FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
United States Repatriates Seven Boa Constrictors to Brazil
Seven boa constrictors seized in connection with an illegal wildlife smuggling scheme have been returned to the government of Brazil, announced Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney John W. Huber of the District of Utah.
“This case exhibited many of the hallmarks that make illegal wildlife trafficking a growing international scourge, including actors motivated by greed who illegally smuggled rare and precious wildlife across international boundaries,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell. “The return of the precious snakes to Brazil brings to an end this years-long international saga, and serves as an example of our commitment to working with law enforcement partners in Brazil and elsewhere to combat transnational crime.”
“The successful prosecution of Mr. Stone and the recovery and repatriation of the offspring from this rare and valuable leucistic boa constrictor are due to the exceptional cooperation between the United States and Brazilian authorities,” said U.S. Attorney Huber. “The illegal wildlife trade threatens the survival of many threatened and endangered species and Mr. Stone’s conviction in this case demonstrates our resolve to prosecute those who engage in such activities.”
The seven boa constrictors are the offspring of a rare and extremely valuable white (leucistic) boa constrictor known as “Lucy” or “Diamond Princess” that was found in the Niterói district of Rio de Janerio in 2006. Because of its rarity, Brazilian authorities housed the white boa at the Niterói Zoo, a private foundation that rescued and rehabilitated injured wild animals. In January 2009, Jeremy Stone, a Utah-based collector, breeder and seller of reptiles, traveled to Brazil, secured possession of the snake and unlawfully returned with it back to the United States.
After learning that Stone was marketing snakes bred from a rare white boa, the Brazilian government requested assistance from the United States in securing the return of the leucistic boa and any offspring. Thereafter, pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty, federal investigators obtained a warrant authorizing the seizure of the snake and any offspring from Stone’s property in Utah. In executing the warrant, agents from the FBI learned that the leucistic boa constrictor had died. Agents turned the offspring over to the U.S. Marshals Service, which delivered the eight surviving offspring to the Hogle Zoo in Salt Lake City. One of the snakes died shortly thereafter.
In July 2014, Stone pleaded guilty plea to unlawfully transporting wildlife into the United States. As part of his plea agreement, Stone agreed to forfeit the boa’s offspring to the United States.
In October 2014, the government of Brazil filed a petition asserting its ownership of the white boa and its offspring because it had been caught in the Brazilian wild. Thereafter, the United States asked the court to amend the preliminary order of forfeiture to recognize Brazil’s claim to the snakes. In February 2015, the court entered a final order of forfeiture awarding the white boa’s seven surviving offspring to the government of Brazil.
The Criminal Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and Office of International Affairs, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the District of Utah and the FBI, worked jointly with the government of Brazil to secure the repatriation of the seven offspring.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
DOD REPORTS ISIL TACTICAL LOSSES
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
ISIL Tactical Losses Continue in Iraq, Syria
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, June 17, 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
Fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted four airstrikes in Syria:
-- Near Hasakah, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL antenna arrays and an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Aleppo, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Kobani, one airstrike struck an ISIL large tactical unit.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted seven airstrikes in Iraq, approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:
-- Near Baghdadi, one airstrike destroyed an ISIL resupply vehicle and an ISIL weapons cache.
-- Near Huwayjah, one airstrike struck an ISIL staging area.
-- Near Beiji, one airstrike destroyed two ISIL armored vehicles.
-- Near Mosul, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL mortar firing positon, destroying an ISIL structure.
-- Near Sinjar, three airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying three ISIL heavy machine guns, three ISIL fighting positons, three ISIL tunnel entrances, an ISIL structure and an ISIL rocket propelled grenade.
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.
ISIL Tactical Losses Continue in Iraq, Syria
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, June 17, 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
Fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted four airstrikes in Syria:
-- Near Hasakah, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL antenna arrays and an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Aleppo, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Kobani, one airstrike struck an ISIL large tactical unit.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted seven airstrikes in Iraq, approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:
-- Near Baghdadi, one airstrike destroyed an ISIL resupply vehicle and an ISIL weapons cache.
-- Near Huwayjah, one airstrike struck an ISIL staging area.
-- Near Beiji, one airstrike destroyed two ISIL armored vehicles.
-- Near Mosul, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL mortar firing positon, destroying an ISIL structure.
-- Near Sinjar, three airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying three ISIL heavy machine guns, three ISIL fighting positons, three ISIL tunnel entrances, an ISIL structure and an ISIL rocket propelled grenade.
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.
DOD VIDEO: COAST GUARD COMBATS INTERNATIONAL CRIME
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
2015 - U.S. Coast Guard Deputy Commandant for Operations, VADM Charles Michael testified before a House subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Drug Interdiction Efforts.
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UN TESTIFIES TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Washington, DC
June 16, 2015
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Engel. Distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And thank you for being here. Thank you also for your leadership in advancing America’s national security interests and our values in the world.
Last week I traveled to Ukraine, where I had the chance to see up close what happens when the rules undergirding our international peace and security are ignored. At a shelter for displaced families in Kyiv, I met a mother who told me how her husband and two-year-old child had been killed in February when a shell struck their home in a village in eastern Ukraine. The shelling, as you all know, was part of a sustained assault by combined Russian-separatist forces – and the victims just two of the more than 6,300 people who have been killed in the Moscow-manufactured conflict. Shortly after the attack, the mother fled town with her five surviving children in a van whose roof and doors had been blasted out. Her plea – one I heard echoed by many of the displaced families I met from eastern Ukraine and occupied Crimea – was for the fighting to stop, and for their basic rights to be respected.
As the members of this Committee know, we are living in a time of daunting global crises. In the last year alone, Russia continued to train, arm, and fight alongside separatists in eastern Ukraine; a deadly epidemic spread across West Africa; and monstrous terrorist groups seized territory across the Middle East and North Africa, committing unspeakable atrocities. These are the kinds of threats that the United Nations exists to prevent and address. Yet it is precisely at the moment when we need the UN most that we see the flaws in the international system, some of which have been alluded to already.
This is true for the conflict in Ukraine – in which a permanent member of the UN Security Council is violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity that it was entrusted with upholding. It is true of the global health system that – despite multiple warnings of a spreading Ebola outbreak, including those from our own CDC – was slow to respond to the epidemic. And it is true of UN peacekeepers, who too often stand down or stand by when civilians they are responsible for protecting come under attack. Thus leaving populations vulnerable and sometimes open to radicalization.
Representing our nation before the United Nations, I have to confront these and other shortcomings every day. Yet though I am clear-eyed about the UN’s vulnerabilities, the central point I want to make to this Committee is that America needs the United Nations to address today’s global challenges. The United States has the most powerful set of tools in history to advance its interests, and we will always lead on the world stage. But we are more effective when we ensure that others shoulder their fair share and when we marshal multilateral support to meet our objectives. Let me quickly outline five ways we are doing that at the UN.
First, we are rallying multilateral coalitions to address transnational threats. Consider Iran. In addition to working with Congress to put in place unprecedented U.S. sanctions on the Iranian government, in 2010 the Obama Administration galvanized the UN Security Council to authorize one of the toughest multilateral sanctions regimes in history. The combination of unilateral and multilateral pressure was crucial to bringing Iran to the negotiating table, and ultimately, to laying the foundation whereby we were able to reach a framework agreement that would, if we can get a final deal, effectively cut off every pathway for the Iranian regime to develop a nuclear weapon.
Consider our response to the Ebola epidemic. Last September, as people were dying outside hospitals in West Africa, hospitals that had no beds left to treat the exploding number of Ebola patients, the United States chaired the first-ever emergency meeting of the UN Security Council dedicated to a global health issue. We pressed countries to deploy doctors and nurses, to build clinics and testing labs, and to fill other gaps that ultimately helped bend the outbreak’s exponentially rising curve. America did not just rally others to step up, we led by example, thanks also very much to the support of this Congress, deploying more than 3,500 U.S. Government civilian and military personnel to Liberia, which has been Ebola-free since early May.
Second, we are reforming UN peacekeeping to help address the threats to international peace and security that exist in the 21st century. There are more than 100,000 uniformed police and soldiers deployed in the UN’s sixteen peacekeeping missions around the world – that is a higher number than in any time in history – with more complex responsibilities also than ever before. The United States has an abiding strategic interest in resolving the conflicts where peacekeepers serve, which can quickly cause regional instability and attract extremist groups, as we have seen in Mali. Yet while we have seen peacekeepers serve with bravery and professionalism in many of the world’s most dangerous operating environments, we’ve also seen chronic problems, too often, as mentioned, including the failure to protect civilians.
We are working aggressively to address these shortfalls. To give just one example, we are persuading more advanced militaries to step up and contribute soldiers and police to UN peacekeeping. That was the aim of a summit that Vice President Biden convened at the UN last September, where Colombia, Sweden, Indonesia and more than a dozen other countries announced new troop commitments; and it is the message I took directly to European leaders in March, when I made the case in Brussels that peacekeeping is a critical way for European militaries to do their fair share in protecting our common security interests, particularly as they draw down in Afghanistan. This coming September, President Obama will convene another summit of world leaders to build on this momentum and help catalyze a new wave of commitments and generate a new set of capabilities for UN peacekeeping.
Third, we are fighting to end bias and discrimination at the UN. Day in and day out, we push back against efforts to delegitimize Israel at the UN, and we fight for its right to be treated like any other nation – from mounting a full-court diplomatic press to help secure Israel’s permanent membership into two UN groups from which it had long and unjustly been excluded, to consistently and firmly opposing one-sided actions in international bodies. In December, when a deeply unbalanced draft resolution on the Israel-Palestinian conflict was hastily put before the Security Council, the United States successfully rallied a coalition to join us in voting against it, ensuring that the resolution failed to achieve the nine votes of Security Council members required for adoption. We will continue to confront anti-Israel bias wherever we encounter it.
Fourth, we are working to use UN tools to promote human rights and affirm human dignity, as we did by working with partners to hold the first-ever Security Council meeting focused on the human rights situation in North Korea in December. We used that session to shine a light on the regime’s horrors – a light we kept shining through a panel discussion I hosted in April, with escaped victims of the regime. One woman told of being forced to watch the executions of fellow prisoners who committed the “crime” of daring to ask why they had been imprisoned, while another woman told how members from three generations of her family – her grandmother, her father, and her younger brother – had starved to death. This is important for UN Member States to hear.
Fifth, we are doing everything within our power to make the UN more fiscally responsible, more accountable, and more nimble – both because we have a responsibility to ensure American taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and because maximizing the efficiency of our contributions means saving more lives and better protecting the world’s most vulnerable people. Since the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year, we have reduced the cost-per-peacekeeper by 18 percent, and we are constantly looking for ways to right-size missions in response to conditions on the ground, as we will do this year through substantial drawdowns in Côte d’Ivoire, Haiti, and Liberia, among other missions.
Let me conclude. At the outset, I spoke of my recent visit to Ukraine. Across the range of Ukrainians I met – from the mother who lost her husband and two-year-old child in the assault by combined Russian-separatist forces; to the brave students who risked their lives to take part in the Maidan protests against the kleptocratic Yanukovych government; to the young members of parliament working to fight corruption and increase transparency – what united them was the yearning for certain basic rights. And, the belief that the United States could lead other countries – and the United Nations – in helping make their aspirations a reality.
I heard the same sentiment when visiting UN-run camps of people displaced by violence in the Central African Republic, and South Sudan, and in the Ebola-affected communities of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone at the peak of the outbreak.
Some may view the expectation that America can help people overcome their greatest challenges and secure their basic rights as a burden. In fact, that expectation is one of our nation’s greatest strengths, and one we have a vested interest in striving to live up to – daunting as it may feel in the face of so many crises. But we cannot do it alone, nor should we want to. That is why it is more important than ever that we use the UN to rally the multilateral support needed to confront today’s myriad challenges.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Washington, DC
June 16, 2015
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Engel. Distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And thank you for being here. Thank you also for your leadership in advancing America’s national security interests and our values in the world.
Last week I traveled to Ukraine, where I had the chance to see up close what happens when the rules undergirding our international peace and security are ignored. At a shelter for displaced families in Kyiv, I met a mother who told me how her husband and two-year-old child had been killed in February when a shell struck their home in a village in eastern Ukraine. The shelling, as you all know, was part of a sustained assault by combined Russian-separatist forces – and the victims just two of the more than 6,300 people who have been killed in the Moscow-manufactured conflict. Shortly after the attack, the mother fled town with her five surviving children in a van whose roof and doors had been blasted out. Her plea – one I heard echoed by many of the displaced families I met from eastern Ukraine and occupied Crimea – was for the fighting to stop, and for their basic rights to be respected.
As the members of this Committee know, we are living in a time of daunting global crises. In the last year alone, Russia continued to train, arm, and fight alongside separatists in eastern Ukraine; a deadly epidemic spread across West Africa; and monstrous terrorist groups seized territory across the Middle East and North Africa, committing unspeakable atrocities. These are the kinds of threats that the United Nations exists to prevent and address. Yet it is precisely at the moment when we need the UN most that we see the flaws in the international system, some of which have been alluded to already.
This is true for the conflict in Ukraine – in which a permanent member of the UN Security Council is violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity that it was entrusted with upholding. It is true of the global health system that – despite multiple warnings of a spreading Ebola outbreak, including those from our own CDC – was slow to respond to the epidemic. And it is true of UN peacekeepers, who too often stand down or stand by when civilians they are responsible for protecting come under attack. Thus leaving populations vulnerable and sometimes open to radicalization.
Representing our nation before the United Nations, I have to confront these and other shortcomings every day. Yet though I am clear-eyed about the UN’s vulnerabilities, the central point I want to make to this Committee is that America needs the United Nations to address today’s global challenges. The United States has the most powerful set of tools in history to advance its interests, and we will always lead on the world stage. But we are more effective when we ensure that others shoulder their fair share and when we marshal multilateral support to meet our objectives. Let me quickly outline five ways we are doing that at the UN.
First, we are rallying multilateral coalitions to address transnational threats. Consider Iran. In addition to working with Congress to put in place unprecedented U.S. sanctions on the Iranian government, in 2010 the Obama Administration galvanized the UN Security Council to authorize one of the toughest multilateral sanctions regimes in history. The combination of unilateral and multilateral pressure was crucial to bringing Iran to the negotiating table, and ultimately, to laying the foundation whereby we were able to reach a framework agreement that would, if we can get a final deal, effectively cut off every pathway for the Iranian regime to develop a nuclear weapon.
Consider our response to the Ebola epidemic. Last September, as people were dying outside hospitals in West Africa, hospitals that had no beds left to treat the exploding number of Ebola patients, the United States chaired the first-ever emergency meeting of the UN Security Council dedicated to a global health issue. We pressed countries to deploy doctors and nurses, to build clinics and testing labs, and to fill other gaps that ultimately helped bend the outbreak’s exponentially rising curve. America did not just rally others to step up, we led by example, thanks also very much to the support of this Congress, deploying more than 3,500 U.S. Government civilian and military personnel to Liberia, which has been Ebola-free since early May.
Second, we are reforming UN peacekeeping to help address the threats to international peace and security that exist in the 21st century. There are more than 100,000 uniformed police and soldiers deployed in the UN’s sixteen peacekeeping missions around the world – that is a higher number than in any time in history – with more complex responsibilities also than ever before. The United States has an abiding strategic interest in resolving the conflicts where peacekeepers serve, which can quickly cause regional instability and attract extremist groups, as we have seen in Mali. Yet while we have seen peacekeepers serve with bravery and professionalism in many of the world’s most dangerous operating environments, we’ve also seen chronic problems, too often, as mentioned, including the failure to protect civilians.
We are working aggressively to address these shortfalls. To give just one example, we are persuading more advanced militaries to step up and contribute soldiers and police to UN peacekeeping. That was the aim of a summit that Vice President Biden convened at the UN last September, where Colombia, Sweden, Indonesia and more than a dozen other countries announced new troop commitments; and it is the message I took directly to European leaders in March, when I made the case in Brussels that peacekeeping is a critical way for European militaries to do their fair share in protecting our common security interests, particularly as they draw down in Afghanistan. This coming September, President Obama will convene another summit of world leaders to build on this momentum and help catalyze a new wave of commitments and generate a new set of capabilities for UN peacekeeping.
Third, we are fighting to end bias and discrimination at the UN. Day in and day out, we push back against efforts to delegitimize Israel at the UN, and we fight for its right to be treated like any other nation – from mounting a full-court diplomatic press to help secure Israel’s permanent membership into two UN groups from which it had long and unjustly been excluded, to consistently and firmly opposing one-sided actions in international bodies. In December, when a deeply unbalanced draft resolution on the Israel-Palestinian conflict was hastily put before the Security Council, the United States successfully rallied a coalition to join us in voting against it, ensuring that the resolution failed to achieve the nine votes of Security Council members required for adoption. We will continue to confront anti-Israel bias wherever we encounter it.
Fourth, we are working to use UN tools to promote human rights and affirm human dignity, as we did by working with partners to hold the first-ever Security Council meeting focused on the human rights situation in North Korea in December. We used that session to shine a light on the regime’s horrors – a light we kept shining through a panel discussion I hosted in April, with escaped victims of the regime. One woman told of being forced to watch the executions of fellow prisoners who committed the “crime” of daring to ask why they had been imprisoned, while another woman told how members from three generations of her family – her grandmother, her father, and her younger brother – had starved to death. This is important for UN Member States to hear.
Fifth, we are doing everything within our power to make the UN more fiscally responsible, more accountable, and more nimble – both because we have a responsibility to ensure American taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and because maximizing the efficiency of our contributions means saving more lives and better protecting the world’s most vulnerable people. Since the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year, we have reduced the cost-per-peacekeeper by 18 percent, and we are constantly looking for ways to right-size missions in response to conditions on the ground, as we will do this year through substantial drawdowns in Côte d’Ivoire, Haiti, and Liberia, among other missions.
Let me conclude. At the outset, I spoke of my recent visit to Ukraine. Across the range of Ukrainians I met – from the mother who lost her husband and two-year-old child in the assault by combined Russian-separatist forces; to the brave students who risked their lives to take part in the Maidan protests against the kleptocratic Yanukovych government; to the young members of parliament working to fight corruption and increase transparency – what united them was the yearning for certain basic rights. And, the belief that the United States could lead other countries – and the United Nations – in helping make their aspirations a reality.
I heard the same sentiment when visiting UN-run camps of people displaced by violence in the Central African Republic, and South Sudan, and in the Ebola-affected communities of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone at the peak of the outbreak.
Some may view the expectation that America can help people overcome their greatest challenges and secure their basic rights as a burden. In fact, that expectation is one of our nation’s greatest strengths, and one we have a vested interest in striving to live up to – daunting as it may feel in the face of so many crises. But we cannot do it alone, nor should we want to. That is why it is more important than ever that we use the UN to rally the multilateral support needed to confront today’s myriad challenges.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
IMPERIAL GANGSTERS LEADER RECEIVES LIFE SENTENCE FOR FIVE MURDERS AND OTHER CRIMES
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, June 15, 2015
Leader of Imperial Gangsters Sentenced to Life in Prison for Five Murders, One Attempted Murder and Other Gang-Related Crimes
A leader of the Imperial Gangsters street gang was sentenced today to life in prison for five counts of murder in aid of racketeering and other RICO-related charges, announced Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney David A. Capp of the Northern District of Indiana.
Juan Briseno, aka Tito, 25, of Hammond, Indiana, was sentenced by Chief Judge Philip P. Simon of the Northern District of Indiana to a total of six life sentences plus 10 years in prison. The sentences will run consecutively.
On March 6, 2015, a federal jury in the Northern District of Indiana convicted Briseno of engaging in a RICO conspiracy, engaging in a drug distribution conspiracy, five counts of murder in aid of racketeering, one count of attempted murder in aid of racketeering, and a firearms count related to the attempted murder.
According to the evidence presented at trial, Briseno was a leader of the 149th Street Imperial Gangsters, a violent clique of the Imperial Gangsters based in East Chicago, Indiana. In his leadership role, Briseno supervised prospective gang members known as “shorties.”
The evidence showed that the Imperial Gangsters had a long-standing rule that gang members were to shoot rival gang members on sight, and that they had a policy to shoot anyone selling drugs in their neighborhood when such persons had not either purchased the drugs from the Imperial Gangsters or paid “taxes” to the gang for the right to sell drugs in their territory. The five murders of which Briseno was convicted were committed consistent with these directives.
According to witness testimony, Briseno expressed no remorse for his participation in various murders. Indeed, he bragged about killings and encouraged others to do the same.
With regard to the specific murders, the evidence at trial demonstrated that, on Sept. 26, 2007, Briseno knocked on Luis Ortiz’s apartment door in Hammond, Indiana, and shot him dead in the doorway. According to the evidence presented at trial, Briseno targeted Ortiz because he was a member of the rival Latin King Street Gang.
Additionally, the evidence showed that, on June 3, 2008, Briseno killed both Miguel Mejias, a former member of the Latin Kings, and Michael Sessum, an associate of Mejias, while they were unarmed and bringing takeout food to their pregnant girlfriends. According to the evidence presented at trial, Briseno fired multiple shots into Mejias’ residence, striking a female victim in the arm while she was holding her infant child. Another pregnant female victim and multiple minor victims also were inside the apartment at the time. According to testimony presented at trial, in the weeks prior to the confrontation, Mejias implored a common friend to tell Briseno that Mejias was no longer “gangbanging” and did not want any trouble. In response to this message, Briseno said, “[expletive] him, he was going to bring [Latin] Kings into our neighborhood.”
The evidence at trial also demonstrated that, on Feb. 7, 2010, Briseno and his associates murdered rival Two-Six gang member Miguel Colonas he was leaving a party in the Harbor Area of East Chicago. In this incident, Briseno and several associates laid in wait for Colon to leave the party, and then shot the unsuspecting Colon from a vehicle.
Finally, the evidence at trial demonstrated that, on June 19, 2010, Briseno murdered Latroy Howard because he was selling drugs in Imperial Gangster territory. A video introduced at trial showed Briseno’s vehicle circling the block several times prior to the murder, and then showed Briseno confronting Howard on foot and shooting him twice in the head at point-blank range.
This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the FBI; and the East Chicago Police Department. The Gary, Indiana, Police Department; the Hammond Police Department; and the Lake County High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program provided assistance. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David J. Nozick of the Northern District of Indiana and Trial Attorney Bruce R. Hegyi of the Criminal Division’s Capital Case Section.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Leader of Imperial Gangsters Sentenced to Life in Prison for Five Murders, One Attempted Murder and Other Gang-Related Crimes
A leader of the Imperial Gangsters street gang was sentenced today to life in prison for five counts of murder in aid of racketeering and other RICO-related charges, announced Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney David A. Capp of the Northern District of Indiana.
Juan Briseno, aka Tito, 25, of Hammond, Indiana, was sentenced by Chief Judge Philip P. Simon of the Northern District of Indiana to a total of six life sentences plus 10 years in prison. The sentences will run consecutively.
On March 6, 2015, a federal jury in the Northern District of Indiana convicted Briseno of engaging in a RICO conspiracy, engaging in a drug distribution conspiracy, five counts of murder in aid of racketeering, one count of attempted murder in aid of racketeering, and a firearms count related to the attempted murder.
According to the evidence presented at trial, Briseno was a leader of the 149th Street Imperial Gangsters, a violent clique of the Imperial Gangsters based in East Chicago, Indiana. In his leadership role, Briseno supervised prospective gang members known as “shorties.”
The evidence showed that the Imperial Gangsters had a long-standing rule that gang members were to shoot rival gang members on sight, and that they had a policy to shoot anyone selling drugs in their neighborhood when such persons had not either purchased the drugs from the Imperial Gangsters or paid “taxes” to the gang for the right to sell drugs in their territory. The five murders of which Briseno was convicted were committed consistent with these directives.
According to witness testimony, Briseno expressed no remorse for his participation in various murders. Indeed, he bragged about killings and encouraged others to do the same.
With regard to the specific murders, the evidence at trial demonstrated that, on Sept. 26, 2007, Briseno knocked on Luis Ortiz’s apartment door in Hammond, Indiana, and shot him dead in the doorway. According to the evidence presented at trial, Briseno targeted Ortiz because he was a member of the rival Latin King Street Gang.
Additionally, the evidence showed that, on June 3, 2008, Briseno killed both Miguel Mejias, a former member of the Latin Kings, and Michael Sessum, an associate of Mejias, while they were unarmed and bringing takeout food to their pregnant girlfriends. According to the evidence presented at trial, Briseno fired multiple shots into Mejias’ residence, striking a female victim in the arm while she was holding her infant child. Another pregnant female victim and multiple minor victims also were inside the apartment at the time. According to testimony presented at trial, in the weeks prior to the confrontation, Mejias implored a common friend to tell Briseno that Mejias was no longer “gangbanging” and did not want any trouble. In response to this message, Briseno said, “[expletive] him, he was going to bring [Latin] Kings into our neighborhood.”
The evidence at trial also demonstrated that, on Feb. 7, 2010, Briseno and his associates murdered rival Two-Six gang member Miguel Colonas he was leaving a party in the Harbor Area of East Chicago. In this incident, Briseno and several associates laid in wait for Colon to leave the party, and then shot the unsuspecting Colon from a vehicle.
Finally, the evidence at trial demonstrated that, on June 19, 2010, Briseno murdered Latroy Howard because he was selling drugs in Imperial Gangster territory. A video introduced at trial showed Briseno’s vehicle circling the block several times prior to the murder, and then showed Briseno confronting Howard on foot and shooting him twice in the head at point-blank range.
This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the FBI; and the East Chicago Police Department. The Gary, Indiana, Police Department; the Hammond Police Department; and the Lake County High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program provided assistance. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David J. Nozick of the Northern District of Indiana and Trial Attorney Bruce R. Hegyi of the Criminal Division’s Capital Case Section.
ARMED INTRUDER ON WHITE HOUSE GROUNDS SENTENCED TO 17 MONTHS IN PRISON
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Omar Gonzalez Sentenced to 17 Months in Prison for Armed Intrusion on White House Grounds
Omar Gonzalez, 43, of Copperas Cove, Texas, was sentenced today to 17 months in prison on charges stemming from an incident in which he climbed a fence and ran toward and into the White House while armed with a folding knife.
The sentencing was announced by Acting U.S. Attorney Vincent H. Cohen, Jr. for the District of Columbia and Acting Special Agent in Charge James M. Murray of the Washington Field Office for the U.S. Secret Service.
Gonzalez pleaded guilty on March 13, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to two federal offenses: one count of unlawfully entering a restricted building or grounds, while carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon and one count of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees. He was sentenced by the Honorable Rosemary M. Collyer. Upon completion of his prison term, Gonzalez will be placed on three years of supervised release.
Judge Collyer also prohibited Gonzalez from entering the District of Columbia for the duration of his supervision, except for court appearances and meetings with his attorney. He also will be required to participate in a psychiatric evaluation and cooperate fully with the Secret Service in any assessments they deem necessary to make of Gonzalez’s risk.
“Mr. Gonzalez is now paying the price for his foolish decision to jump the fence and run inside the White House,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Cohen. “When he finishes his prison term, he will be barred from entering the District of Columbia and must receive psychiatric treatment. The prison sentence imposed by the court should deter others from taking actions that needlessly put the First Family and White House employees at risk.”
According to the government’s evidence, on Sept. 19, 2014, at about 7:19 p.m., Gonzalez climbed over the north fence of the White House. While he was climbing over the fence, officers with the U.S. Secret Service’s Uniformed Division ran towards him and repeatedly yelled at him to stop and get down. Gonzalez, however, ignored the commands and landed on the north grounds of the White House.
Moments later, after ignoring additional, repeated commands from uniformed officers to stop, Gonzalez went through the north doors of the White House, knocking a uniformed officer backwards. Another uniformed officer then tackled him inside the White House.
Gonzalez was searched and a folding knife, with a serrated blade that was over three and one-half inches long, was discovered in his right front pants pocket. After his arrest, he gave oral consent to search his vehicle, located on Constitution Avenue NW. The vehicle contained hundreds of rounds of ammunition, in boxes and in magazines, hatchets and a machete.
Gonzalez has been in custody since his arrest on Sept. 19, 2014.
This case was investigated by the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. It was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David Mudd and Thomas A. Gillice of the National Security Section for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Omar Gonzalez Sentenced to 17 Months in Prison for Armed Intrusion on White House Grounds
Omar Gonzalez, 43, of Copperas Cove, Texas, was sentenced today to 17 months in prison on charges stemming from an incident in which he climbed a fence and ran toward and into the White House while armed with a folding knife.
The sentencing was announced by Acting U.S. Attorney Vincent H. Cohen, Jr. for the District of Columbia and Acting Special Agent in Charge James M. Murray of the Washington Field Office for the U.S. Secret Service.
Gonzalez pleaded guilty on March 13, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to two federal offenses: one count of unlawfully entering a restricted building or grounds, while carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon and one count of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees. He was sentenced by the Honorable Rosemary M. Collyer. Upon completion of his prison term, Gonzalez will be placed on three years of supervised release.
Judge Collyer also prohibited Gonzalez from entering the District of Columbia for the duration of his supervision, except for court appearances and meetings with his attorney. He also will be required to participate in a psychiatric evaluation and cooperate fully with the Secret Service in any assessments they deem necessary to make of Gonzalez’s risk.
“Mr. Gonzalez is now paying the price for his foolish decision to jump the fence and run inside the White House,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Cohen. “When he finishes his prison term, he will be barred from entering the District of Columbia and must receive psychiatric treatment. The prison sentence imposed by the court should deter others from taking actions that needlessly put the First Family and White House employees at risk.”
According to the government’s evidence, on Sept. 19, 2014, at about 7:19 p.m., Gonzalez climbed over the north fence of the White House. While he was climbing over the fence, officers with the U.S. Secret Service’s Uniformed Division ran towards him and repeatedly yelled at him to stop and get down. Gonzalez, however, ignored the commands and landed on the north grounds of the White House.
Moments later, after ignoring additional, repeated commands from uniformed officers to stop, Gonzalez went through the north doors of the White House, knocking a uniformed officer backwards. Another uniformed officer then tackled him inside the White House.
Gonzalez was searched and a folding knife, with a serrated blade that was over three and one-half inches long, was discovered in his right front pants pocket. After his arrest, he gave oral consent to search his vehicle, located on Constitution Avenue NW. The vehicle contained hundreds of rounds of ammunition, in boxes and in magazines, hatchets and a machete.
Gonzalez has been in custody since his arrest on Sept. 19, 2014.
This case was investigated by the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. It was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David Mudd and Thomas A. Gillice of the National Security Section for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
EDUCATION SECRETARY DUNCAN ACCUSES REPUBLICANS OF PROTECTING FRAUDULENT CAREER COLLEGES
FROM: U.S. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
JUNE 16, 2015
Statement from U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on House Republicans Proposing to Block Gainful Employment Regulations
“With students across the country reeling from the predatory behavior of failed and fraudulent ‘career’ colleges, it’s truly mind-boggling that House Republicans are still fighting tooth and nail to protect schools that take advantage of students and leave taxpayers with the bill. Make no mistake: a vote for this proposal is a vote to leave students in the dark and taxpayers holding the bag. Both deserve better.”
JUNE 16, 2015
Statement from U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on House Republicans Proposing to Block Gainful Employment Regulations
“With students across the country reeling from the predatory behavior of failed and fraudulent ‘career’ colleges, it’s truly mind-boggling that House Republicans are still fighting tooth and nail to protect schools that take advantage of students and leave taxpayers with the bill. Make no mistake: a vote for this proposal is a vote to leave students in the dark and taxpayers holding the bag. Both deserve better.”
SCIENTISTS STUDY CORAL REEFS AND OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Coral reefs defy ocean acidification odds in Palau
Palau reefs show few of the predicted responses
Will some coral reefs be able to adapt to rapidly changing conditions in Earth's oceans? If so, what will these reefs look like in the future?
As the ocean absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) released by the burning of fossil fuels, its chemistry is changing. The CO2 reacts with water molecules, lowering ocean pH (making it more acidic) in a process known as ocean acidification.
This process also removes carbonate, an essential ingredient needed by corals and other organisms to build their skeletons and shells.
Scientists are studying coral reefs in areas where low pH is naturally occurring to answer questions about ocean acidification, which threatens coral reef ecosystems worldwide.
Palau reefs dodge ocean acidification effects
One such place is Palau, an archipelago in the far western Pacific Ocean. The tropical, turquoise waters of Palau's Rock Islands are naturally more acidic due to a combination of biological activity and the long residence time of seawater in their maze of lagoons and inlets.
Seawater pH within the Rock Island lagoons is as low now as the open ocean is projected to reach as a result of ocean acidification near the end of this century.
A new study led by scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) found that coral reefs in Palau seem to be defying the odds, showing none of the predicted responses to low pH except for an increase in bio-erosion--the physical breakdown of coral skeletons by boring organisms such as mollusks and worms.
A paper reporting the results is published today in the journal Science Advances.
"This research illustrates the value of comprehensive field studies," says David Garrison, a program director in the National Science Foundation's Division of Ocean Sciences, which funded the research through NSF's Ocean Acidification (OA) Program. NSF OA is supported by the Directorates for Geosciences and for Biological Sciences.
"Contrary to laboratory findings," says Garrison, "it appears that the major effect of ocean acidification on Palau Rock Island corals is increased bio-erosion rather than direct effects on coral species."
Adds lead paper author Hannah Barkley of WHOI, "Based on lab experiments and studies of other naturally low pH reef systems, this is the opposite of what we expected."
Experiments measuring corals' responses to a variety of low pH conditions have shown a range of negative effects, such as fewer varieties of corals, more algae growth, lower rates of calcium carbonate production (growth), and juvenile corals that have difficulty constructing skeletons.
"Surprisingly, in Palau where the pH is lowest, we see a coral community that hosts more species and has greater coral cover than in the sites where pH is normal," says Anne Cohen, co-author of the paper.
"That's not to say the coral community is thriving because of the low pH, rather it is thriving despite the low pH, and we need to understand how."
When the researchers compared the communities found on Palau's reefs with those in other reefs where pH is naturally low, they found increased bio-erosion was the only common feature.
"Our study revealed increased bio-erosion to be the only consistent community response, as other signs of ecosystem health varied at different locations," Barkley says.
The riddle of resilience
How do Palau's low pH reefs thrive despite significantly higher levels of bio-erosion?
The researchers aren't certain yet, but hope to answer that question in future studies.
They also don't completely understand why conditions created by ocean acidification seem to favor bio-eroding organisms.
One theory--that skeletons grown under more acidic conditions are less dense, making them easier for bio-eroding organisms to penetrate--is not the case on Palau, Barkley says, "because we don't see a correlation between skeletal density and pH."
Though coral reefs cover less than one percent of the ocean, these diverse ecosystems are home to at least a quarter of all marine life. In addition to sustaining fisheries that feed hundreds of millions of people around the world, coral reefs protect thousands of acres of coastlines from waves, storms and tsunamis.
"On the one hand, the results of this study are optimistic," Cohen says. "Even though many experiments and other studies of naturally low pH reefs show that ocean acidification negatively affects calcium carbonate production, as well as coral diversity and cover, we are not seeing that on Palau.
"That gives us hope that some coral reefs--even if it is a very small percentage--might be able to withstand future levels of ocean acidification."
Along with Barkley and Cohen, the team included Yimnang Golbuu of the Palau International Coral Reef Center, Thomas DeCarlo and Victoria Starczak of WHOI, and Kathryn Shamberger of Texas A&M University.
The Dalio Foundation, Inc., The Tiffany & Co. Foundation, The Nature Conservancy and the WHOI Access to the Sea Fund provided additional funding for this work.
-NSF-
Coral reefs defy ocean acidification odds in Palau
Palau reefs show few of the predicted responses
Will some coral reefs be able to adapt to rapidly changing conditions in Earth's oceans? If so, what will these reefs look like in the future?
As the ocean absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) released by the burning of fossil fuels, its chemistry is changing. The CO2 reacts with water molecules, lowering ocean pH (making it more acidic) in a process known as ocean acidification.
This process also removes carbonate, an essential ingredient needed by corals and other organisms to build their skeletons and shells.
Scientists are studying coral reefs in areas where low pH is naturally occurring to answer questions about ocean acidification, which threatens coral reef ecosystems worldwide.
Palau reefs dodge ocean acidification effects
One such place is Palau, an archipelago in the far western Pacific Ocean. The tropical, turquoise waters of Palau's Rock Islands are naturally more acidic due to a combination of biological activity and the long residence time of seawater in their maze of lagoons and inlets.
Seawater pH within the Rock Island lagoons is as low now as the open ocean is projected to reach as a result of ocean acidification near the end of this century.
A new study led by scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) found that coral reefs in Palau seem to be defying the odds, showing none of the predicted responses to low pH except for an increase in bio-erosion--the physical breakdown of coral skeletons by boring organisms such as mollusks and worms.
A paper reporting the results is published today in the journal Science Advances.
"This research illustrates the value of comprehensive field studies," says David Garrison, a program director in the National Science Foundation's Division of Ocean Sciences, which funded the research through NSF's Ocean Acidification (OA) Program. NSF OA is supported by the Directorates for Geosciences and for Biological Sciences.
"Contrary to laboratory findings," says Garrison, "it appears that the major effect of ocean acidification on Palau Rock Island corals is increased bio-erosion rather than direct effects on coral species."
Adds lead paper author Hannah Barkley of WHOI, "Based on lab experiments and studies of other naturally low pH reef systems, this is the opposite of what we expected."
Experiments measuring corals' responses to a variety of low pH conditions have shown a range of negative effects, such as fewer varieties of corals, more algae growth, lower rates of calcium carbonate production (growth), and juvenile corals that have difficulty constructing skeletons.
"Surprisingly, in Palau where the pH is lowest, we see a coral community that hosts more species and has greater coral cover than in the sites where pH is normal," says Anne Cohen, co-author of the paper.
"That's not to say the coral community is thriving because of the low pH, rather it is thriving despite the low pH, and we need to understand how."
When the researchers compared the communities found on Palau's reefs with those in other reefs where pH is naturally low, they found increased bio-erosion was the only common feature.
"Our study revealed increased bio-erosion to be the only consistent community response, as other signs of ecosystem health varied at different locations," Barkley says.
The riddle of resilience
How do Palau's low pH reefs thrive despite significantly higher levels of bio-erosion?
The researchers aren't certain yet, but hope to answer that question in future studies.
They also don't completely understand why conditions created by ocean acidification seem to favor bio-eroding organisms.
One theory--that skeletons grown under more acidic conditions are less dense, making them easier for bio-eroding organisms to penetrate--is not the case on Palau, Barkley says, "because we don't see a correlation between skeletal density and pH."
Though coral reefs cover less than one percent of the ocean, these diverse ecosystems are home to at least a quarter of all marine life. In addition to sustaining fisheries that feed hundreds of millions of people around the world, coral reefs protect thousands of acres of coastlines from waves, storms and tsunamis.
"On the one hand, the results of this study are optimistic," Cohen says. "Even though many experiments and other studies of naturally low pH reefs show that ocean acidification negatively affects calcium carbonate production, as well as coral diversity and cover, we are not seeing that on Palau.
"That gives us hope that some coral reefs--even if it is a very small percentage--might be able to withstand future levels of ocean acidification."
Along with Barkley and Cohen, the team included Yimnang Golbuu of the Palau International Coral Reef Center, Thomas DeCarlo and Victoria Starczak of WHOI, and Kathryn Shamberger of Texas A&M University.
The Dalio Foundation, Inc., The Tiffany & Co. Foundation, The Nature Conservancy and the WHOI Access to the Sea Fund provided additional funding for this work.
-NSF-
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
AGREEMENT FOR PEACEFUL NUCLEAR COOPERATION BETWEEN U.S.-REPUBLIC OF KOREA
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S.-Republic of Korea (R.O.K.) Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation
Fact Sheet
Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
June 16, 2015
New 123 Agreement Would Strengthen the U.S.-R.O.K. Bilateral Strategic Relationship and Enhances Cooperation for the Long Term
The United States and the Republic of Korea have signed a successor agreement for civil nuclear cooperation, also known as a “123 Agreement.”
The United States and the R.O.K. have had a strong partnership in the field of peaceful nuclear cooperation for more than half a century, and the United States is pleased that the R.O.K. has become one of the world’s leading nations in the development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
The agreement would enhance the strategic relationship between the United States and the R.O.K. across the spectrum of political, economic, energy, science, and technology issues.
The agreement would establish a new standing, High-Level Bilateral Commission for our two governments to work together to advance mutual objectives such as addressing spent fuel management, an assured stable fuel supply, nuclear security, and enhancing cooperation between the U.S. and R.O.K. nuclear industries.
The new Commission would allow for deepened cooperation and more regular interaction between our two governments on the state of nuclear energy in both countries and allow us to account for new developments in technology, spent fuel management, security, and safety.
The agreement would reinforce the importance of our ongoing Joint Fuel Cycle Study to review and identify appropriate options for addressing spent fuel management challenges, and facilitate cooperation on research and development (R&D) in this context, including R&D at specified facilities on the use of electrochemical reduction.
The new agreement also would provide the R.O.K. with consent to produce radioisotopes for medical and research purposes, as well as to conduct examination of irradiated fuel rods using U.S.-obligated material.
The agreement would allow for the continuation and expansion of our robust and mutually beneficial trade relationship.
For example, the United States supplies enrichment services to the R.O.K. to support its fabrication of nuclear fuel, and the R.O.K. supplies the United States with significant reactor components such as pressure vessels.
Due to this trade relationship, the contract between the R.O.K. and the United Arab Emirates to build four reactors has already brought hundreds of new jobs and approximately $2 billion in additional revenue to U.S. nuclear suppliers.
The agreement would allow this type of cooperation to continue and flourish in the future.
The agreement would be fully reciprocal, requiring the United States to undertake most of the same obligations as the R.O.K. The only exceptions relate to different obligations that each country has under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The New 123 Agreement Would Strengthen Nonproliferation Cooperation Between the United States and the Republic of Korea
Like all our 123 agreements, this agreement contains essential provisions related to nonproliferation and nuclear security, and would thereby enhance the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.
The terms of the U.S.-R.O.K. 123 agreement strongly reaffirm the two governments’ shared commitment to nonproliferation as the cornerstone of their nuclear cooperation relationship.
The R.O.K. has a strong track record on nonproliferation and the R.O.K. has consistently reiterated its commitment to nonproliferation. It has been an extremely active partner with the United States across a wide breadth of bilateral and multilateral activities designed to ensure the implementation of the highest standards of safety, security, and nonproliferation worldwide.
The agreement would update the nonproliferation conditions from the prior agreement and fully meet the nonproliferation requirements of Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended by the 1978 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act (NNPA).
The agreement would provide for the cooperation between the United States and the R.O.K. to be subject to the relevant IAEA safeguards requirements, assurance that all activities under the agreement will be for peaceful purposes only, and express reciprocal consent rights over any retransfers or subsequent reprocessing or enrichment of material subject to the agreement.
The R.O.K. Is a Strong Nonproliferation Partner
The R.O.K. is one of the United States’ strongest partners on nonproliferation and has consistently reiterated its commitment to nonproliferation.
It is a member of the four multilateral nonproliferation regimes (Missile Technology Control Regime, Wassenaar Arrangement, Australia Group, and Nuclear Suppliers Group, for which it served as Chair in 2003-2004 and will do so again in 2016-17) and recently completed its term as chair of the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation.
The R.O.K. became a State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on April 23, 1975, and has in force a comprehensive safeguards agreement and additional protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The R.O.K. has also demonstrated its commitment to nuclear security and addressing the threat of nuclear terrorism, including through hosting the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit and being an active contributor to the Summit process, and through its support for the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the Nuclear Smuggling Outreach Initiative.
The R.O.K. has been an active participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) since 2009, having hosted regional and global meetings and two operational exercises. It has also conducted outreach to states that have not yet endorsed PSI.
The R.O.K. has been a consistent advocate of nonproliferation in the IAEA Board of Governors, including support for strengthening safeguards and calling to account Iran and Syria for violations of their safeguards obligations.
The R.O.K. has also been a strong and close partner in addressing the security and proliferation threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, including at the IAEA and the UN Security Council. The United States and the R.O.K. continue to cooperate closely in our shared objective to achieve North Korea’s complete, irreversible and verifiable denuclearization and to bring North Korea into compliance with its commitments under the 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks and its obligations under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
U.S.-Republic of Korea (R.O.K.) Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation
Fact Sheet
Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
June 16, 2015
New 123 Agreement Would Strengthen the U.S.-R.O.K. Bilateral Strategic Relationship and Enhances Cooperation for the Long Term
The United States and the Republic of Korea have signed a successor agreement for civil nuclear cooperation, also known as a “123 Agreement.”
The United States and the R.O.K. have had a strong partnership in the field of peaceful nuclear cooperation for more than half a century, and the United States is pleased that the R.O.K. has become one of the world’s leading nations in the development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
The agreement would enhance the strategic relationship between the United States and the R.O.K. across the spectrum of political, economic, energy, science, and technology issues.
The agreement would establish a new standing, High-Level Bilateral Commission for our two governments to work together to advance mutual objectives such as addressing spent fuel management, an assured stable fuel supply, nuclear security, and enhancing cooperation between the U.S. and R.O.K. nuclear industries.
The new Commission would allow for deepened cooperation and more regular interaction between our two governments on the state of nuclear energy in both countries and allow us to account for new developments in technology, spent fuel management, security, and safety.
The agreement would reinforce the importance of our ongoing Joint Fuel Cycle Study to review and identify appropriate options for addressing spent fuel management challenges, and facilitate cooperation on research and development (R&D) in this context, including R&D at specified facilities on the use of electrochemical reduction.
The new agreement also would provide the R.O.K. with consent to produce radioisotopes for medical and research purposes, as well as to conduct examination of irradiated fuel rods using U.S.-obligated material.
The agreement would allow for the continuation and expansion of our robust and mutually beneficial trade relationship.
For example, the United States supplies enrichment services to the R.O.K. to support its fabrication of nuclear fuel, and the R.O.K. supplies the United States with significant reactor components such as pressure vessels.
Due to this trade relationship, the contract between the R.O.K. and the United Arab Emirates to build four reactors has already brought hundreds of new jobs and approximately $2 billion in additional revenue to U.S. nuclear suppliers.
The agreement would allow this type of cooperation to continue and flourish in the future.
The agreement would be fully reciprocal, requiring the United States to undertake most of the same obligations as the R.O.K. The only exceptions relate to different obligations that each country has under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The New 123 Agreement Would Strengthen Nonproliferation Cooperation Between the United States and the Republic of Korea
Like all our 123 agreements, this agreement contains essential provisions related to nonproliferation and nuclear security, and would thereby enhance the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.
The terms of the U.S.-R.O.K. 123 agreement strongly reaffirm the two governments’ shared commitment to nonproliferation as the cornerstone of their nuclear cooperation relationship.
The R.O.K. has a strong track record on nonproliferation and the R.O.K. has consistently reiterated its commitment to nonproliferation. It has been an extremely active partner with the United States across a wide breadth of bilateral and multilateral activities designed to ensure the implementation of the highest standards of safety, security, and nonproliferation worldwide.
The agreement would update the nonproliferation conditions from the prior agreement and fully meet the nonproliferation requirements of Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended by the 1978 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act (NNPA).
The agreement would provide for the cooperation between the United States and the R.O.K. to be subject to the relevant IAEA safeguards requirements, assurance that all activities under the agreement will be for peaceful purposes only, and express reciprocal consent rights over any retransfers or subsequent reprocessing or enrichment of material subject to the agreement.
The R.O.K. Is a Strong Nonproliferation Partner
The R.O.K. is one of the United States’ strongest partners on nonproliferation and has consistently reiterated its commitment to nonproliferation.
It is a member of the four multilateral nonproliferation regimes (Missile Technology Control Regime, Wassenaar Arrangement, Australia Group, and Nuclear Suppliers Group, for which it served as Chair in 2003-2004 and will do so again in 2016-17) and recently completed its term as chair of the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation.
The R.O.K. became a State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on April 23, 1975, and has in force a comprehensive safeguards agreement and additional protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The R.O.K. has also demonstrated its commitment to nuclear security and addressing the threat of nuclear terrorism, including through hosting the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit and being an active contributor to the Summit process, and through its support for the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the Nuclear Smuggling Outreach Initiative.
The R.O.K. has been an active participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) since 2009, having hosted regional and global meetings and two operational exercises. It has also conducted outreach to states that have not yet endorsed PSI.
The R.O.K. has been a consistent advocate of nonproliferation in the IAEA Board of Governors, including support for strengthening safeguards and calling to account Iran and Syria for violations of their safeguards obligations.
The R.O.K. has also been a strong and close partner in addressing the security and proliferation threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, including at the IAEA and the UN Security Council. The United States and the R.O.K. continue to cooperate closely in our shared objective to achieve North Korea’s complete, irreversible and verifiable denuclearization and to bring North Korea into compliance with its commitments under the 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks and its obligations under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
U.S. DOD REPORTS ON AIRSTRIKES IN SYRIA, IRAQ
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Airstrikes Hit ISIL in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, June 16, 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
Bomber and fighter aircraft conducted nine airstrikes in Syria:
-- Near Raqqah, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL excavator.
-- Near Kobani, three airstrikes struck one large and two small ISIL tactical units, destroying an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Tal Abyad, five airstrikes struck three large and two small ISIL tactical units, destroying three ISIL vehicles.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 16 airstrikes in Iraq, approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:
-- Near Baghdadi, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Huwayjah, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL structure.
-- Near Beiji, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Fallujah, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL structure.
-- Near Makhmur, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Mosul, seven airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units, an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL mortar firing position, destroying an ISIL excavator, an ISIL rocket system, an ISIL structure and an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Ramadi, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL motorcycle.
-- Near Sinjar, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL mortar firing position, destroying three ISIL structures, two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Tal Afar, two airstrikes struck two ISIL fighting positions.
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.
Airstrikes Hit ISIL in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, June 16, 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
Bomber and fighter aircraft conducted nine airstrikes in Syria:
-- Near Raqqah, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL excavator.
-- Near Kobani, three airstrikes struck one large and two small ISIL tactical units, destroying an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Tal Abyad, five airstrikes struck three large and two small ISIL tactical units, destroying three ISIL vehicles.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 16 airstrikes in Iraq, approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:
-- Near Baghdadi, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Huwayjah, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL structure.
-- Near Beiji, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Fallujah, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL structure.
-- Near Makhmur, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Mosul, seven airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units, an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL mortar firing position, destroying an ISIL excavator, an ISIL rocket system, an ISIL structure and an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Ramadi, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL motorcycle.
-- Near Sinjar, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL mortar firing position, destroying three ISIL structures, two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Tal Afar, two airstrikes struck two ISIL fighting positions.
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.
USS RUSHMORE RESCUES 65 PEOPLE FROM BAMBOO RAFTS IN PACIFIC OCEAN
Right: 150610-M-ST621-140 MAKASSAR STRAIT (June 10, 2015) Distressed persons wait to be rescued by Sailors and Marines aboard the amphibious dock landing ship USS Rushmore (LSD 47) in the Pacific Ocean. Rushmore rescued 65 people after it was discovered they were floating on bamboo rafts tied together and with no means of propulsion. Once on board, the rescued individuals were provided food and medical attention by Marines and Sailors from the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit and the Essex Amphibious Ready Group. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Emmanuel Ramos.
USS Rushmore Aids 65 People at Sea Near Indonesia
From Essex Amphibious Ready Group Public Affairs
Makassar Strait (NNS) -- USS Rushmore (LSD 47) rendered assistance to 65 people on makeshift bamboo rafts in the waters between the Indonesian islands of Kalimantan and Sulawesi June 10.
Shipboard lookouts spotted the distressed persons waving orange and white flags. Rushmore's commanding officer, Cmdr. Thomas Stephens, ordered the launch of a small boat with two search and rescue swimmers to provide assistance. Rushmore Sailors discovered 65 people on sinking bamboo rafts tied together with no means of propulsion, food or water.
Sailors and Marines brought all 65 people on board the Rushmore for medical attention and will coordinate with local officials for their well-being.
"This is an example of the Essex Amphibious Ready Group's professional maritime skill and ability to be where it matters, when it matters to offer assistance," said Capt. Clint Carroll, Commander, Essex Amphibious Ready Group.
Rushmore was transiting the Makassar Strait after having just completed a port visit to Manado, Indonesia. As part of the Essex Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), Rushmore is in the Western Pacific en route to the Arabian Gulf for a routine deployment. Deployed with a Marine Expeditionary Unit, the ARG serves as a sea-based crisis response force capable of conducting amphibious missions across the full range of military operations.
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL SETTLES FALSE CLAIMS ACT ALLEGATIONS; WILL PAY $12.9 MILLION
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, June 15, 2015
Children's Hospital to Pay $12.9 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations
Children’s Hospital, Children’s National Medical Center Inc. and its affiliated entities (collectively CNMC) have agreed to pay $12.9 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by submitting false cost reports and other applications to the components and contractors of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as well as to Virginia and District of Columbia Medicaid programs, the Department of Justice announced today. CNMC is based in Washington, D.C., and provides pediatric care throughout the metropolitan region.
“The false reporting alleged in today’s settlement deprived the Medicare Trust Fund of millions of taxpayers’ dollars,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Such conduct wastes critical federal health care program funds and drives up the costs of health care for all of us.”
“The integrity of federal health care programs depends on honest and accurate reporting from the hospitals and other health care providers that receive hundreds of billions of tax dollars every year,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Vincent H. Cohen Jr. of the District of Columbia. “This settlement demonstrates our commitment to defending the integrity of the system and ensuring that taxpayer money goes to meet the most critical health care needs. We will continue to work with whistleblowers like the former employee who came forward in this case to battle waste, fraud and abuse that fuel the skyrocketing cost of health care.”
According to the settlement agreement, CNMC misstated information on cost reports and applications in two distinct manners to HHS. This false information was used by HHS and Medicaid programs to calculate reimbursement rates to CNMC. The United States contended that CNMC misreported its available bed count on its application to HHS’ Health Resources and Services Administration under the Children’s Hospitals Graduate Medical Education (CHGME) Payment Program. The CHGME Payment Program provides federal funds to freestanding children’s hospitals to help them maintain their graduate medical education programs that train pediatric and other residents. The United States further contended that CNMC filed cost reports misstating their overhead costs, resulting in overpayment from Medicare and the Virginia and District of Columbia Medicaid programs.
The settlement resolves allegations brought in a lawsuit filed under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by James A. Roark Sr., a former employee of CNMC. Under the act, a private citizen can sue on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. The United States is entitled to intervene in the lawsuit, as it did here. As part of the resolution, Mr. Roark will receive $1,890,649.98.
This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $24.3 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $15.3 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
This matter was handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the District of Columbia with assistance from the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch and the HHS’ Office of Inspector General.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Children's Hospital to Pay $12.9 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations
Children’s Hospital, Children’s National Medical Center Inc. and its affiliated entities (collectively CNMC) have agreed to pay $12.9 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by submitting false cost reports and other applications to the components and contractors of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as well as to Virginia and District of Columbia Medicaid programs, the Department of Justice announced today. CNMC is based in Washington, D.C., and provides pediatric care throughout the metropolitan region.
“The false reporting alleged in today’s settlement deprived the Medicare Trust Fund of millions of taxpayers’ dollars,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Such conduct wastes critical federal health care program funds and drives up the costs of health care for all of us.”
“The integrity of federal health care programs depends on honest and accurate reporting from the hospitals and other health care providers that receive hundreds of billions of tax dollars every year,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Vincent H. Cohen Jr. of the District of Columbia. “This settlement demonstrates our commitment to defending the integrity of the system and ensuring that taxpayer money goes to meet the most critical health care needs. We will continue to work with whistleblowers like the former employee who came forward in this case to battle waste, fraud and abuse that fuel the skyrocketing cost of health care.”
According to the settlement agreement, CNMC misstated information on cost reports and applications in two distinct manners to HHS. This false information was used by HHS and Medicaid programs to calculate reimbursement rates to CNMC. The United States contended that CNMC misreported its available bed count on its application to HHS’ Health Resources and Services Administration under the Children’s Hospitals Graduate Medical Education (CHGME) Payment Program. The CHGME Payment Program provides federal funds to freestanding children’s hospitals to help them maintain their graduate medical education programs that train pediatric and other residents. The United States further contended that CNMC filed cost reports misstating their overhead costs, resulting in overpayment from Medicare and the Virginia and District of Columbia Medicaid programs.
The settlement resolves allegations brought in a lawsuit filed under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by James A. Roark Sr., a former employee of CNMC. Under the act, a private citizen can sue on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. The United States is entitled to intervene in the lawsuit, as it did here. As part of the resolution, Mr. Roark will receive $1,890,649.98.
This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $24.3 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $15.3 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
This matter was handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the District of Columbia with assistance from the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch and the HHS’ Office of Inspector General.
FTC RETURNS NEARLY $2 MILLION TO CONSUMER VICTIMS OF MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING PROGRAM FRAUD SCHEME
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Returns Almost $1.9 Million to Consumers in BurnLounge Pyramid Scheme
The Federal Trade Commission is mailing 52,099 checks totaling almost $1.9 million to consumers who lost money to a pyramid scheme that pretended to be a legitimate multi-level marketing program selling opportunities to operate online digital music stores.
In June 2014, the FTC won an appeals court ruling upholding a district court finding that BurnLounge had operated a pyramid scheme.
Consumers who receive the checks from the FTC’s refund administrator for this matter, Gilardi & Co. LLC, should deposit or cash them within 60 days of the mailing date. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or to provide information before refund checks can be cashed. The amount will vary based upon the amount of each consumer’s loss.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.
FTC Returns Almost $1.9 Million to Consumers in BurnLounge Pyramid Scheme
The Federal Trade Commission is mailing 52,099 checks totaling almost $1.9 million to consumers who lost money to a pyramid scheme that pretended to be a legitimate multi-level marketing program selling opportunities to operate online digital music stores.
In June 2014, the FTC won an appeals court ruling upholding a district court finding that BurnLounge had operated a pyramid scheme.
Consumers who receive the checks from the FTC’s refund administrator for this matter, Gilardi & Co. LLC, should deposit or cash them within 60 days of the mailing date. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or to provide information before refund checks can be cashed. The amount will vary based upon the amount of each consumer’s loss.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.
AG LYNCH'S REMARKS AT MAGNA CARTA COMMEMORATION
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Attorney General Lynch Delivers Remarks at Magna Carta Commemoration Ceremony
London United Kingdom ~ Monday, June 15, 2015
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
Thank you, Secretary [Philip] Hammond, for that kind introduction. Your Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, honored guests – it is a pleasure to be here this morning, and a great privilege to join you all at this important commemoration.
Eight hundred years ago, on the grounds of Runnymede, King John sealed a piece of parchment – a Great Charter – that extended basic rights to individuals subject to his reign. That Magna Carta was neither expansive nor long-lived – its rules applied to only a small group of noblemen, and it was first annulled just 10 weeks after being sealed. But its adoption served as a signpost on a long and difficult march, and those who forged its compromise stood as early travelers on the road to justice. While the hands that wrote the Magna Carta have long been stilled, the principles they carved out of the struggles of their day – of the struggles of the human condition – live on.
Seven and a half centuries after that historic day, in 1957, a crowd of 5,000 people walked in storied footsteps to dedicate this memorial and to recognize its significance. Among them was Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of America’s Supreme Court and one of our nation’s greatest jurists, who noted in an opinion a year later that principles traced back to Magna Carta represented a concept that is “nothing less than the dignity of man.”
For Chief Justice Warren, and for the many American lawyers and jurists who gathered by his side, this monument had special meaning, because Magna Carta had come to symbolize more than a simple agreement between noblemen and their king. This social contract between a monarch and his people codified, however imperfectly, notions that would one day stand at the heart of our own system of justice: the idea that no power is unconditional, and no rule is absolute; that we are not subjugated by an infallible authority, but share authority with our fellow citizens. That all are protected by the law, just as all must answer to the law. These fundamental, age-old principles have given hope to those who face oppression. They have given a voice to those yearning for the redress of wrongs. And they have served as the bedrock of free societies around the globe, inspiring countless women and men seeking to weave their promise into reality.
For those who drafted the U.S. Constitution, the significance of Magna Carta was clear. Its influence helped shape a political system that enshrines separation of powers, due process and the rule of law; a legal system that recognizes and honors the dignity of all people; and a commitment to ongoing efforts to realize these ideals in every interaction between our citizens and our institutions.
Even today, America continues to pursue these goals. We are engaged in initiatives to promote trust and understanding between law enforcement officers and the communities we serve. We are working with partners in the United States and around the world to pursue those who would deny human dignity, whether through trafficking or corruption, violence or terrorism. And we are carrying out a historic reorientation of our criminal justice practices to end an overreliance on incarceration. At every turn, we are driven by that same devotion to the rule of law whose seeds took root in this field so long ago.
Of course, our journey has not been easy, and it is far from over. Just as men and women of great conscience and strong will have, over eight centuries, worked to advance the cause that animated their forebears – in nations around the world – we too must advance and extend the promise that lies at the heart of our global community. We too must deliver on the spirit of Magna Carta. And we too must carry forward our work to new fields of equality, opportunity and justice.
On the day that this monument was dedicated in 1957, one of the former presidents of the American Bar Association called his journey to Runnymede a “devout pilgrimage to the ancestral home, to the well springs of our profession, to the fountainhead of our faith.” Today, we not only pay tribute to the source of our legal doctrine – we reaffirm our devotion to its values and recommit ourselves to the service of its most treasured ideals. As we go forward, I am proud, I am honored and I am humbled to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with all of you in our shared pursuit of a more just world.
Thank you all, once again, for the opportunity to take part in this commemoration. Thank you for your dedication to the ennobling ideals we are here to celebrate. I look forward to all that our nations will achieve together in the spirit of their promise in the years ahead.
Attorney General Lynch Delivers Remarks at Magna Carta Commemoration Ceremony
London United Kingdom ~ Monday, June 15, 2015
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
Thank you, Secretary [Philip] Hammond, for that kind introduction. Your Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, honored guests – it is a pleasure to be here this morning, and a great privilege to join you all at this important commemoration.
Eight hundred years ago, on the grounds of Runnymede, King John sealed a piece of parchment – a Great Charter – that extended basic rights to individuals subject to his reign. That Magna Carta was neither expansive nor long-lived – its rules applied to only a small group of noblemen, and it was first annulled just 10 weeks after being sealed. But its adoption served as a signpost on a long and difficult march, and those who forged its compromise stood as early travelers on the road to justice. While the hands that wrote the Magna Carta have long been stilled, the principles they carved out of the struggles of their day – of the struggles of the human condition – live on.
Seven and a half centuries after that historic day, in 1957, a crowd of 5,000 people walked in storied footsteps to dedicate this memorial and to recognize its significance. Among them was Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of America’s Supreme Court and one of our nation’s greatest jurists, who noted in an opinion a year later that principles traced back to Magna Carta represented a concept that is “nothing less than the dignity of man.”
For Chief Justice Warren, and for the many American lawyers and jurists who gathered by his side, this monument had special meaning, because Magna Carta had come to symbolize more than a simple agreement between noblemen and their king. This social contract between a monarch and his people codified, however imperfectly, notions that would one day stand at the heart of our own system of justice: the idea that no power is unconditional, and no rule is absolute; that we are not subjugated by an infallible authority, but share authority with our fellow citizens. That all are protected by the law, just as all must answer to the law. These fundamental, age-old principles have given hope to those who face oppression. They have given a voice to those yearning for the redress of wrongs. And they have served as the bedrock of free societies around the globe, inspiring countless women and men seeking to weave their promise into reality.
For those who drafted the U.S. Constitution, the significance of Magna Carta was clear. Its influence helped shape a political system that enshrines separation of powers, due process and the rule of law; a legal system that recognizes and honors the dignity of all people; and a commitment to ongoing efforts to realize these ideals in every interaction between our citizens and our institutions.
Even today, America continues to pursue these goals. We are engaged in initiatives to promote trust and understanding between law enforcement officers and the communities we serve. We are working with partners in the United States and around the world to pursue those who would deny human dignity, whether through trafficking or corruption, violence or terrorism. And we are carrying out a historic reorientation of our criminal justice practices to end an overreliance on incarceration. At every turn, we are driven by that same devotion to the rule of law whose seeds took root in this field so long ago.
Of course, our journey has not been easy, and it is far from over. Just as men and women of great conscience and strong will have, over eight centuries, worked to advance the cause that animated their forebears – in nations around the world – we too must advance and extend the promise that lies at the heart of our global community. We too must deliver on the spirit of Magna Carta. And we too must carry forward our work to new fields of equality, opportunity and justice.
On the day that this monument was dedicated in 1957, one of the former presidents of the American Bar Association called his journey to Runnymede a “devout pilgrimage to the ancestral home, to the well springs of our profession, to the fountainhead of our faith.” Today, we not only pay tribute to the source of our legal doctrine – we reaffirm our devotion to its values and recommit ourselves to the service of its most treasured ideals. As we go forward, I am proud, I am honored and I am humbled to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with all of you in our shared pursuit of a more just world.
Thank you all, once again, for the opportunity to take part in this commemoration. Thank you for your dedication to the ennobling ideals we are here to celebrate. I look forward to all that our nations will achieve together in the spirit of their promise in the years ahead.
SARAH SEWALL'S REMARKS ON COMBATING TERRORISM
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Combating Terrorism: Looking Over the Horizon
Remarks
Sarah Sewall
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Geneva, Switzerland
June 15, 2015
(As Prepared for Delivery)
Good morning everyone. Thank you Dr. Mohamedou, and the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, for inviting me to address this accomplished group of scholars and practitioners on a topic that concerns much of the globe today: the threat of violent extremism. This threat takes many forms and appears throughout the world including: Neo-Nazi actors in the United States or Europe, violent radical Islamist movements in the Middle East and Africa, or extremist Buddhism operating in parts of Asia.
Violent extremism’s growth over the last decade is an extremely dangerous and destabilizing phenomenon. It is essential that the world mobilize against such backward-looking intolerance and cruelty, which threatens humanity’s moral, political, and economic progress. We know that terrorists must be defeated militarily, yet we also see them responding to military force by dispersing, rebranding, aligning and reforming – continuing to spread as new members join their ranks. This underscores the need to adopt a more preventive approach, one that halts the spread of violent extremist networks. This was a unified message from the February White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism.
Yet we remain challenged by the difficulty of understanding why individuals or communities would join such backward, violent extremist groups. Terror network recruits come from all walks of life: posh suburbs and forgotten slums; from countries rich and poor, repressive and free, stable and conflict-ridden.
They have many complex, overlapping and context-specific motives. This can be confounding for a global community eager to understand why violent extremism proliferates and how we can address it.
Even as our understanding remains incomplete, we have documented a range of grievances and motives that propel individuals, and in some cases, communities to join or align with terrorist actors.
Motives can be identified along what psychologist Abraham Maslow famously posited as a human hierarchy of needs.
Maslow argued that individuals have a range of needs that must be met – in priority order – before people attain their greatest self-realization.
At the bottom of the pyramid are needs critical to physical survival, such as food, shelter and safety.
Higher up the hierarchy of need, individuals look to find love and belonging, self-esteem, and purpose.
In my view, understanding Maslow’s schema usefully helps us disaggregate the reasons that individuals might be “pushed” or “pulled” toward violent extremism. What have been called push factors – the conditions that make individuals or communities vulnerable to extremist recruitment – prominently feature conditions like physical insecurity or the inability to provide for oneself or one’s family. But even where people’s lower-level needs are met, social and political marginalization can impact higher-order human needs such as a valued role or purpose.
The Hierarchy of Needs therefore helps us understand why dramatically different profiles of persons can be drawn to organizations antithetical to what we would identify as progress and humanity.
Any type of violent extremist group exploits human needs all along the spectrum.
From al-Shabab in Somalia to Da’esh in Syria, terror groups lure some with the promise of a paycheck –the undereducated youth with no prospect of employment or a future, or the father who can no longer provide for his family.
Others are motivated to join extremist ranks by higher-end needs – purpose, meaning, identity. The exclusivity of belonging to group that aligns itself against another may lure the racial supremacist -- whether a “Skinhead”, Bhuddist extremist, or other variety. Terrorist narratives and slick media-driven marketing make casting calls for heroic warriors, wives of a new nation, or spiritual martyrdom. By targeting of psychological needs, despite the realities behind the pitch, violent extremists entice local youth, girls from Europe, and wealthy engineers to their ranks.
Maslow’s hierarchy suggests that those with unmet basic needs, be it physical security or a paycheck, may be particularly vulnerable to terror organizations. But the hierarchy also points toward other vulnerabilities that terrorists exploit. In so doing, this schema of needs suggests a complementary – if complex – set of interventions that states and communities must pursue to protect the most vulnerable from the false claims of terrorist propaganda.
Because violent extremists prey on different grievances, from people’s immediate needs for security to their more abstract desires for empowerment, and identity, a ‘whole-of-society’ approach is the key to preventing the spread of violent extremism’s appeals.
We absolutely need our military, intelligence, and law enforcement tools to defeat terror networks. But as Al-Qa’ida was dispersed, new terror groups sprang up, and they have merged or made common cause with other actors – sometimes coopting political movements or non-theologically affiliated communities (such as Sunni communities in parts of Iraq). Tens of thousands of individuals from around the globe travel to join the epicenters of terror. Violent extremism continues to spread.
Therefore as an international community, we must continue to expand our approach to counter terrorism to include greater emphasis on prevention – protecting individuals and communities from violent extremism. As agreed at the February White House Summit, global counter-terrorism efforts must learn to build resilience and resistance within the most vulnerable communities, helping address the range of human needs we have just discussed.
This can mean pushing governments to ensure space for dissent and religious freedom to reduce perceptions of marginalization and enable communities to find their voices; training security forces to protect instead of profile their citizens; supporting civil society to engage youth through educational, service or mentoring programs; partnering with businesses to expand vocational training or economic opportunities in marginalized communities; and amplifying the voice of cultural or religious leaders to challenge violent extremist marketing and propaganda.
Given our limited resources, effective prevention means identifying priority regions and communities at greatest risk of radicalization to violence and working proactively to address the grievances and needs violent extremists are most likely to exploit.
As important as countering extremist narratives is, we must help communities and governments provide alternatives that are as credible, as visible, as empowering, and as broadly available as we can make them.
Local actors must lead this effort, for they have the greatest credibility, knowledge and long-term stake in implementing effective and at times, interrelated interventions.
Governments must also acknowledge their contributions to the grievances violent extremists exploit, like police abuse and corruption, and act swiftly to remedy them.
Our experience and observations since September 11th – the gains, and the missteps – show us that, while our considerable military, intelligence, and law enforcement tools can significantly diminish the capabilities of violent extremist groups, unless local actors address the underlying grievances that feed them, we become locked in managing the consequences of violent extremism without addressing key push factors.
Our experience also demonstrates how, once violent extremism has taken root, the conflict and instability associated with it make it far harder to address the conditions that enable its growth.
That is why we see focusing on prevention as a critical part of how we counter violent extremism and increase the likelihood of avoiding costly interventions later.
To realize the broad partnership required for this long-term and holistic strategy, the White House convened a summit last February of more than 300 participants from national and local governments, civil society, the private sector and international organizations to launch a global movement to counter violent extremism.
Participants discussed the underlying drivers of violent extremism, distinguishing “push factors” that made individuals vulnerable from the “pull factors” that lured them to a particular organization. Summit participants developed an Action Agenda for collaborating on a number of priority areas, from researching the local drivers of violent extremism and empowering civil society, to expanding economic opportunities and amplifying local voices to counter violent extremist narratives.
In advance of a CVE leaders level meeting on the margins of the UN General Assembly, members of the international community have begun or are planning regional summits all over the world to broaden this movement and help partner governments develop national strategies tailored to their challenges with violent extremism.
I have participated in two regional summits thus far, and several more are on the horizon – while work is ongoing in capitals and in neighborhoods around the world. I encourage you all to learn more about this agenda by visiting www.cvesummit.org.
I am inspired by the energy around the prevention agenda, which increasingly extends beyond the “usual suspects” in the counterterrorism sphere. For example, Klaus Schwab has committed the World Economic Forum to engage deeply in this approach to countering violent extremism.
The United Nations has long emphasized the need for prevention in its longstanding counter terrorism strategy. At the White House Summit, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon announced his commitment to develop a CVE plan of action to guide member states’ and the UN’s prevention efforts. As this expert audience knows well, violent extremism is a generational challenge.
Prevention too often receives short shrift in our debates and budgets. But the preventive aspects of CVE can harness a far broader array of actors and resources than we have to date. Foreign assistance – or overseas development assistance – has a critical role to play, as do the international and regional financial institutions and indeed the private sector. As we broaden this global campaign to counter and prevent violent extremism, we are forging new partnerships with the EU, WEF, IFIs and philanthropic organizations.
We are also strengthening our engagement with the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF) based right here in Geneva.
Recognizing the key role of local governments in this effort, we anticipate on the margins of the UN General Assembly a launch of a Strong Cities initiative for mayors and municipal leaders and practitioners all over the world to exchange their successes and challenges in countering violent extremism. We are also anticipating the launch of regional civil society networks that allow young activists working to build community-level cohesion and artists using the power of creative expression to counter extremist messaging not only to share best practices, but also to connect with potential private sector sponsors to scale their innovative, community-level CVE programs. A side conference in New York that brings together young researchers from around the world working to identify local drivers of violent extremism and what has worked to build community resilience against violent extremism, will lead to the launch of a global research network for those working in this field.
And, I hope this Center can play a role in this new network and more broadly by contributing its world-class scholarship to help illuminate where and why violent extremism is most likely to thrive, and by continuing this vital conversation about the benefits of preventive, whole-of-society approaches to this challenge.
Thank you all very much, and I look forward to your questions.
Combating Terrorism: Looking Over the Horizon
Remarks
Sarah Sewall
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Geneva, Switzerland
June 15, 2015
(As Prepared for Delivery)
Good morning everyone. Thank you Dr. Mohamedou, and the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, for inviting me to address this accomplished group of scholars and practitioners on a topic that concerns much of the globe today: the threat of violent extremism. This threat takes many forms and appears throughout the world including: Neo-Nazi actors in the United States or Europe, violent radical Islamist movements in the Middle East and Africa, or extremist Buddhism operating in parts of Asia.
Violent extremism’s growth over the last decade is an extremely dangerous and destabilizing phenomenon. It is essential that the world mobilize against such backward-looking intolerance and cruelty, which threatens humanity’s moral, political, and economic progress. We know that terrorists must be defeated militarily, yet we also see them responding to military force by dispersing, rebranding, aligning and reforming – continuing to spread as new members join their ranks. This underscores the need to adopt a more preventive approach, one that halts the spread of violent extremist networks. This was a unified message from the February White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism.
Yet we remain challenged by the difficulty of understanding why individuals or communities would join such backward, violent extremist groups. Terror network recruits come from all walks of life: posh suburbs and forgotten slums; from countries rich and poor, repressive and free, stable and conflict-ridden.
They have many complex, overlapping and context-specific motives. This can be confounding for a global community eager to understand why violent extremism proliferates and how we can address it.
Even as our understanding remains incomplete, we have documented a range of grievances and motives that propel individuals, and in some cases, communities to join or align with terrorist actors.
Motives can be identified along what psychologist Abraham Maslow famously posited as a human hierarchy of needs.
Maslow argued that individuals have a range of needs that must be met – in priority order – before people attain their greatest self-realization.
At the bottom of the pyramid are needs critical to physical survival, such as food, shelter and safety.
Higher up the hierarchy of need, individuals look to find love and belonging, self-esteem, and purpose.
In my view, understanding Maslow’s schema usefully helps us disaggregate the reasons that individuals might be “pushed” or “pulled” toward violent extremism. What have been called push factors – the conditions that make individuals or communities vulnerable to extremist recruitment – prominently feature conditions like physical insecurity or the inability to provide for oneself or one’s family. But even where people’s lower-level needs are met, social and political marginalization can impact higher-order human needs such as a valued role or purpose.
The Hierarchy of Needs therefore helps us understand why dramatically different profiles of persons can be drawn to organizations antithetical to what we would identify as progress and humanity.
Any type of violent extremist group exploits human needs all along the spectrum.
From al-Shabab in Somalia to Da’esh in Syria, terror groups lure some with the promise of a paycheck –the undereducated youth with no prospect of employment or a future, or the father who can no longer provide for his family.
Others are motivated to join extremist ranks by higher-end needs – purpose, meaning, identity. The exclusivity of belonging to group that aligns itself against another may lure the racial supremacist -- whether a “Skinhead”, Bhuddist extremist, or other variety. Terrorist narratives and slick media-driven marketing make casting calls for heroic warriors, wives of a new nation, or spiritual martyrdom. By targeting of psychological needs, despite the realities behind the pitch, violent extremists entice local youth, girls from Europe, and wealthy engineers to their ranks.
Maslow’s hierarchy suggests that those with unmet basic needs, be it physical security or a paycheck, may be particularly vulnerable to terror organizations. But the hierarchy also points toward other vulnerabilities that terrorists exploit. In so doing, this schema of needs suggests a complementary – if complex – set of interventions that states and communities must pursue to protect the most vulnerable from the false claims of terrorist propaganda.
Because violent extremists prey on different grievances, from people’s immediate needs for security to their more abstract desires for empowerment, and identity, a ‘whole-of-society’ approach is the key to preventing the spread of violent extremism’s appeals.
We absolutely need our military, intelligence, and law enforcement tools to defeat terror networks. But as Al-Qa’ida was dispersed, new terror groups sprang up, and they have merged or made common cause with other actors – sometimes coopting political movements or non-theologically affiliated communities (such as Sunni communities in parts of Iraq). Tens of thousands of individuals from around the globe travel to join the epicenters of terror. Violent extremism continues to spread.
Therefore as an international community, we must continue to expand our approach to counter terrorism to include greater emphasis on prevention – protecting individuals and communities from violent extremism. As agreed at the February White House Summit, global counter-terrorism efforts must learn to build resilience and resistance within the most vulnerable communities, helping address the range of human needs we have just discussed.
This can mean pushing governments to ensure space for dissent and religious freedom to reduce perceptions of marginalization and enable communities to find their voices; training security forces to protect instead of profile their citizens; supporting civil society to engage youth through educational, service or mentoring programs; partnering with businesses to expand vocational training or economic opportunities in marginalized communities; and amplifying the voice of cultural or religious leaders to challenge violent extremist marketing and propaganda.
Given our limited resources, effective prevention means identifying priority regions and communities at greatest risk of radicalization to violence and working proactively to address the grievances and needs violent extremists are most likely to exploit.
As important as countering extremist narratives is, we must help communities and governments provide alternatives that are as credible, as visible, as empowering, and as broadly available as we can make them.
Local actors must lead this effort, for they have the greatest credibility, knowledge and long-term stake in implementing effective and at times, interrelated interventions.
Governments must also acknowledge their contributions to the grievances violent extremists exploit, like police abuse and corruption, and act swiftly to remedy them.
Our experience and observations since September 11th – the gains, and the missteps – show us that, while our considerable military, intelligence, and law enforcement tools can significantly diminish the capabilities of violent extremist groups, unless local actors address the underlying grievances that feed them, we become locked in managing the consequences of violent extremism without addressing key push factors.
Our experience also demonstrates how, once violent extremism has taken root, the conflict and instability associated with it make it far harder to address the conditions that enable its growth.
That is why we see focusing on prevention as a critical part of how we counter violent extremism and increase the likelihood of avoiding costly interventions later.
To realize the broad partnership required for this long-term and holistic strategy, the White House convened a summit last February of more than 300 participants from national and local governments, civil society, the private sector and international organizations to launch a global movement to counter violent extremism.
Participants discussed the underlying drivers of violent extremism, distinguishing “push factors” that made individuals vulnerable from the “pull factors” that lured them to a particular organization. Summit participants developed an Action Agenda for collaborating on a number of priority areas, from researching the local drivers of violent extremism and empowering civil society, to expanding economic opportunities and amplifying local voices to counter violent extremist narratives.
In advance of a CVE leaders level meeting on the margins of the UN General Assembly, members of the international community have begun or are planning regional summits all over the world to broaden this movement and help partner governments develop national strategies tailored to their challenges with violent extremism.
I have participated in two regional summits thus far, and several more are on the horizon – while work is ongoing in capitals and in neighborhoods around the world. I encourage you all to learn more about this agenda by visiting www.cvesummit.org.
I am inspired by the energy around the prevention agenda, which increasingly extends beyond the “usual suspects” in the counterterrorism sphere. For example, Klaus Schwab has committed the World Economic Forum to engage deeply in this approach to countering violent extremism.
The United Nations has long emphasized the need for prevention in its longstanding counter terrorism strategy. At the White House Summit, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon announced his commitment to develop a CVE plan of action to guide member states’ and the UN’s prevention efforts. As this expert audience knows well, violent extremism is a generational challenge.
Prevention too often receives short shrift in our debates and budgets. But the preventive aspects of CVE can harness a far broader array of actors and resources than we have to date. Foreign assistance – or overseas development assistance – has a critical role to play, as do the international and regional financial institutions and indeed the private sector. As we broaden this global campaign to counter and prevent violent extremism, we are forging new partnerships with the EU, WEF, IFIs and philanthropic organizations.
We are also strengthening our engagement with the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF) based right here in Geneva.
Recognizing the key role of local governments in this effort, we anticipate on the margins of the UN General Assembly a launch of a Strong Cities initiative for mayors and municipal leaders and practitioners all over the world to exchange their successes and challenges in countering violent extremism. We are also anticipating the launch of regional civil society networks that allow young activists working to build community-level cohesion and artists using the power of creative expression to counter extremist messaging not only to share best practices, but also to connect with potential private sector sponsors to scale their innovative, community-level CVE programs. A side conference in New York that brings together young researchers from around the world working to identify local drivers of violent extremism and what has worked to build community resilience against violent extremism, will lead to the launch of a global research network for those working in this field.
And, I hope this Center can play a role in this new network and more broadly by contributing its world-class scholarship to help illuminate where and why violent extremism is most likely to thrive, and by continuing this vital conversation about the benefits of preventive, whole-of-society approaches to this challenge.
Thank you all very much, and I look forward to your questions.
Monday, June 15, 2015
U.S. CONGRATULATES PEOPLE OF ICELAND ON THEIR NATIONAL DAY
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
On the Occasion of Iceland's National Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 15, 2015
On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate the Icelandic people on the 71st anniversary of the founding of your Republic on the day that marks the birth of Jon Sigurdsson.
I know this year you also celebrate the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage – a proud testament to your country’s thriving, modern democracy.
I am pleased that our two nations continue to work in partnership to promote open governance and human rights around the world. And as NATO Allies, we are each doing our part to defend freedom on both sides of the Atlantic and to prepare for threats both new and old.
Your country is also a critical player in efforts to preserve the environment. In May, Foreign Minister Sveinsson and I met in Washington and reinforced our mutual commitment to the important work of the Arctic Council.
Iceland's language, customs, history, and geographic beauty are deeply admired in the United States.
As you celebrate your national day with family and friends, I offer all the people of Iceland my warmest wishes for peace and prosperity in the coming year.
On the Occasion of Iceland's National Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 15, 2015
On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate the Icelandic people on the 71st anniversary of the founding of your Republic on the day that marks the birth of Jon Sigurdsson.
I know this year you also celebrate the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage – a proud testament to your country’s thriving, modern democracy.
I am pleased that our two nations continue to work in partnership to promote open governance and human rights around the world. And as NATO Allies, we are each doing our part to defend freedom on both sides of the Atlantic and to prepare for threats both new and old.
Your country is also a critical player in efforts to preserve the environment. In May, Foreign Minister Sveinsson and I met in Washington and reinforced our mutual commitment to the important work of the Arctic Council.
Iceland's language, customs, history, and geographic beauty are deeply admired in the United States.
As you celebrate your national day with family and friends, I offer all the people of Iceland my warmest wishes for peace and prosperity in the coming year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)