenship, sex, race and ethnicity, and field of study. NCSES provides detailed data tables and interactive charts for readers to explore online.

The report addresses six key questions: Who earns a U.S doctorate? Which fields attract students? What influences the path to the doctorate? What are the postgraduation trends? What draws students to an institution? And how do expenses and employment outcomes differ? Understanding those characteristics is necessary to make informed improvements in the country's doctoral education system.

The report's findings include the following:

Women earned 46 percent of all doctorates in 2013, and they have earned a majority of all doctorates awarded to U.S. citizens and permanent residents since 2002.

The proportion of doctorates awarded to black or African American students rose from 4.5 percent in 1993 to 6.4 percent in 2013; over the same period, doctorates awarded to Hispanics or Latinos rose from 3.4 percent to 6.3 percent.
Ten countries accounted for 70 percent of the doctorates awarded to temporary visa holders from 2003 to 2013 and the top three--China, India and South Korea--accounted for more than half.

The science and engineering fields accounted for 74 percent of the doctorates awarded in 2013, a substantially larger share than the 65 percent from 10 years earlier.

In every broad science and engineering field, the proportion of 2013 doctorate recipients who reported definite commitments for employment or postdoctorate study was at or near a 25-year-low; for non-S&E fields, that proportion reached a 20-year low.

The report is the latest presentation of an annual census of individuals who in 2013 received research doctorate degrees. The survey is sponsored by NSF, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Education.

Please visit the NSF's National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) for more reports and other products.

-NSF-

Media Contacts
Rob Margetta, NSF
Program Contacts
Mark K. Fiegener, NSF

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2015, its budget is $7.3 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 colleges, universities and other institutions. Each year, NSF receives about 48,000 competitive proposals for funding, and makes about 11,000 new funding awards. NSF also awards about $626 million in professional and service contracts yearly.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS ON AN OPEN AND SECURE INTERNET

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
An Open and Secure Internet: We Must Have Both
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Korea University
Seoul, South Korea
May 18, 2015

SECRETARY KERRY: (Applause.) Well, good afternoon, President Yeom. Thank you very much for a generous introduction. Distinguished guests, all, I’m delighted to be here and I want to thank the university, and particularly Park No-young, the Director of the Cyber Law Center, for inviting me to be here today. Thank you very, very much.

I also want to acknowledge somewhere – I don’t see him – but my friend, the ambassador from the United States of America – there he is right in front of me – Mark Lippert, who represents the United States here in Seoul. And he’s a special person. I’ve known him for a long time. He served in the United States Navy. He served in Afghanistan and served for the President, been an advisor to several presidents. But recently, as you all know, he displayed great grace and dignity under duress, and like all of our diplomats, whose jobs carry with them certain risks on the front lines of diplomacy, I will tell you that Mark has never wavered from his determination to do his job and to represent our country to the best of his ability – which, believe me, he does. So I’m grateful for his leadership. And, Mark, thank you for the great example you’re setting.

I’m really happy to be back here in Seoul. This is a beautiful city, and I’m struck every time I come here. I wish I had more time. Time is the enemy of those of us in diplomacy nowadays. But the United States and South Korea share a very special history, obviously, and we also share great hopes for the future. And I am very happy to be here to talk about our shared interests, though it will not just be, President Yeom, about the security; it will be about the internet itself, which is important as we think about security. It’s also, obviously, very critical as we think about the many interests that we share together, ranging from security on the Korean Peninsula, to the success of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, to the many connections that exist between the Korean and the American peoples – including, I want you to know, a love for Psy, K-Pop, bibimbap, and Pororo, the little penguin. (Laughter.) I want you to know that my staff recommended that I walk out here this afternoon, dancing to Gangnam Style – but I told them no, that’s too 2012.

Today, it’s really more than appropriate to be here in the most wired city in the country, one of the most wired cities in the world, in order to speak with you about digital technology and about the fears and the possibilities that we associate with digital technology. And let me underscore: It’s the possibilities that should motivate us, and it’s the possibilities that bring me here today.

Now, years ago, South Korea made a conscious choice to become a global IT leader and you have delivered. As a society, you opened the door to investment, you encouraged households to sign up for broadband, you eased the transition to new technology, and you developed programs in universities just like this one to educate young people in digital skills. And I applaud you for the remarkable linkage to the military and the security side of it with the offer that you make to students who will come here, learn, and then go on to serve the country in the military for those seven years.

Today, thanks in part to President Park’s commitment to build a, quote, “creative economy,” the ROK is a virtual synonym for Internet success stories, such as the educational network service ClassTing; or the Kakao, your messenger app which is one of the fastest-growing tech firms in all of Asia; and GRobotics, a company which has revolutionized the robot industry and, incredibly, it was originally conceived by an amazing 11-year-old child. Just two weeks ago, Ambassador Lippert joined President Park at the opening of the Google Campus for startups and entrepreneurs right here in Seoul – an initiative designed to spur the exchange of ideas and digital growth in both of our countries. Now, both of our nations know and view the internet and cyber issues as part of a new frontier for our governments and peoples, and it will be one of the key areas discussed when our two presidents meet in in Washington in June.

The fact is, whichever side of the Pacific Ocean we live on, the internet today is part of almost everything that we do. And just to tell you how amazing it is, I served in the United States Senate on the Commerce Committee in 1996. I was chairman of the Communications Subcommittee when we rewrote the communications law for our country. And guess what? Barely anybody in 1996 was talking about data, and data transformation, and data management. It was all about telephony – the telephone. That’s how far we’ve traveled in 20 years.

So it matters to all of us how the technology is used and how it’s governed. That is precisely why the United States considers the promotion of an open and secure internet to be a key component of our foreign policy. It’s why we want to work with you and with international partners everywhere in order to better understand the choices that we face in managing this extraordinary resource – a resource which does present us with certain challenges even as it presents us with unprecedented opportunities.

Now, what do I mean by that?

Well, to begin with, America believes – as I know you do – that the internet should be open and accessible to everyone. We believe it should be interoperable, so it can connect seamlessly across international borders. We believe people are entitled to the same rights of free expression online as they possess offline. We believe countries should work together to deter and respond effectively to online threats. And we believe digital policy should seek to fulfill the technology’s potential as a vehicle for global stability and sustained economic development; as an innovative way to enhance the transparency of governments and hold governments accountable; and also as a means for social empowerment that is also the most democratic form of public expression ever invented.

At its best, the internet is an equal-opportunity platform from which the voice of a student can have as much reach as that of a billionaire; a chief executive may be able to be out-debated by an entry-level employee – and there’s nothing wrong with that. Most users of the internet agree, on the internet as in any other venue, the human rights of every person – including freedom of expression – should be protected and respected. The United Nations has repeatedly affirmed this view, but as we know, it is still not universally held. That means that we will continue to have important choices to make – important choices to make locally, to make in universities, to make in businesses, to make in countries, and between countries. We will have a lot of choices about technology among and between nations.

Let me tell you something: How we choose begins with what we believe. And what we believe about the internet hinges to a great extent on how we feel, each and every one of us, about freedom.

Freedom. The United States believes strongly in freedom – in freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of choice. But particularly, this is important with respect to freedom of expression, and you believe in that freedom of expression here in Korea. We want that right for ourselves and we want that right for others even if we don’t agree always with the views that others express. We understand that freedom of expression is not a license to incite imminent violence. It’s not a license to commit fraud. It’s not a license to indulge in libel, or sexually exploit children. No. But we do know that some governments will use any excuse that they can find to silence their critics and that those governments have responded to the rise of the internet by stepping up their own efforts to control what people read, see, write, and say.

This is truly a point of separation in our era – now, in the 21st century. It’s a point of separation between governments that want the internet to serve their citizens and those who seek to use or restrict access to the internet in order to control their citizens.

Here in the Asia Pacific, we see countries such as the ROK and Japan that are among the world’s leaders in internet access, while North Korea is at the exact opposite end of that spectrum, with the lowest rate of access in the world and the most rigid and centralized control.

No other government is as extreme as the DPRK, but there are more than a few who want to harvest the economic benefits of the internet while nevertheless closing off the avenues of political, social, and religious expression. They impose filters that eliminate broad categories of what their citizens can see and receive and transmit – and with whom ideas may be changed and shared. What’s more, the governments that have pioneered the repressive use of such technologies are quick to export their tools and methods to others, and thereby further diminish individual rights. At the same time, some governments are using the internet to track down activists and journalists who write something that they don’t like, and even reach beyond their borders in order to intimidate their critics.

My friends, this discourages free expression and it clearly seems intended to turn their part of the internet into a graveyard for new ideas – the exact opposite of what it should be, a fertile field where such ideas can blossom and grow.

Let’s be clear: Every government has a responsibility to provide security for its citizens. Yes. We all agree with that. In the United States, our efforts to do so – and the reforms that we have undertaken in the process – have been guided by our concern for individual rights and our commitment to oversight and review. Further, unlike many, we have taken steps to respect and safeguard the privacy of the citizens of other countries and to use the information that we do collect solely to address the very specific threat to the United States and to our allies. We don’t use security concerns as an excuse to suppress criticisms of our policies or to give a competitive advantage to an American company and any commercial interests at all.

Now, regrettably, it is no coincidence that many of the governments that have a poor record on internet freedom also have a questionable commitment to human rights more generally. United States policy has always been to engage with such governments to encourage reforms and to point out the contributions to prosperity that would flow from a more open approach. Regimes that practice repression typically argue that they have no obligation to justify what they do inside their own borders, but that assertion is directly contradicted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by many other multilateral declarations and statements.

The fact is, an individual’s aspiration to be free may be the most single powerful force on Earth. It’s an aspiration that may be able to be slowed sometimes, maybe intimidated sometimes, it may even be eliminated temporarily by violence in certain cases. But I’m telling you its power within the human soul is so infectious that it will always resurface in one form or another, even in the most extraordinary circumstances.

And history – history has proven that again and again and again. Throughout history, we have seen that men and women will do whatever it takes to find a way to make their desire for freedom known. We saw that with the authors of the pamphlets that helped to spark the revolution that gave birth to my home country in the 1700s. We saw it with the dissidents writing newsletters and producing radio broadcasts behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. And we see it today, in places all over the world, where young people are challenging injustice – armed only with their smart phones.

The internet is, among many other things, an instrument of freedom. It’s a tool people resort to in response to the absence and failure or abuse of government. So of course, some leaders are afraid of it. They’re afraid of the internet in the same way that their predecessors were afraid of newspapers, books, and the radio, but even more so because in this case, because of the interactivity that allows for a free-flowing discussion and the exchange of views – activities that can, and often do, lead to change.

I say to you today, here at Korea University, that fear is misplaced, and that response is, in the end, futile. Anyone who blames the internet for the disorder or turmoil in today’s world is just not using their head to connect the dots correctly. And banning the internet in a misguided attempt to impose order will never succeed in quashing the universal desire for freedom.

Ladies and gentlemen, repression does not eliminate the speech we hate. It just forces it into other avenues – avenues that often can become more dangerous than the speech itself that people are fighting. The remedy for the speech that we do not like is more speech. It’s the credible voices of real people that must not only be enabled, but they need to be amplified.

The good news is that much of the world understands this. More and more of the world understands this. And the advocates of internet freedom and openness are speaking up. The United States is part of the Freedom Online Coalition, a 26-country group that we are actively seeking to expand. The coalition argues that narrow and distorted visions of the internet cannot be allowed to prevail. Freedom must win out over censorship. That is an important principle, but it is also a practical imperative. After all, from the dawn of history to the present day, repression hasn’t invented a thing. Freedom is how jobs are created, diseases are cured, alternative energy is harnessed, and new ways are found to feed a global population that has quadrupled in the past century and that will rise to some 9 billion people in the next 40 to 50 years. Without freedom, civilization can’t advance; it’s like a bicycle without pedals.

Remember that the internet is not just another sector of our economy. Like electricity, it is a general purpose technology that is used in thousands of different ways, streamlining everything from buying a cup of coffee to building a skyscraper. Consider what would happen if someone tried to block the flow of electricity – the lights would go out and everything would stop. In fact, when I was a lot younger, Hollywood made a movie about exactly that; it was called “The Day the Earth Stood Still.” And thank heavens they made a couple more of them so you can’t tell exactly which one I’m referring to. (Laughter.) Now, you might want to watch it, because policies that restrict online data streams have a similar effect, if perhaps not quite so dramatic.

Think, for example, of what would take place if every country imposed data localization requirements, causing information to halt and to undergo inspection whenever it reached a national border. Imagine what would happen to commerce and to the flow of information, to the simple effort to get an answer to a question at a dinner table when you’re talking with people and you want to Google something. The delays would create huge obstacles to multinational business at a time when speed is of the essence and cross-border enterprises are major engines of growth. That’s not a formula for progress; it’s a way to stop progress in its tracks.

The internet provides broadly-shared connections that are essential for modern economies to be able to grow. It’s that simple. It can help people even in remote areas take advantage of government services and make a better business decision, for example. Let me give you an example. It could make a difference to people about when you bring your crops to the market or how do you find international customers for local projects.

With digital technology, fishermen in Mozambique can keep their catch fresh in the water until they have a buyer, somewhere in another continent maybe, thus eliminating spoilage and waste.

Shopkeepers in sub-Saharan Africa have seen their incomes actually grow by using mobile banking technology to avoid local loan sharks and go directly to reputable financial institutions for emergency credit and loans.

The system becomes more accountable and more transparent and more accessible. Women entrepreneurs in Southeast Asia have formed cooperatives online that enable them to take advantage of economies of scale.

Children from Angola to India are learning more and faster through education that comes to them over the internet.

And a couple of years ago, a young engineer from Cameroon developed a computer tablet called “Cardiopad” that enables Africans to be able to have a heart examination at home and receive the diagnosis from doctors who may be hundreds of miles away. Think about that.

The examples are endless, but you get the point. I know. The internet fuels innovation that can lead to improved efficiency, improved productivity in every sector of a developing economy.

But in thinking about the internet’s promise, you have to recognize how far that potential is from being fulfilled today. Roughly three out of every five people in the world today remain without internet access – and in the poorest countries that figure can top 95 percent.

A big part of the reason is simply cost. Ask yourself: How much of your family’s income do you pay for internet access? In America, the average is 1 or 2 percent. But a typical family in some countries have to pay 10 percent for entry-level mobile broadband and roughly four times that for fixed broadband. In other words, people with low incomes can’t afford digital access. They need to earn more money. To break that circle of despair, we need to bring the costs down by getting public policies right – because money isn’t the only barrier.

There’s a reason why access is relatively high in Colombia but low in Venezuela. There’s a reason why it’s high in Malaysia but low in Cambodia; a reason why it’s high in Rwanda but low in Ethiopia. Some governments do much more than others to facilitate access for people in poor or remote areas. And the starting point is for every country to have a clear and comprehensive national broadband plan that allows for private investment, encourages competition, removes bureaucratic obstacles, and takes full advantage of shared internet services at schools, libraries, community centers, and cafes.

That’s why two years ago the United States helped create the Alliance for Affordable Internet. This broad coalition draws on expertise from governments, the private sector, and civil society to assist policy makers in expanding access while keeping prices low. It’s the right goal, and I’ll tell you, it’s also a smart goal. According to one recent European study, tripling mobile broadband penetration levels across the developing world would provide a return of as much as $17 for every $1 spent.

About 10 days ago, when I was in Kenya, I Skyped, using the internet, with a group of young Somali refugees. Most of these refugees were high school or college age kids, and yet – and yet, extraordinarily, many of them had never, ever been outside that refugee camp – ever. This, in an era of incredible globalization – they had only lived in one refugee camp. The students I spoke to wanted desperately to be able to complete their schooling. They wanted to find a job. They wanted to go on to university. They wanted to begin a career. One young woman, who is studying chemistry and biology, told me she hoped to become a doctor. Now, I’m willing to bet you that she’s never been inside a hospital. But that’s what she wanted to do – become a doctor. The irony is that, at the refugee camp, they have internet connections. Now, I can’t help but wonder whether that will be the case when they return to Somalia.

If there is any message that is going to be sent to governments by young people in the world today, it is the desire – the universal desire – for jobs, for opportunity, for education, for a future. That’s what people want. It’s what every family in the world really wants. No one is asking to be censored. No one is yearning to be told what to think and how to live. The same desires that helped South Korea embrace democracy are what sparked the beginnings of the Arab Spring; they’re what kept the pro-democracy movement alive through two decades of dictatorship in Burma; and they’re what prompted the voters of Sri Lanka and Nigeria to flock to the polls in recent months and cast their ballots for change.

So looking to the future, we have to respond to this demand for openness and opportunity by making steady progress toward closing the digital divide. And with that goal in mind, the United States State Department will soon launch a new diplomatic initiative – in combination with partner countries, development banks, engineers, and industry leaders – and we’re going to do just that: try to make it more available. You may be sure that we will be inviting your government and other representatives from this highly-connected country to help us lead and guide this effort. Because this will define the future. And this is the way we’ll address violent extremism, and failing states.

So this brings me to another issue that should concern us all, and that is governance – because even a technology founded on freedom needs rules to be able to flourish and work properly. We understand that. Unlike many models of government that are basically top-down, the internet allows all stakeholders – the private sector, civil society, academics, engineers, and governments – to all have seats at the table. And this multi-stakeholder approach is embodied in a myriad of institutions that each day address internet issues and help digital technology to be able to function.

The versatility of the current approach enables it to move both with deliberation and care on complex issues and, frankly, much more rapidly on situations that demand a rapid response. For example, we saw the community respond to the 2007 cyberattacks in Estonia in a matter of hours. And as recently as last week, it responded literally in minutes to an unexpected outage of the Amsterdam exchange, which is the second-largest internet exchange point in the world.

That’s why we have to be wary of those who claim that the system is broken or who advocate replacing it with a more centralized arrangement – where governments would have a monopoly on the decision-making. That’s dangerous. Now, I don’t know what you think, but I am confident that if we were to ask any large group of internet users anywhere in the world what their preferences are, the option “leave everything to the government” would be at the absolute bottom of the list. Because of the dynamic nature of this technology, new issues are constantly on the horizon – but the multi-stakeholder approach remains the fairest and the best, most effective way to be able to resolve those challenges.

Now, as everyone knows, it’s impossible to talk about cyber policy without talking about international peace and security. You live this truth right here in South Korea, just as we do in the United States. Both of our countries have been hit by serious cyber-attacks from state and non-state actors. Worldwide, the risk and frequency of such attacks is on the increase.

America’s policy is to promote international cyber stability. The goal is to create a climate in which all states are able to enjoy the benefits of cyberspace; all have incentives to cooperate and avoid conflict; and all have good reason not to disrupt or attack one another. To achieve this, we are seeking a broad consensus on where to draw the line between responsible and irresponsible behavior.

As I’ve mentioned, the basic rules of international law apply in cyberspace. Acts of aggression are not permissible. And countries that are hurt by an attack have a right to respond in ways that are appropriate, proportional, and that minimize harm to innocent parties. We also support a set of additional principles that, if observed, can contribute substantially to conflict prevention and stability in time of peace. We view these as universal concepts that should be appealing to all responsible states, and they are already gaining traction.

First, no country should conduct or knowingly support online activity that intentionally damages or impedes the use of another country’s critical infrastructure. Second, no country should seek either to prevent emergency teams from responding to a cybersecurity incident, or allow its own teams to cause harm. Third, no country should conduct or support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or other confidential business information for commercial gain. Fourth, every country should mitigate malicious cyber activity emanating from its soil, and they should do so in a transparent, accountable and cooperative way. And fifth, every country should do what it can to help states that are victimized by a cyberattack.

I guarantee you if those five principles were genuinely and fully adopted and implemented by countries, we would be living in a far safer and far more confident cyberworld.

But even with these principles, ensuring international cyber stability will remain a work in progress. We still have a lot of work to do to develop a truly reliable framework – based on international law – that will effectively deter violations and minimize the danger of conflict.

To build trust, the UN Group of Governmental Experts has stressed the importance of high-level communication, transparency about national policies, dispute settlement mechanisms, and the timely sharing of information – all of them, very sound and important thoughts. The bottom line is that we who seek stability and peace in cyberspace should be clear about what we expect and intend, and those who may be tempted to cause trouble should be forewarned: they will be held accountable for their actions. The United States reserves the right to use all necessary means, including economic, trade and diplomatic tools, as appropriate in order to defend our nation and our partners, our friends, our allies. The sanctions against North Korean officials earlier this year are one example of the use of such a tool in response to DPRK's provocative, destabilizing and repressive actions, including the cyber-attack on Sony Pictures. Now, as the international community moves towards consensus about what exactly constitutes unacceptable behavior in cyberspace, more and more responsible nations need to join together to act against disruptors and rogue actors.

As we know, malicious governments are only part of the cybersecurity problem. Organized crime is active in cyberspace. So are individual con artists, unscrupulous hackers, and persons engaged in fraud. Unfortunately, the relative anonymity of the internet makes it an ideal vehicle for criminal activity – but not an excuse for working through the principles I described to finding rules of the road and working so that the internet works for everybody else. The resulting financial cost of those bad actors, the cost of cybercrime, is already enormous, but so is the loss of trust in the internet that every successful fraud or theft engenders.

And that’s precisely why the United States is working with partners on every continent to strengthen the capacity of governments to prevent cyber-crime through improved training, the right legal frameworks, information sharing, and public involvement.

The best vehicle for international cooperation in this field is the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which my government urges every nation to consider joining. There is no better legal framework for working across borders to define what cybercrime is and how breaches of the law should be prevented and prosecuted. We also support the G-7 24/7 Network – in which South Korea is an active participant – and that enables police and prosecutors from more than 70 countries to request rapid assistance on their investigations.

The United States is also working with partners to improve network defenses and in cooperation with other countries to respond to cyber incidents. All of this is crucial, because in an interconnected system like the internet, poor cybersecurity has the potential to increase the danger for all of us. So we have to help each other. We have to maintain direct contact between our incident response teams, invest heavily in that capacity, and build that capacity so that weak spots are turned into stronger blockages against the vulnerabilities, and ultimately, they disappear.

So to sum up, I think it is clear to all of us that the internet is not like most inventions that affect a single industry, require just a few tweaks – a little adjustment here and there – and then we can all move on. That’s not what it requires. Digital technology has led us into a whole new frontier in which we have to find our way – and there are many different dimensions to it. When I was still in the United States Senate, I introduced legislation to protect the privacy rights of individuals and I still feel very strongly about that principle. And we are working to make sure we protect the privacy of people, not just in our country but in others.

As Secretary of State, I am in charge of an organization that is the target of hacking attempts every single day – and we have to defend against those. As a diplomat, I’m constantly engaged in discussions with counterparts about how to best enhance access and how to design and enforce the right rules to protect all of us.

My meetings with the private sector, the scientific community, the civil society, all bring home to me how important it is that all stakeholders have a voice in internet governance. The very essence of this technology is its freedom and its openness, and unless we bring all the stakeholders to the table, that will be lost. And something more important than all of us will be lost with it.

We cannot let that happen. Now, as I said before, obviously, the internet is not without risk – but at the end of the day, if we restricted all technology that could possibly be used for bad purposes, we’d have to revert to the Stone Age. Throughout the global community, we need to come together around principles that will establish a solid foundation for our freedoms – principles that will protect the rights of individuals, the privacy of our citizenry, and the security of our nations – all at the same time.

So I leave you with a somewhat unusual request: Keep doing what so many of you are already doing. Speak up for an open and secure internet. Defend freedom of expression. Add to South Korea’s great reputation as a leader in digital technology. In doing so, we can be absolutely confident about the future that we will shape.

And how will we know when we finally have succeeded? When an open, secure internet is as widespread as electricity or cellphone coverage itself. When it is fully integrated into everyday life in every corner of the globe. When it is no longer contested but accepted and even taken for granted. When we reach that point – believe me: Your successors will look back at all of this debate and they will wonder how could anyone have argued the other way.

My friends, if we do all of these things, if we stick by our guns, the internet revolution that we are living today will literally define the kinds of opportunities that young people all over the world are hoping for today – help strengthen governments; provide opportunity; make us safer; bring us together; and in effect, define the future of this century. That’s the goal we’re fighting for, and we look forward to working with all of you to achieve it.

Thank you.