TBR News July 10, 2020

Jul 10 2020

The Voice of the White House
Comments:”There was a time in the recent past when Donald Trump was respected by many and, as always, loved by himself. But those days are fading into the past and his abberations, mental problems, erratic behavior and more are becoming more and more evident to even the densest inhabitant of the nation. As his powerbase shrinks and the public becomes more disdainful, Trump will scream, fight and connive to the point that in the end, if he does not have a heart attack, he will leave the White House in the back of an ambulance, screaming for help.”

Biden challenges Trump with ‘Buy American’ economic plan
July 10, 2020
BBC News

Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden has laid out his rescue plan for the coronavirus-crippled US economy, while berating President Donald Trump as incompetent.

Mr Biden said his $700bn (£560bn) plan would be the biggest investment in the US economy since World War Two.

The “Build Back Better” agenda, he said, would spur a manufacturing and technology jobs boom.

The Trump campaign responded that the plan would inflict “catastrophe”.

Mr Biden is all but guaranteed to face off with Mr Trump in this November’s presidential election.

Speaking at a metalworks firm near his childhood hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania, on Thursday, Mr Biden said the president’s failures had “come with a terrible human cost and a deep economic toll”.

“Time and again, working families are paying the price for this administration’s incompetence,” Mr Biden said.

November’s election is expected to be dominated by the coronavirus pandemic and its economic fallout, which has pushed tens of millions of Americans into unemployment. More than 130,000 people have died with

Many voters are concerned by the Trump administration’s handling of the pandemic. His divisive approach to the country’s recent wave of anti-racism protests has also come under sharp scrutiny.

Opinion polls show Mr Biden with an almost double-digit lead over Mr Trump.

Analysts have urged caution in over-interpreting the polls, but Mr Biden’s lead is far greater than that of Mr Trump’s 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton at the same point in the campaign.

What else did Mr Biden say in his speech?

The former vice-president, who served under Barack Obama, struck an optimistic tone as he presented an economic programme, which he said would create at least five million jobs in manufacturing and innovation.

A key theme of his plan, Mr Biden said, was to “Buy American”. He proposed a $400bn increase in government spending on US-made products, in addition to spending $300bn on the research and development of new technologies, including electric vehicles and 5G networks.

“When the federal government spends taxpayers’ money, we should use it to buy American products and support American jobs,” he said

Pennsylvania is a battleground state seen as critical to the outcome of the election. Mr Trump won it in 2016 by a thin margin.

The “Buy American” tagline has drawn comparisons to President’s Trump’s “American First” agenda.

But Mr Biden said Mr Trump had failed to “bring back jobs and manufacturing” and, during the pandemic, had protected wealthy “cronies and pals” instead of working-class families.

“The truth is throughout this crisis, Donald Trump has been almost singularly focused on the stock market, the Dow and NASDAQ. Not you. Not your families,” Mr Biden said.

Joe Biden will not hold campaign rallies

The Trump campaign took a dim view of Mr Biden’s economic proposals.

“Mr Biden’s wilful attack on our jobs, our families, and the American way of life will reverse all the gains we’ve made together and plunge us into economic catastrophe,” spokesman Hogan Gidley said.

Where are we in the election race?

Mr Biden, 77, officially secured the Democratic presidential nomination in June. He had been the effective nominee since left-wing Bernie Sanders withdrew from the race in April.

It is Mr Biden’s third bid for the presidency, after failed runs in 1988 and 2008.

Mr Obama endorsed Mr Biden in April, saying in a video that his former vice-president had “all the qualities we need in a president right now”.

A former US Senator from Delaware, Mr Biden is yet to choose his running mate – the person who would become vice-president should he be elected. Kamala Harris, a Democratic senator from California, is considered the front-runner.

Both the Democratic and Republican party conventions are scheduled for August. At those events, delegates will formally choose each party’s nominees for president and vice-president in the 2020 election, due to take place on 3 November.

U.S. Supreme Court defied Trump at key moments in blockbuster term
July 10, 2020
by Lawrence Hurley, Jan Wolfe
Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Roberts leading the way, has distinctly staked out its independence from President Donald Trump by delivering a series of setbacks to him and his administration in pivotal cases.

The court ended its nine-month term on Thursday by rejecting Trump’s sweeping assertions of presidential immunity in a ruling that paves the way for a New York prosecutor to obtain the president’s financial records, which he has sought to conceal. The court also rejected Trump’s broad arguments for preventing Congress from obtaining similar records and sent the matter back to lower courts for further consideration.

Those rulings were only the latest setbacks for the Republican president in the past month from a nine-member court that until this term generally backed him in big cases.

The court also ruled against Trump in blocking him from rescinding an immigration program created by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, in expanding LGBT rights and in striking down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law defended by his administration.

Roberts was in the majority in all of those rulings. The chief justice, who served in the largely ceremonial role of presiding officer in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial in February, is known for his concern about the court’s reputation as an institution led by law and not politics.

“Roberts certainly has an interest in the court appearing independent and being independent,” Chicago-Kent College of Law professor Carolyn Shapiro said.

That tendency was on display in the abortion ruling, Columbia Law School professor Gillian Metzger said.

In 2016, the court struck down a Texas law placing restrictions on doctors who perform abortions that was very similar to the Louisiana law. Roberts dissented in the ruling that invalidated the Texas law, but wrote the ruling that struck down Louisiana’s, emphasizing the importance of respecting the court’s precedents.

Overturning the 2016 ruling would have harmed the court’s reputation, Metzger said.

“He has shown a real willingness to take the court’s institutional integrity to heart this term,” Metzger added.

It was noteworthy in Thursday’s rulings on Trump’s financial records that both of the justices he has appointed – Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch – voted against him.

“Once a Supreme Court justice gets appointed, they have life tenure and can do what they want, rather than what the people who appointed them want them to do,” said Harry Sandick, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan.

The bad run for Trump began on June 15, when the court ruled 6-3 – with Gorsuch and Roberts joining the four liberal justices – that federal law protects gay and transgender workers from employment discrimination.

Three days later, Roberts joined the liberals in a 5-4 ruling that thwarted Trump’s plan to end a program that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants who had lived in the United States illegally after entering as children – the so-called Dreamers.

On June 29, Roberts again joined the liberals in the 5-4 decision on Louisiana’s abortion law.

With its 5-4 conservative majority, Trump allies had reason to expect smoother sailing at the court, which gave him some big victories earlier in his administration including upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority nations and allowing his ban on most transgender troops.

The recent losses have prompted both Trump and his supporters to grouse about the court.

“Do you get the impression the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?” Trump asked on Twitter after the Dreamers ruling.

‘MORE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES’

On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the takeaway from the recent rulings was that “we need more conservative justices on the courts.”

If Trump wins re-election on Nov. 3, he may get a chance to do just that, considering that two of the liberal justices are octogenarians: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (87) and Stephen Breyer (81).

As a candidate in 2016, Trump attracted conservative Christian voters by promising to appoint conservatives to the federal judiciary. Those voters, motivated by a desire to see the court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion overturned, remain a key part of his political base.

Roberts and some of his colleagues may be keeping a close eye on the court’s reputation during an election year.

Many of the recent decisions forged by Roberts “have, rather skillfully, taken the court out of center stage in the election,” Shapiro said.

Trump and his conservative allies certainly have not come up emptyhanded this term, with the court delivering important decisions favoring conservative policies, including a trio backing religious rights.

The court also handed a victory to conservatives critics of the federal bureaucracy in a ruling making it easier for the president to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created under Obama.

Of 60 rulings this term, only 12 ended up 5-4, illustrating that some justices seek consensus when possible. The Trump financial records cases were both 7-2 votes.

“There is a desire,” said William Jay, a lawyer who argues cases at the court, “to not have everything be a sharp-edged split between five on one hand and four on the other.”

Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Jan Wolfe; Editing by Scott Malone and Will Dunham


Trump says he will sign immigration order with road to citizenship for ‘Dreamers’.
July 10, 2020
by Mohammad Zargham and Eric Beech in Washington
Reuters

(Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he will sign an executive order on immigration in the next few weeks with a road to citizenship for migrants who are in the United States illegally but arrived in the country as children.

In an interview with Spanish-language TV network Telemundo, Trump said one aspect of the measure will involve Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the program that protects hundreds of thousands of such immigrants – often called “Dreamers” – from deportation.

“I’m going to do a big executive order. … And I’m going to make DACA a part of it,” Trump said. “We’re going to have a road to citizenship.”

The U.S. Supreme Court last month dealt a major setback to Trump’s hardline immigration policies, blocking his bid to end DACA, which was created in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama.

The ruling did not prevent Trump from trying again to end the program. But his administration may find it difficult to rescind it – and win any ensuing legal battle – before the Nov. 3 election in which he is seeking a second term in office.

Trump’s remarks drew an immediate rebuke from his fellow Republican, Senator Ted Cruz, who wrote in a Twitter post that “it would be a HUGE mistake if Trump tries to illegally expand amnesty.”

“There is ZERO constitutional authority for a President to create a “road to citizenship” by executive fiat,” Cruz wrote.

Reporting by Mohammad Zargham and Eric Beech in Washington; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall

Roger Stone: Trump commutes ex-adviser’s sentence
July 10, 2020
BBC News

US President Donald Trump has commuted the prison sentence of his former adviser Roger Stone

The announcement came just after the Washington DC Court of Appeals denied Stone’s request to delay the start date of his custodial term of 40 months.

He was convicted of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering.

Stone was the sixth Trump aide found guilty on charges linked to a justice department probe that alleged Russia tried to boost the Trump 2016 campaign.

Analysis by Anthony Zurcher North American reporter

It’s hard to say the president’s decision to grant clemency to his long-time friend and political counsellor is surprising, but it’s still jarring. Even though the president has called the special counsel investigation that prosecuted Stone a sham and a partisan witch hunt, Stone was duly convicted of serious crimes.

Meanwhile, Stone’s active lobbying for a commutation, recently saying that he could have “easily” turned on the president to avoid trial, was unseemly at best.

Mr Trump is not the first president to issue controversial pardons or commutations for friends and associates, of course. Most of his predecessors, however, waited until the last days of their presidency to take such actions, as they knew the political firestorms they would generate.

Mr Trump, on the other hand, seems to relish the controversy. Like much of his time in office, his actions are done with an eye toward a base that views instigating political opponents as an end to itself.

While the action will be sharply criticised, at this point in the Trump presidency his critics and his allies appear pretty much set in stone. Giving Stone a reprieve won’t win Mr Trump any new support, but that’s not the point. He’s helping a loyal friend, critics be damned.

How police militarization became an over $5 billion business coveted by the defense industry
July 9, 2020
by Nathaniel Lee
CNBC

Police receive most of their militarized equipment through two federal programs: the 1033 and the 1122 initiatives.

The 1033 program allows the Department of Defense to transfer excess military equipment to local law enforcement agencies free of charge, as long as they pay for shipping and maintenance.

In some cases, equipment transferred through these programs has simply vanished due to an apparent lack of oversight and poor bookkeeping.

The fatal arrest of George Floyd has sparked nationwide protests demanding an end to police brutality and restructuring of police departments. Many of those protests were met with drastic measures and responses from local police departments armed with military gear. Equipment more commonly used on battlefields, like flash-bang grenades, tear gas, rubber bullets, helicopters and armored vehicles were witnessed numerous times at the scenes of protests.

It’s not the first time the issue has come under the spotlight. The militarization of police forces first came to attention during the Ferguson, Missouri, protests in 2014. It is a trend that’s grown for decades and now takes up a significant portion of the domestic homeland security market, estimated to be worth more than $20 billion in goods and services.

“Certainly vendors, people, and companies that manufacture the technology that the police are purchasing are profiting from this,” said Thomas Nolan, a former senior policy advisor for the Department of Homeland Security. “The police obviously are not in the business of profiting from private acquisitions.”

Many of this militarized equipment is transferred through two federal programs: the 1033 and the 1122 initiatives. The 1122 program allows the police to purchase new military equipment using their own funding with the same discounts enjoyed by the federal government. The 1033 program allows the Department of Defense to transfer excess military equipment to local law enforcement agencies free of charge, as long as they pay for shipping and maintenance.

Since its inception, more than 11,500 domestic law enforcement agencies have taken part in the 1033 program, receiving more than $7.4 billion in military equipment. After the Ferguson protests, several attempts were made to amend the 1033 program but were either met with opposition or rescinded in later years.

“One of the really troubling developments about the involvement of the federal government in the direct subsidy of purchases of militarized equipment is that this is really about creating a new market for defense contractors rather than really putting questions of public safety first,” said Alex Vitale, the Policing and Social Justice Project Coordinator at Brooklyn College.

What makes both 1033 and 1122 programs so powerful is the apparent lack of clear oversight and accountability. The 1122 program, for instance, is not a grant or transfer program and thus is not required to be monitored by the federal government. Meanwhile, the 1033 program has put lethal weapons in the hands of officers who have no justifiable need for such equipment. “We’ve seen instances reported of some small towns, even some college and university police departments that were acquiring military-grade weapons without any demonstrable need for the use of these or the acquisition of these weapons,” according to Nolan.

In some cases, equipment transferred through these programs has simply vanished due to what appears to be a lack of oversight and poor bookkeeping. “There have been a number of situations where there have been audits of local police departments to try to figure out what they’ve done with this equipment,” said Vitale, “And these departments have been unable to provide adequate records.”

More importantly, experts say that the militarization of local police forces might be what’s distracting them from their original purpose — protecting our communities. Nolan summarized, “When they bring this kind of military hardware and this kind of potential for the use of force and violence to a protest, that’s something that’s not going to produce the desired outcome.” He continued, “it’s going to make them feel that the police are not there to ensure that they are safely able to engage in the activities that they are engaging in that are protected by the Constitution.”

The National Association of Police Organizations and the Fraternal Order of Police did not respond to a request for comment on this story. The National Police Foundation declined to comment.

Trump rages at Supreme Court over tax records case, claims ‘political prosecution’

President Donald Trump was furious over the Supreme Court’s rulings Thursday morning, after justices handed down a split decision over whether he can shield his tax records from investigators.

Trump also complained that he was the victim of “political prosecution,” although he is not, in fact, being prosecuted in either case.

The decisions handed a win to the Manhattan district attorney but rejected parallel efforts by Democrats in the House of Representatives
July 9, 2020
by Christian Wilkie and Tucker Higgins
CNBC

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump was furious over the Supreme Court’s rulings Thursday morning, after justices handed down a split decision over whether he can shield his tax records from investigators.

Trump also complained that he was the victim of “political prosecution,” although he is not, in fact, being prosecuted in either case.

The decisions handed a win to the Manhattan district attorney but rejected parallel efforts by Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Following the rulings, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow sought to reframe both cases as victories. “We are pleased that in the decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the President’s financial records,” Sekulow said in a statement to reporters. “We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts.”

Despite Sekulow’s guarded optimism, it was clear from Trump’s response that the president did not see the rulings as victories.

Both cases were decided 7-2, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the court’s opinion and joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented in both cases.

The decisions mark the first time that the nation’s highest court has directly ruled on a matter involving Trump’s personal dealings. Trump has been more secretive with his finances than any president in decades, refusing to release his tax records to the public even as he mounts a bid for reelection.

The president unleashed a four-tweet thread ripping the court’s decisions.

“We have a totally corrupt previous Administration, including a President and Vice President who spied on my campaign, AND GOT CAIGHT [sic] and nothing happens to them,” Trump raged in a series of tweets.

“This crime was taking place even before my election, everyone knows it, and yet all are frozen stiff with fear. No Republican Senate Judiciary response, NO ‘JUSTICE’, NO FBI, NO NOTHING. Major horror show REPORTS on Comey & McCabe, guilty as hell, nothing happens. Catch Obama & Biden cold, nothing. A 3 year, $45,000,000 Mueller HOAX, failed – investigated everything. Won all against the Federal Government and the Democrats send everything to politically corrupt New York, which is falling apart with everyone leaving, to give it a second, third and fourth try,” he said.

“Now the Supreme Court gives a delay ruling that they would never have given for another President. This is about PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. We catch the other side SPYING on my campaign, the biggest political crime and scandal in U.S. history, and NOTHING HAPPENS. But despite this, I have done more than any President in history in first 3 1/2 years!” Trump tweeted.

The cases were decided on the final day of the Supreme Court’s term, which began last October and was extended past its typical end-of-June conclusion as a result of precautions taken against the spreading coronavirus.

“In our judicial system, ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence.’ Since the earliest days of the Republic, ‘every man’ has included the President of the United States,” Roberts wrote in the New York case.

That case stemmed from an investigation being pursued by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. Vance issued a subpoena to Trump’s longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, for a wide variety of Trump’s personal and business records, including tax returns, dating back to 2011.

The congressional cases involved subpoenas issued by Democratic-led committees of the House of Representatives, which sought financial records from Mazars as well as his banks, Capital One and Deutsche Bank.

The House Oversight Committee sought the information in connection with investigations into claims made by the president’s former lawyer Michael Cohen that Trump inflated and deflated his assets to suit his needs.

The financial services and intelligence committees issued two separate subpoenas to Deutsche Bank seeking information on the president and members of his family, including his children Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump. A third subpoena, from the financial services committee, asked Capital One for a wide variety of information on 15 Trump businesses.

The financial services committee is investigating potential foreign money laundering. Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee, has said his committee’s investigation entails uncovering whether “any foreign actor has sought to compromise or holds leverage, financial or otherwise, over Donald Trump, his family, his business, or his associates.”

Federal Highway Surveillance
July 10, 2020
by Christian Jürs

 

A joint Pentagon/Department of Transportation operational program is conducting a permanent surveillance of all motor vehicles using the Federal Highway System. This is code named ARGUS.

It was initially a part of an overall public surveillance program instituted and organized by Admiral Poindexter, convicted of various criminal acts as the result of the Iran-Contra affair and then brought back to government service by the Bush Administration.

Following public disclosure of Poindexter’s manic attempts to pry into all aspects of American life and his subsequent public departure from government service (he is still so employed but as a “private consultant” and not subject to public scrutiny) many of his plans were officially scrapped. ARGUS, however, is still valid and now in place.

This Orwellian nonsense consists of having unmanned video cameras installed over all Federal highways and toll roads. These cameras work 24/7 to video all passing vehicles, trucks, private cars and busses.

The information is passed to a central data bank and entered therein. This data is supplied, on request, to any authorized law enforcement agency to include private investigative and credit agencies licensed to work with Federal law enforcement information, on any user of the road systems under surveillance.

Provision is made, according to the operating plans, to notify local law enforcement immediately if any driver attempts to obscure their license plate number and instructs them to at once to “apprehend and identify” the vehicle or vehicles involved.

It is at present, a Federal crime to attempt to damage or in any way interfere with the surveillance program or any portion thereof.

It has been reported that a firm located in Palo Alto, California, is making fake American license plates to thwart the surveillance system.

These are copies of legitimate plats printed on stiff plastic and with magnets on the reverse so that the fake plate can be swiftly fixed to the car’s original plate.

Surveillance will supply information that Dr.William Snodgrass from Bad Seepage, Ohio was driving around in Las Vegas when, in fact, he never left his house in Ohio.

It is advertised that the plates cost $50.00 a set and it is reported that sales are very brisk.

It should also be noted that driving on Federal highways with fake license plates is quite illegal

 

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC

U.S. national security interests in the Arctic are delineated in National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 25, Arctic Region Policy. 5 This policy states that national security interests include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of the seas. Preserving freedom of the seas, which includes all of the rights, freedoms, and uses of the seas and adjacent airspace, including freedom of navigation and overflight, in the Arctic supports the nation’s ability to exercise these rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea and airspace throughout the world, including through strategic straits.

The 2013 National Strategy on the Arctic Region frames the whole-of-government approach that provides the overarching context for the Department’s efforts. It lays out three main lines of effort in the Arctic: advance U.S. security interests; pursue responsible Arctic region stewardship; and strengthen international cooperation. The goal of the National Strategy for the Arctic Region is “an Arctic region that is stable and free of conflict, where nations act responsibly in a spirit of trust and cooperation, and where economic and energy resources are developed in a sustainable manner that also respects the fragile environment and the interests and cultures of indigenous peoples.”

The DoD Arctic Strategy outlines how the Department will support the whole-of-government effort to promote security, stewardship, and international cooperation in the Arctic. The Department’s strategic approach to the Arctic reflects the relatively low level of military threat in a region bounded by nation States that have not only publicly committed to working within a common framework of international law and diplomatic engagement,6 but have also demonstrated the ability and commitment to do so. In consideration of enduring national interests in the Arctic and existing strategic guidance, the Department’s end-state for its strategic approach to the Arctic is: a secure and stable region where U.S. national interests are safeguarded, the U.S. homeland is protected, and nations work cooperatively to address challenges.

The January 2009 National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-66, dual-titled as Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-25, or NSPD-66/HSPD-25, established the policy of the United States with respect to the Arctic and outlined national security and homeland security interests in the region. Homeland security interests include preventing terrorist attacks and mitigating those criminal or hostile acts that could increase the United States’ vulnerability to terrorism in the Arctic. The Department has a role to play in responding not only to traditional (e.g., military) threats, but also to a range of other potential national security challenges (e.g., smuggling, criminal trafficking, and terrorism as the lead agency or in support of other government agencies6In the Ilulissat Declaration (May 28, 2008), all five Arctic Ocean coastal States (United States, Russian Federation, Canada, Norway, and Denmark on behalf of Greenland) committed themselves to the orderly settlement of overlapping territorial claims through the established framework of the international law as reflected in the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). The Declaration affirmed that the legal framework provided by the LOSC is sufficient for the management of the Arctic Ocean and that there is no need to develop a new comprehensive international legal regime to govern this Ocean.

In the Ilulissat Declaration (May 28, 2008), all five Arctic Ocean coastal States (United States, Russian Federation, Canada, Norway, and Denmark on behalf of Greenland) committed themselves to the orderly settlement of overlapping territorial claims through the established framework of the international law as reflected in the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). The Declaration affirmed that the legal framework provided by the LOSC is sufficient for the management of the Arctic Ocean and that there is no need to develop a new comprehensive international legal regime to govern this Ocean.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORTING OBJECTIVES

The Department’s two supporting objectives describe what is to be accomplished to achieve its desired end-state. These objectives are bounded by policy guidance, the changing nature of the strategic and physical environment, and the capabilities and limitations of the available instruments of national power (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic). Actions taken to achieve these objectives will be informed by the Department’s global priorities and fiscal constraints. In order to achieve its strategic endstate, the Department’s supporting objectives are:

  • Ensure security, support safety, and promote defense cooperation .

Relationships with allies and partners are important enablers of cooperation in meeting security and defense commitments. These relationships also play an important role in conflict prevention, and, if prevention and deterrence fail, in coordinating an international response to security and defense challenges. Although the Department ofState is the lead for regional diplomacy, DoD has a supporting role enhancing the region’s capability and capacity for multilateral security collaboration, and responding to requests for assistance from interagency and international partners both within and

outside the Arctic. This collaborative approach helps prevent conflict and provides the stability needed to facilitate the sustainable economic development envisioned in the National Strategy for the Arctic Region. The Department of Defense will seek out areas of

mutual interest to build strategic relationships and encourage operational-level partnerships that promote innovative, affordable security solutions and enhance burdensharing in the Arctic. Science and technology (S&T) can provide non-contentious

opportunities for cooperation, and DoD will coordinate research initiatives with the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC).

The Department has an important role supporting other Federal departments and agencies in safety-related missions in Alaska and in responding to requests from civil

authorities to support them with disaster relief or humanitarian assistance at home or abroad. Although the Department has seldom been tasked to execute these missions in the Arctic, it may be asked to do more in the coming decades.

  • Prepare for a wide range of challenges and contingencies—operating in conjunction with other States when possible and independently if necessary—in order to maintain stability in the region.

– Future challenges in the Arctic may span the full range of national security interests.

These challenges and contingencies may take many forms, ranging from the need to

support other Federal departments and agencies—or another nation—in responding to a natural or man-made disaster to responding to security concerns that may emerge in the future. Per the 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region, U.S. security in the Arctic encompasses a broad spectrum of activities, including national defense.

STRATEGIC APPROACH

The Department will pursue comprehensive engagement with allies and partners to protect the homeland and support civil authorities in preparing for increased human activity in the Arctic. Strategic partnerships are the center of gravity in ensuring a peaceful opening of the Arctic and achieving the Department’s desired end-state. Where possible, DoD will seek innovative, low-cost, smallfootprint approaches to achieve these objectives (e.g., by participating in multilateral exercises like the Search and Rescue Exercise (SAREX) hosted by Greenland, COLDRESPONSE hosted by Norway, and Canada’s Operation NANOOK, or through Defense Environmental International Cooperation Program-supported engagements on Arctic issues). The Department will also evolve its infrastructure and capabilities in step with the changing physical environment in order to ensure security, support safety, promote defense cooperation, and prepare to respond to a wide range of challenges and contingencies in the Arctic in the coming decades. The Department will accomplish its objectives through the following ways:

  • Exercise sovereignty and protect the homeland;
  • Engage public and private sector partners to improve domain awareness in the Arctic;
  • Preserve freedom of the seas in the Arctic;
  • Evolve Arctic infrastructure and capabilities consistent with changing conditions;
  • Support existing agreements with allies and partners while pursuing new ones to build

confidence with key regional partners;

  • Provide support to civil authorities, as directed;
  • Partner with other departments and agencies and nations to support human and environmental safety; and
  • Support the development of the Arctic Council and other international institutions that promote regional cooperation and the rule of law.

The Department will apply the four guiding principles from the 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region as it pursues these eight ways.9 This means DoD will work with allies, partners, and other interested parties to safeguard peace and stability. It will make decisions using the best available scientific information, and will pursue innovative arrangements as it develops the capability and capacity needed in the Arctic over time. It will also follow established Federal tribal consultation policy. These four principles will underpin all of the Department’s activities as it implements this strategy through the means described in this section.

The Arctic Council’s charter states, “The Arctic Council should not deal with matters related to military security.” It could be argued that search and rescue is a (human) security interest, and oil spill response is an (environmental) security interest; thus, the Council has a demonstrated ability to address a range of “soft security” issues.

Protect the Homeland and Exercise Sovereignty

From the U.S. perspective, greater access afforded by the decreasing seasonal ice increases the Arctic’s viability as an avenue of approach to North America for those with hostile intent toward the U.S. homeland, and the Department will remain prepared to detect, deter, prevent, and defeat  threats to the homeland. Additionally, DoD will continue to support the exercise of U.S. sovereignty. In the near-term10, this will require some ability to operate in the Arctic, which the Department will maintain and enhance by continuing to conduct exercises and training in the region. In the mid- to far-term, this may require developing further capabilities and capacity to protect U.S. air, land, and maritime borders in the Arctic in accordance with the 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region. As directed by the 2011 Unified Command Plan, Commander, U.S. Northern Command (CDRUSNORTHCOM) is responsible for advocating for Arctic capabilities. In execution of this responsibility, CDRUSNORTHCOM will collaborate with relevant Combatant Commands, the Joint Staff, the Military Departments and ServicesServices, and the Defense agencies to identify and prioritize emerging Arctic capability gaps and requirements. These efforts will be informed by the most authoritative scientific information on future Arctic conditions. For purposes of mission and infrastructure vulnerability assessments and adaptation to climate change, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OUSD(AT&L)) will identify projections of future conditions to be used. The Department of Defense will collaborate with theDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure efficient use of resources to avoid duplication of effort in research, development, experimentation, testing, and acquisition. Forums such as the DoD-DHS Capabilities Development Working Group are among the means to facilitate this cooperation.

Engage public and private sector partners to improve all domain awareness in the Arctic.

Although NSPD-66/HSPD-25 focuses on maritime domain awareness, the Department has responsibilities for awareness across all domains: air, land, maritime, space, and cyberspace. Adequate domain awareness is an essential component of protecting maritime commerce, critical infrastructure, and key resources. In the near-term, the Department will work through the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to maintain air tracking capabilities in the Arctic. As the maritime domain becomes increasingly accessible, the Department will seek to improve its maritime detection and tracking in coordination with DHS and other departments and agencies as well as through public/private partnerships. The Department of the Navy, in its role as DoD Executive Agent for Maritime Domain Awareness, will lead DoD coordination on maritime detection and tracking. Where possible, DoD will also collaborate with international partners to employ, acquire, share, or develop the means required to improve sensing, data collection and fusion, analysis, and information-sharing to enhance domain awareness appropriately in the Arctic. Monitoring regional activity and analyzing emerging trends are key to informing future investments in Arctic capabilities and ensuring they keep pace with increasing human activity in the region over time.

Many of DoD’s ways align with what the National Strategy for the Arctic Region terms supporting objectives to its three lines of effort, but DoD’s strategy follows the classical “ways-ends-means” construction.

This strategy identifies three timeframes to be used for implementation planning: the near-term (present day-2020); mid-term (2020-2030); and far-term (beyond 2030). These timeframes are approximate due to uncertainty in climate change projections.

In the near- to mid-term, the primary means of improving domain awareness will be continued use of innovative, low-cost solutions for polar Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) needs as well as enhanced international collaboration. DoD will take steps to work with other Federal departments and agencies to improve nautical charts, enhance relevant atmospheric and oceanic models, improve accuracy of estimates of ice extent and thickness, and detect and monitor climate change indicators. In particular, the Department of the Navy will work in partnership with other Federal departments and agencies (e.g., DHS, the Department of Commerce) and international partners to improve hydrographic charting and oceanographic surveys in the Arctic.

The Department will continue to collaborate with other Federal departments and agencies and the State of Alaska to monitor and assess changes in the physical environment to inform the development of Arctic requirements and future capabilities. To that end, the Department will leverage work done by the scientific and academic communities and seek opportunities to contribute to the observation and modeling of the atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice conditions, including acoustics conditions, to enhance military environmental forecasting capabilities. These collaborations will help inform the development and design of future ice-strengthened ship designs, when required.

Preserve freedom of the seas in the Arctic.

The United States has a national interest in preserving all of the rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea and airspace recognized under international law. The Department will preserve the global mobility of United States military and civilian vessels and aircraft throughout the Arctic,11 including through the exercise of the Freedom of Navigation program to challenge excessive maritime claims asserted by other Arctic States when necessary. The Department will continue to support U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Lawof the Sea (hereafter referred to as the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC)) because it codifies the rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea and airspace the Department seeks to preserve; provides a means for the peaceful resolution of disputes; and ensures international recognition of resources rights on the extended continental shelf.

Evolve Arctic infrastructure and capabilities consistent with changing  conditions.

The Department will periodically re-evaluate requirements necessary to meet national security objectives as conditions change and the Combatant Commandersidentify operational requirements for the Arctic in updates to their regional plans.Once operational requirements are defined, solutions for associated supporting infrastructure requirements should seek to leverage existing U.S. Government, commercial, and international facilities to the maximum extent possible in order to mitigate the high cost and extended timelines associated with the development of Arctic infrastructure. If no existing infrastructure is capable of sufficiently supporting the requirement, modifications to existing bases, such as the addition of a new hangar, will be made as part of the military construction or facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization processes.

Uphold existing agreements with allies and partners while building confidence with key regional partners.

Security cooperation activities and other military-to-military forms of engagement establish, shape, and maintain international relations and the partnerships necessary to meet security challenges and reduce the potential for friction. The 2012 and 2013 Northern Chiefs

of Defense (CHoDs) meetings and the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable workshops and meetings are examples of means for promoting information-sharing and partnership-building necessary to develop cooperative approaches to common challenges. Therefore, in cooperation with the Department of State, DHS (in particular, the U.S. Coast Guard), and other relevant agencies, the Department will continue to build cooperative strategic partnerships that promote innovative, affordable security solutions and burden-sharing in the Arctic. It will also seek to increase bilateral exchanges, including in science and technology, and take advantage of multilateral training opportunities with Arctic partners to enhance regional expertise and cold-weather operational experience.

Provide Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) in Alaska and provide Foreign Humanitarian Assistance and Foreign Disaster Relief (FHA/FDR) in other non-U.S. territorial areas of the Arctic.

When directed by the appropriate authority, the Department will be prepared to support civil authorities in response to natural or manmade disasters, or to conduct FHA/FDR operations in cooperation with allies and partners. Partner with other agencies and nations to support human and environmental safety.

Some of the near-term safety-related challenges include meeting international search and rescue obligations and responding to incidents such as oil spills in ice-covered waters, as reflected in the recently concluded Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic and Agreement on Cooperation on

Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic. The Department will leverage existing capabilities to respond to requests for support from civil authorities in coordination with other departments and agencies and nations. Where appropriate, the Department will support other departments and agencies in maintaining human health; promoting healthy, sustainable, and resilient ecosystems; and consulting and coordinating with Alaska Natives on policy and activities affecting them. Finally, the Department will continue to integrate environmental considerations into its planning and operations and to contribute to whole-of-government approaches in support of the second line of effort in the 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region

Support the development of the Arctic Council and other international institutions to promote regional cooperation and the rule of law.

The Department recognizes the value of the Arctic Council in efforts to understand the changing Arctic environment and developingcooperative approaches to regional challenges, and supports the Department of State in thecontinued development of the Council. Although the Department of State is the lead fordiplomacy, DoD has a role to play in enhancing the region’s multilateral security cooperationenvironment. Accordingly, DoD will work with allies and partners within the framework ofinternational institutions, ranging from the Arctic Council to the International MaritimeOrganization (IMO), to maintain stability and promote cooperation.

11As expressed by Commander, U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), Commander, U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), and Commander, USNORTHCOM, in a May 2008 memorandum, the United States needs assured access to support U.S. national interests in the Arctic. Although this imperative could be met by regular U.S. Government ships in open water up to the marginal ice zone, only ice-capable ships provide assured sovereign presence throughout the region and throughout the year. Assured access in areas of pack ice could also be met by other means, including submarines and aircraft.

  1. CHALLENGES & RISKS TO THE STRATEGIC APPROACH

This strategy furthers defense objectives while positioning the United States to take advantage of opportunities in the Arctic during the coming decades in accordance with the 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region. It also addresses some of the risks inherent in the trade-offs and tensions among U.S. interests and objectives, including:

  • Projections about future access to and activity in the Arctic may be inaccurate.

Significant uncertainty remains about the rate and extent of the effects of climate change, including climate variability, in the Arctic. There is also uncertainty about future economic conditions, and the pace at which human activity will increase in the region. The challenge is to balance the risk of having inadequate capabilities or insufficient capacity when required to operate in the region with the opportunity cost of making premature and/or unnecessary investments. Premature investment may reduce the availability of resources for other pressing priorities, particularly in a time of fiscal austerity.

  • Fiscal constraints may delay or deny needed investment in Arctic capabilities, and may curtail Arctic trainingand operations.

As the Department downsizes to meet budgetary targets, it will have to prioritize engagements for the resulting smaller force. There is also a risk that desired investments in Arctic capabilities may not compete successfully against other requirements in the Department’s budgetary priorities. Where possible, DoD will mitigate this risk by developing innovative ways to employ existing capabilities in coordination with other departments and agencies and international partners, and by enhancing scientific, research, and development partnerships. CDRUSNORTHCOM plays a key role in mitigating this risk as the Arctic capability advocate within the Department’s planning and programming activities. Commander, U.S. European Command (CDRUSEUCOM) and Commander, U.S.

Pacific Command (CDRUSPACOM) also play a role by fostering collaborative working relationships with regional partners.

  • Political rhetoric and press reporting about boundary disputes and competition for resources may inflame regional tensions.

Efforts to manage disagreements diplomatically may be hindered if the public narrative becomes one of rivalry and conflict. The Department will mitigate this risk by ensuring its plans, actions, and words are coordinated, and when appropriate, by engaging the press to counter unhelpful narratives with facts. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy will monitor DoD activities, programs, and posture in the region to ensure the Department is sending a clear message to key audiences regarding the Department’s efforts to promote security, safety, and defense cooperation.

  • Being too aggressive in taking steps to address anticipated future security risks may create the conditions of mistrust and miscommunication under which such risks could materialize.

There is some risk that the perception that the Arctic is being militarized may lead to an “arms race” mentality that could lead to a breakdown of existing cooperative approaches to shared challenges. The Department will mitigate this risk by focusing on collaborative security approaches as outlined in the 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region, and by supporting other Federal departments and agencies where they have leadership roles. Building trust through transparency about the intent of our military activities and participation in bilateral and multilateral exercises and other engagements that facilitate information-sharing will be a key means of addressing this risk.

Obtaining and Using Evidence from Social Networking Sites Facebook, MySpace, Linkedln, and More
by John Lynch
US DoJ Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section

Deputy Chief, Computer Crime

Jenny Ellickson                                                                                                                           Trial Attorney

Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section

 

AGENDA

Introduction to Social Networking Sites

Overview of Key Social Networking Sites

Additional Legal and Practical Issues

Overview of Key Social Networking Sites

Additional Legal and Practical Issues

 

1997 SixDegrees.com

2003 Friendster, Linkedln

2004 MySpace

2005 Twitter

 

Introduction to Social Networking

POPULAR SOCIAL NETWORKS

Worldwide: Facebook

U.S. and Canada: MySpace, Linkedln, Twitter

Europe: MySpace, Twitter, Hi5, V Kontakte

Latin America: Hi5, Orkut, Tagged

Asia: QQ, Friendster, Xiaonei, Orkut, Mixi, Hi5

Middle East and Africa: Maktoob, Hi5li,

 

Introduction to Social Networking

THE BASICS

Most social-networking sites allow users to:

  • Create personal profiles
  • Write status updates or blog entries
  • Post photographs, videos, and audio clips
  • Send and receive private messages
  • Link to the pages of others (i.e., “friends”)

How can LE obtain data from these sites?

  • Some info may be public
  • Use ECPA to get info from providers
  • Undercover operations?

 

Introduction to Social Networking

UTILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES

Evidence from social-networking sites can

  • Reveal personal communications
  • Establish motives and personal relationships
  • Provide location information
  • Prove and disprove alibis
  • Establish crime or criminal enterprise

Also: instrumentalities or fruits of crime.

 

Overview of Key Social Networking Sites

FACEBOOK

Founded in 2004, primarily catering to students

Now over 250m active members worldwide

Over 10b photos in Oct 2008; adds over 1b monthly

Applications run on Facebook platform

True names encouraged but not guaranteed

Privacy model is highly granular; present different

information to different groups or individual users

Messaging includes mail, real-time chat, “wall”

Now used in private background checks

Koobface – virus/worm vector

 

GETTING INFO FROM FACEBOOK

Data is organized by user ID or group ID

Standard data productions (per LE guide):

Neoprint, Photoprint, User Contact Info,

Group Contact Info, IP Logs

HOWEVER, Facebook has other data available.

Often cooperative with emergency requests.

 

MYSPACE

Founded 2003, now owned by Fox Interactive Media

2006: Most popular SN; passed by Facebook in 2008

Currently tens of millions of active users monthly

True names less encouraged than Facebook

Messaging through messages, chat, friend updates

Application platform rolled out early 2008

Young user base, history of child safety concerns

Privacy is currently less granular than Facebook

 

GETTING INFO FROM MYSPACE

Many profiles have public content.

Data is organized by Friend see LE guide.

MySpace requires a search warrant for private

messages/bulletins less than 181 days old

  • Also considers friend lists to be stored content’

Data retention times

User info and stored files – indefinitely

IP logs, info for deleted accounts – 1 year

 

TWITTER

Market leader in “micro-blogging”

  • Began in mid-2006 as “status message” service
  • Ubiquity and ease of updating, but limited space
  • Breaking news, real-time updates: USAir, Iran
  • Most multimedia handled by 3d party links
  • Simplified privacy model: updates public or private
  • Direct messages are private; sender can delete
  • Short URLs used to serve malicious links and code

 

GETTING INFO FROM TWITTER

The good news

  • Most Twitter content is public
  • Private messages kept until user deletes them

The bad news

  • No contact phone number
  • Only retain last login IP ^
  • Will not preserve data without legal process
  • Stated policy of producing data only in

response to legal process (i.e., no 2702)

  • No Law Enforcement Guide

 

LINKEDIN

Business-focused with enforced limits to interaction

Profiles focused on education and work experience

Use for criminal communications appears limited

But can be used to identify experts

Can check background of defense experts

Privacy model similar to Facebook

Profile information is not checked for reliability

 

Federated Identity Issues

Social networking sites increasingly adopting

federated identity schemes

 

Social networking sites increasingly adopting federated identity schemes

Facebook, MySpace, Yahoo!, and Google act as identity authenticators “Single sign-on mode1

Example: A user can log in to a Facebook account using Google credentials

  • After a link is established between two accounts, Google

will check and vouch for identity of its user

  • Authentication information split from activity information
  • In turn, a Facebook login may be used to authenticate to

sites using “Facebook Connect” /

If attribution is necessary, must determine identity

provider – not simply the domain.

 

Social networks have extensive terms of service and privacy policies

  • Most permit emergency disclosures to LE
  • All specify exceptions to respond to legal process

and protect service against fraud/damage

U.S. v: Drew- can failure to follow TOS render access unauthorized under 1030?

  • Employment policy cases tend to say yes
  • But concerns that transforms TOS into private criminal code for site misconduct
  • Growth of social networks raises questions

of breadth of PPA

  • Is Facebook/Twitter a “similar form of communication” to a newspaper, book,

broadcast? (Ashton Kutcher? CNN? Iran?)

  • No easy answers, but look to intent to communicate news to sizable audience
  • In many cases, Guest v. Leis rule will be sufficient; CCIPS can help with analysis

Congress continues to examine media shield

 

Why go undercover on Facebook, MySpace,etc?

  • Communicate with suspects/targets
  • Gain access to non-public info
  • Map social relationships/networks

 

WITNESSES & SOCIAL NETWORKS

 

Many witnesses have social-networking pages

  • Valuable source of info on defense witnesses
  • Potential pitfalls for government witnesses

Knowledge is power

  • Research all witnesses on social-networking sites
  • Discovery obligations?

Advise your witnesses:

  • Not to discuss cases on social-networking sites
  • To think carefully about what they post

Social networking and the courtroom  can be a dangerous combination

  • Use caution in “friending” judges, defense counsel
  • Warn jurors about social-networking sites

 

The Encyclopedia of American Loons
Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf

 

The One People’s Public Trust is a (sort of) organization mixing freeman-on-the-land ideas and pseudolaw nonsense with smatterings of New Age fluff and conspiracy theories. Apparently, the OPPT is founded on the belief that the trust has managed to terminate and foreclose all governments in the world, leaving its belief system (and its leadership, of course) the sole legitimate legal authority, at least until it seems to have fallen apart itself sometime in 2013 – offshoots persisted, however, such as the short-lived One People Community formed in Aouchtam, Morocco. The founder of the group, Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf, currently spends her time in federal prison.

The Trust does not consider itself an organization. Rather, “The One People’s Public Trust itself consists of every person on the planet, the planet itself and the Creator,” and their actions excellently reflect the delusions that must have gone into formulating that statement. In 2012 the trust registered a series of “declarations” claiming to foreclose on “all governments, major corporations, including banks.” The process seems to have consisted of registering UCC-1 financing statements at the Washington DC Recorder of Deeds, and when their paperwork was promptly ignored, they declared victory, issuing a mass of press releases. Minimally reasonable people would perhaps be able to sense looming legal troubles on the horizon, but Tucci-Jarraf and her fellow trustees, such as Caleb Paul Skinner and Hollis Randall Hillner, did not. The OPPT also claimed to have made an alternative to the currency systems in place around the world; however, “although there are negotiations going on continuously at the highest level, the news of the existence of the Trust is being deliberately kept out of the main stream media by the alleged corporate System to deceive the one people of this planet as it has always done.”

The timeline of the trust’s antics is filled out in some detail here, and is fascinating stuff. A short version: After foreclosing all the world’s governments in 2012, the OPPT promised its followers $10 billion in gold and silver. When said followers started wondering where the money was, Tucci-Jarraf – who was actually a prosecutor before throwing her lot in with the sovereign citizen movement – invented courtesy notices that her followers could send to various companies and collection agencies according to the premise that a non-response from the receiving agency meant that their claims were valid. Tucci-Jarraf would even distribute documents that her followers could take to banks to deposit a fraction of their “intrinsic value” and convert it to actual currency. Needless to say, the scheme didn’t work out as OPPT had predicted (one Kiri Campbell was arrested after attempting to deposit $15 million of her “value” into her bank account as well as writing $60,000 in bad checks and was promptly sentenced to 200 hours community service). Then, in October 2013, the principal promoters of OPPT in alternative media, Brian Kelly, Bob Wright and Lisa Harrison, launched something called “the OPAL tour” to promote the OPPT, begging for donations to buy RVs; Kelly declared that said RVs would be powered by engines that run on water and that the tour would also spread news about the new free energy technology (while also asking for donations to buy gas). The OPAL tour was, needless to say, only a qualified success, and Kelly and Tucci-Jarraf subsequently moved to Morocco to (unsuccessfully) start a community and develop their free energy technology, from where Tucci-Jarraf would submit updates back to her followers in the US in her typical style (“THE WILL OF I AM: NOW, ALL I AM, BE AND DO I AM!!! THE WORK OF I AM: I AM!!”). In 2017, Tucci-Jarraf had returned to the US where she, after a round of antics including typical sovereign citizen-ploys to obtain money from the government, was finally found guilty of money laundering by a Federal jury in 2018 (together with one Randall Beane). Tucci-Jarraf’s defense consisted to a large extent of denying the jurisdiction of the judge (“I have not received any documented evidence, sworn, validated, and verified by you that you exist,” claimed Tucci-Jarraf), as well as liberal use of terms like “collusion” and “foreign actors”, in addition citing convoluted legal documents.

Bill “Terran Cognito” Ferguson seems to be a close ally.

The rest of us are, of course, left scratching our heads at the whole thing. We admit that among all conspiracy theories, the sovereign citizen movement may be the hardest one to fully wrap one’s heads around: Their ideas are crazy and wrong, of course, but they seem to consistently fail to realize that whether their beliefs about the state and the law are correct or not, is ultimately not really particularly relevant to their agendas: What matters is whether the courts and government institutions will accept their claims, and given their own views about the courts and government it should be painfully obvious to them that the courts cannot and won’t accept those ideas, even if those ideas were, in fact, correct (which they aren’t).

Diagnosis: Sad and hilarious at the same time. The sovereign citizen movement is an endless source of amusement, and few more so than Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf, but one really shouldn’t forget that real people’s lives are actually ruined by their antics.

 Jim Humble

Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS) a solution of 28% sodium chlorite (NaClO2), a toxic industrial chemical known to cause fatal renal failure, in distilled water and prepared in a citric acid solution (thus forming chlorine dioxide, an oxidising agent used in water treatment and bleaching), named and promoted by former scientologist Jim Humble – especially in his 2006 self-published book The Miracle Mineral Solution of the 21st Century. MMS is promoted as a cure for HIV, malaria, viral hepatitis, the H1N1 flu virus, ebola, colds, acne, cancer and lots of other stuff (though on e.g. eBay it is generally sold as a water purifier to circumvent certain restrictions on pushing dangerous substances as medicine; at least one importer has been convicted in the UK). Of course, any remedy that is claimed to be effective against a wide range of unrelated diseases is bullshit (except to the extent that it might cause death, which sort of brings any other illness you might suffer from to an end and which MMS can, in fact, bring about), and Humble’s evidence is strictly limited to anecdotes, which are not supported by (and don’t support) anything. Even whale.to is skeptical, which is something to think about.

The treatment was first advertised to poor families in Haiti and the Dominican Republic as a low-cost solution to their medical needs, and though much of the marketing is targeted at religious cults or people in really desperate situations, MMS has recently been promoted as a “cure” for autistic children. Subjecting a child’s gastrointestinal system to industrial bleaching agents is child abuse, but MMS has nevertheless been promoted at the anti-vaccination movement’s annual quackfest Autism One, and seems to have gained some popularity due to credulous testimonials bandied around by people who don’t know how evidence and reason work. How it is supposed to work seems to be somewhat debated (on closed forums; report here) but apparently it is supposed to clear the body of mystery parasites known as “rope worms” and other pathogens that delusional users apparently believe cause autism (horror stories here; the most horrible part being, of course, how MMS fans, like the religious fanatics they are, take any (negative) effect of the treatment on the patient to be a good sign). The idea is, needless to say, one step up from autism-is-caused-by-evil-spirits and one notch below autism-is-caused-by-imbalance-of-the-humors, and has nothing to do with anything resembling science or minimal knowledge of how the body works. (And of course: the parasites are caused by vaccines – adopting one crazy delusion doesn’t mean that you have to give up the others; they all fit together in a grand unified system of depraved nonsense).

As a matter of fact, authorities have – for once – tended to take MMS seriously as the insanity it is both in Europe and the US (see here for a good summary, and here for fair and balanced coverage). Because of reports including nausea, vomiting, and dangerously low blood pressure as a result of dehydration following instructed use of Humble’s bleach product, the FDA has advised consumers to dispose of the product immediately, and (e.g.) Irish parents who have used MMS on their children are facing criminal investigations. In the US, Kerri Rivera – the main promoter of MMS as an autism cure – was subpoenaed in the wake of her presentation at the 2015 Autism One conference, and after proving (of course) to be unable to present anything resembling evidence for the benefit of MMS she was forced to sign an agreement barring her from further promoting it or appearing at conferences in the state of Illinois. There have been legal backfires as well. In 2015 Louis Daniel Smith was found guilty of selling industrial bleach as a miracle cure for various diseases including cancer, AIDS, malaria, hepatitis, lyme disease, asthma and colds (three of his alleged co-conspirators, Chris Olson, Tammy Olson and Karis DeLong, pleaded guilty to introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce before the trial). Rivera claims MMS is most most effective when doses are timed to cycles of the moon: “full moon because the parasites go into the gut during the full moon and the new moon and they mate,” says Rivera.

Jim Humble himself is the self-styled archbishop of The Genesis II Church of Health and Healing, and tends to present himself as some sort of messiah; a report from a secret meeting of his church is here. MMS is described as a “sacrament”, though that is probably mostly for legal purposes. Humble lists an impressive CV (hard to back up, of course), including having cured malaria (though of course the Red Cross is desperately trying to cover up the remarkable results for unclear reasons but a tendency toward conspiracy). As for evidence, well, he’s got some testimonials – e.g. from Lindsay “Bionic woman” Wagner –  and seems not to understand why anyone would ask for anything else. Among the more interesting details of his background is his claim to have been sent to earth from a “Planet of the Gods” in the Andromeda galaxy on a mining mission, which is also how he discovered the miracle cure. He also has plenty of stories of how he has been pushing his dangerous nonsense to poor areas of Africa as a cure for malaria, which is not funny. Humble seems to have had a particular success with cults (the CBC recently covered the trend among certain religious groups using MMS for healing purposes, for instance) – though I suppose most of his groups of fans may come close to fit that description in any case – where Humble can really emphasize the magic properties of his bleach product to audiences receptive to that kind of crazy. Humble’s “archbishop” Mark Grenon says that if you get breast cancer you brought it on yourself, and that women should rely on MMS, not mammograms, surgery, and chemotherapy.

Diagnosis: The mind boggles at the insanity of it all – and it attracts otherwise ordinary-looking people in a manner reminiscent of standard horror movie tropes about dark cults. Humble himself is either a very cynical liar or a complete idiot. Those are not mutually exclusive attributes.

 

 

 

 

 

No responses yet

Leave a Reply