Latest Features:
- OPA ~ Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary G. Grindler Speaks at the 8th Circuit Judicial Conference
- Antitrust Division ~ Former Owner and Chief Executive Officer of Financial Products and Services Firm Pleads Guilty for Role in Fraud Conspiracies Involving Proceeds of Municipal Bonds
- Civil Rights Division ~ Justice Department Resolves Discrimination Case Against Flushing, N.Y., Restaurant That Ejected Patrons Because of Religion
- OPA ~ New Congressional Funding to Enhance Department of Justice Southwest Border Strategy
- OPA ~ Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli Speaks at the Department of Education�s Bullying Summit
ISSUED BY: GCIS Communications Command Center
SOURCE: DOJ Office of Public Affairs
16August2010 12:01pmPDT
GCIS INTELLIGENCE UPDATE:
Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary G. Grindler Speaks at the 8th Circuit Judicial Conference
Minneapolis ~ Friday, August 13, 2010:
"It�s an honor to be here among so many distinguished jurists, attorneys and other leaders across the 8th Circuit.
This week�s theme � �Lawyering in the 21st Century� � is timely and important for all of us, and it is a concept that is evolving quickly. I first started working as an AUSA in the 1980s. At that time, the word �internet� was not a part of a lawyer�s vocabulary, and it certainly was not integral to how lawyers communicated, researched and practiced. Today is a new day.
The internet is ubiquitous and, like it or not, for most of us it is a necessity. As I have seen every day at the Department of Justice � in national-security briefings, reviews of case files, and meetings with the leaders of our divisions and task forces � our role as lawyers has evolved. On one hand, we have increased our level of communication with instantaneous emailing, texting and something I hear is called �tweeting.�
Yet, on the other hand, in some cases, we have decreased our level of communication with one another by putting into emails that which we would have previously discussed in a meeting.
In my role as Acting Deputy Attorney General, the volume of information involved in every issue � every question � facing the department has grown exponentially over the last several years. Technology has been key to this development not only because of the change in information flow, but more importantly, as technology evolves so do the crimes. And the department must, and has, adapted to these new threats.
Today, I�d like to briefly address three important but challenging issues faced by the Department of Justice today � national security, intellectual property and child exploitation. These issues illustrate the evolving nature of the crimes the department is combating due to technological advances.
But each of these issues also helps to illustrate how the 21st Century Department of Justice is responding to these advances.
Last year, President Obama put it best when he described � in simple but accurate terms � the national security threat that technology poses, even as it also aids in our fight against terrorism and foreign attack.
�It is the great irony of our Information Age,� the president said, that �the very technologies that empower us to create and to build also empower those who would disrupt and destroy.�
I could not agree more. Nor could the rest of the senior leadership of the Justice Department. And that�s why cyber security has become, as it must be, a priority for the department � and for the administration as a whole.
In particular, we have seen an explosion in new technologies and cyber-based communications that pose new challenges for the government. Some of these challenges are familiar.
Terrorists, criminals and spies attempt to anonymize their activity. An e-mail account can be registered to Mickey Mouse, or to any other name for that matter, but still allow for convenient and reliable communications. New encryption technologies, meanwhile, threaten to limit the effectiveness of lawful government wiretaps.
But other challenges are less familiar � and thus more daunting. The architecture of the Internet, for example, allows for remote access to critical infrastructure systems, government networks and private industry.
Cyberspace threatens to become a platform for stealing government or corporate secrets from what may be believed to be a safe haven thousands of miles away, or, even worse, for damaging our nation with dangerous cyber attacks.
These may sound like immediate problems for the defense and law enforcement communities, not lawyers � but for us, cyber security is not an abstract or distant problem. Cyber vulnerabilities create serious challenges to our ability to ensure that cyber crimes are not immune from the law.
The FBI�s cyber division has grown substantially in recent years. DOJ lawyers work closely with the FBI to address increasingly sophisticated and dangerous cyber hacking and theft.
The department also works closely with our foreign partners because, clearly, cyber threats do not recognize borders. For example, the department chairs the G-8 High Tech Crime Group, a group with more than 50 countries created to facilitate criminal investigations with law enforcement agencies abroad and to cultivate cooperation on emerging cyber-crime issues.
And the United States ratified the International Convention on Cybercrime, providing a global framework for substantive and procedural laws that will foster � and enable � greater cooperation among nations on the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime.
Of course, for all of us, these issues are not just about technology. They are about lawyers doing the hard work of practicing law and helping to steer our clients (for many of us, that�s the government) toward some particular end. This includes DOJ attorneys working with the Intelligence Community to seek court approval under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to collect intelligence through monitoring phones and email accounts.
On all national security matters, including cyber security threats, there are legal advisors spread across numerous Executive Branch agencies involved in protecting national security � including those in the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the National Security Council at the White House.
Because attorney advisors in the Justice Department must work and collaborate effectively across federal departments and agencies, optimal decisions are reached when officials from every relevant Executive Branch agency sit down together to evaluate any potential threat and decide which of the many tools we can best use to disrupt it. It is through these meetings, not emails or texts, that decisions are made about the most serious threats facing the Nation.
The attorneys who do this work must have the ability to make decisions quickly and most of the time the work will be classified thereby limiting the ability to send or discuss this information electronically.
In other words, the 21st Century Department of Justice uses 21st Century technology to combat the crimes, but also uses traditional face-to-face meetings to help resolve some of the most difficult threats facing our Nation.
Switching gears, the steady advance of technology has also led to the increasing availability � and plummeting costs � of computing power, data storage and bandwidth. These advances have made possible a host of innovative services for the makers of creative content to distribute their works.
Digital content, whether embodied in software, books, games, movie, or music, can now be transmitted from one corner of the world to another almost instantly. And businesses that rely on intellectual property, from large entertainment conglomerates to small biotech firms, are among the fastest-growing sectors of the U.S. economy. Intellectual property now comprises a significant, and growing, share of the value of world trade.
But for every technological advance by businesses and other innovators, there is, unfortunately, a criminal who tries to misuse the new technology for his or her own illicit purposes.
That is the challenge confronting lawyers who must protect IP rights now and in the future � that criminals such as online pirates and others have been every bit as nimble in adopting new technologies as legitimate providers. They have often, in fact, been even faster.
So what is the 21st Century Department of Justice to do? We must stay ahead of the curve. We must learn how to use � and how to protect � the new creative tools and innovations before, not after, the criminals do. And we must be ready to adapt to a fast- and ever-changing legal landscape, as well.
In short, IP protection in the 21st Century demands a robust and aggressive response that both addresses emerging criminal threats and protects new innovations and creations. That is why the department and the administration has elevated IP enforcement to a top priority, as well.
Our attention to this issue recognizes that intellectual-property law enforcement is central to protecting our nation�s ability to remain at the forefront of technological advancement, business development, and job creation. And it recognizes the constant need for better tools, more efficiency, and sharper investigative techniques to stay ahead of criminals and online pirates who are keenly aware of every innovation and on constant lookout for ways in which to corrupt those technologies for illicit purpose.
To enhance, centralize and coordinate these efforts, Attorney General Holder created in February 2010 an IP Task Force, which I chair, to address the growing threat of intellectual property law enforcement � from how to work with our international counterparts more effectively to attack the global nature of intellectual property theft to ways in which we can use new enforcement tools to combat emerging IP threats.
The department also continues to rely on dedicated attorneys in the Criminal Division�s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section as well as specialized AUSAS located throughout the country as part of its Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property coordinator program . These attorneys are constantly learning. They are constantly adapting. And as a result, they are helping the Department of Justice detect and deter IP crimes every day.
But staying ahead of the IP curve in the 21st Century means more than just mastering new technologies. It also means taking advantage of existing resources and partnerships. The increasingly global threat of IP crimes means that we must work and partner more effectively with our law enforcement counterparts overseas. And it means we must coordinate more robustly with our federal, state and local partners.
Our response to IP crime in the 21st Century is thus comprehensive and adaptive � using new tools where appropriate and enhancing our use of existing resources where applicable. Only in this manner can we effectively, and sustainably, protect one of our country�s most valuable resources: the ingenuity of our artists, innovators and creators.
Finally, I would like to address another of the department�s top priorities � and one of the world�s vilest crimes: child exploitation. Across the United States, federal courts have seen their caseloads in this area skyrocket. Federal prosecutors have brought more than 8,000 cases of child exploitation since 2006. And the cases have increased � and evolved � every year, particularly in the realm of child pornography.
The trafficking of these horrific images, chiefly through the Internet, continues to rise � even as we bolster our investigations and prosecutions.
The department has struck back. Last week, we announced our first-ever National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction, which will bring our fight against child exploitation to new, historic levels.
With the input of our partners, from agents and attorneys to victims and advocates, our strategy provides a comprehensive assessment of the threats at hand and our ongoing efforts to combat them. More important, it outlines our goals and priorities going forward. And it details the new ways we plan to broaden our impact and build on recent progress.
Perhaps most immediately relevant to many of you is the threat assessment, which may significantly impact the work that courts do in determining whether or not to allow a defendant out on bond � and in fashioning a sentence that meets all of the requirements of 18 U.S.C. � 3553.
The assessment revealed, for example, that many offenders are producing images of the assault of a child simply in order to receive such images in trade. We now know for certain that demand drives the market � and that it leads directly to sexual assault. We know offenders gather together in chat rooms and other dark corners of the Internet not only to exchange abusive images, but also to share their prurient interests in children, methods of evading law enforcement detection, and techniques for grooming children for abuse.
We know that offenders are more sophisticated and that we must therefore find new ways to interdict their crimes. And we know that images of children are increasingly violent � and that the ages of the victims depicted are getting young every day.
And it appears that many who are caught and charged with only possessing child pornography are also likely to be child molesters. So we are trying to use scarce resources to continue some of these investigations to try to determine whether the possessor of child pornography is also a child molester.
The challenge for courts is adjudicating these unconscionable cases. For jurists and jurors alike, the evidence is often difficult to cope with. You never forget the images you see. But just as the fact finder must be provided with all relevant facts and evidence for a fair verdict to be reached, it can be difficult to balance the needs for a full display of such evidence with the legitimate concerns of victim privacy and the mental health of jurors.
But such a balance must be struck.
We have seen defense attorneys move the court to prohibit the admission of images altogether, arguing they are more prejudicial than probative. But in what other kind of case is such a motion even considered? How often do defense attorneys file motions to prevent the government from offering the bricks of cocaine, the gun used in the robbery, the tax forms evidencing evasion, the false documents or the counterfeit currency?
Although in child pornography cases, these motions are now common, the jury � in our view � has the right to see the evidence of the crime. As the statue requires, they must judge for themselves if the child or children are real and if the acts depicted are sexually explicit.
But this is just one example of many unique and unprecedented questions with which 21st Century lawyers � judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys � must grapple as they face more and more child exploitation cases. They are challenging questions � and challenging cases � but I�m confident they are challenges that can, and will, be met.
In sum, the three issues I�ve discussed today are clearly 21st Century in character. They are parasites of the Internet, living off technology, and perverting it for evil or personal gain.
But as much as we must embrace the change brought by technology, I submit that there are some things that will never change � such as the process for reaching a good decision � which sometimes requires stepping away from technology. I believe one of the greatest, if most counterintuitive and paradoxical, competencies of the 21st Century lawyer is the ability to turn off the Blackberry, shut off the monitor, silence the office phone � and take a step back before making decisions that may alter the lives of our fellow citizens � and change the fate of our world.
With the news we hear every day � and the astounding volume of cases that come before our courts and across our desks � it�s easy to become desensitized or mechanical. But when we take a step back from it all and spend time with books, the evidence, policy analyses and case law, not the Internet, and take the time to simply think carefully about the problems and issues before us, we are far more likely to see a situation from the angles that technology may blind us from � and to reach a decision consistent not necessarily with what may initially seems to be the obvious answer, but with the principled one.
I want to thank you again for your time this morning. It has been an honor to speak to you � just it has been an honor over these past six months to serve as Acting Deputy Attorney General. I wish you all the best as we endeavor together to see justice served as 21st century attorneys and jurists.
Thank you."
Former Owner and Chief Executive Officer of Financial Products and Services Firm Pleads Guilty for Role in Fraud Conspiracies Involving Proceeds of Municipal Bonds
WASHINGTON - The former owner and chief executive officer of a financial products and services firm pleaded guilty today for his participation in fraud conspiracies related to contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds and other related municipal finance contracts, the Department of Justice announced.
According to the charges filed today in U.S. District Court in New York City, Martin Kanefsky, a resident of Great Neck, N.Y., pleaded guilty to participating in two separate fraud conspiracies with companies that provide a type of contract, known as an investment agreement, to public entities throughout the United States, such as state, county and local governments and agencies. These public entities were seeking to invest money from a variety of sources, primarily the proceeds of municipal bonds that they issued to raise money for, among other things, public projects. Kanefsky also pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud. According to the plea agreement, Kanefsky has agreed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
The department said in court papers that Kanefsky�s former company, located in Great Neck, was hired by public entities that issue municipal bonds to act as their broker and conduct what was supposed to be a competitive bidding process for the award of investment agreements. Major financial institutions, including banks, investment banks, insurance companies and financial services companies, are among the providers of investment agreements and other related municipal finance contracts. Competitive bidding for these agreements is the subject of regulations issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and is related to the tax-exempt status of the bonds.
According to the court documents, Kanefsky engaged in one fraud conspiracy from as early as October 2001 until at least November 2006, and in a second fraud conspiracy from as early as August 1999 until at least November 2006. In each conspiracy, Kanefsky gave co-conspirator providers information about the prices, price levels or conditions in competitors� bids, a practice known as a �last look,� which is explicitly prohibited by U.S. Treasury regulations. Kanefsky also solicited and received intentionally losing bids for certain investment agreements and other municipal finance contracts. As a result of the bid manipulation, the co-conspirator providers won contracts at artificially determined price levels, which deprived municipal issuers of money and property.
The court documents also charge that Kanefsky and co-conspirators misrepresented to municipal issuers or their bond counsel that the bidding process was in compliance with U.S. Treasury regulations. This caused the municipal issuers to award investment agreements and other municipal finance contracts to providers that otherwise would not have been awarded the contracts if the issuers had true and accurate information regarding the bidding process. Such conduct caused municipal issuers to file inaccurate reports with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and thus placed the tax-exempt status of the underlying bonds in jeopardy.
Each of the fraud conspiracies for which Kanefsky is charged carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The wire fraud charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The maximum fines for each of these offenses may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
This is the fifth guilty plea to arise from an ongoing investigation into the municipal bonds industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division�s New York Field Office, the FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation. The department is coordinating its investigation with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Three former employees of Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Insurance Services Inc., also known as CDR Financial Products (CDR), a Beverly Hills, Calif.-based financial products and services firm that acted as a broker of investment agreements and other municipal finance agreements, have pleaded guilty to bid-rigging and fraud conspiracies in relation to the ongoing investigation. A former employee of another financial services company also pleaded guilty to bid-rigging and fraud charges in relation to the ongoing investigation.
As a result of the ongoing investigation, three former financial services executives were indicted on July 27, 2010, for participating in fraud schemes and conspiracies related to the bidding for investment agreements. In addition, CDR, two of its employees and one former employee were charged in October 2009 for participating in bid-rigging and fraud conspiracies and related crimes. The CDR trial is scheduled to begin on Sept. 12, 2011.
Today�s guilty plea is part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama�s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. For more information on the task force, visit www.StopFraud.gov.
Anyone with information concerning bid rigging and related offenses in any financial markets should contact the Antitrust Division�s New York Field Office at 212-264-0390 or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm, or the FBI at 212-384-5000.
Justice Department Resolves Discrimination Case Against Flushing, N.Y., Restaurant That Ejected Patrons Because of Religion
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department filed a consent decree today resolving claims of religious discrimination against the Lucky Joy restaurant, located in Flushing, N.Y. In the consent decree, the restaurant�s owner, Lucky Joy Restaurant Inc., and its president, Xiao Rong Wu, admit that the restaurant engaged in a pattern or practice of wrongfully ejecting Falun Gong practitioners from the premises.
The investigation, conducted jointly by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section and the U.S. Attorney�s Office for the Eastern District of New York, revealed that Lucky Joy servers ejected ten patrons, including an eight-year-old girl, on three separate occasions during 2008 because members of their parties wore shirts displaying the tenets of the Falun Gong spiritual movement.
Under the consent decree, which must first be approved by the federal court, the defendants are enjoined from discriminating against any patron based on religion, religious expression, religious dress or association with Falun Gong. Additionally, the defendants have agreed that they and their staff will attend training regarding the non-discrimination requirements of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, will adopt non-discrimination policies and procedures which will be posted publicly (in English and Chinese), and will finance independent testing designed to ensure that Lucky Joy no longer discriminates.
�It�s disgraceful that a person would be refused service in a restaurant for doing nothing more than exercising their right to wear clothing with a religious message,� said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.� �The Justice Department will continue to vigorously protect the rights of persons of all faiths to be free from discrimination in Flushing and across the country.�
Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, stated that �People of all religious faiths have the right to be free from discrimination when they enter a restaurant to order a meal. This Office will work tirelessly to ensure that restaurant service is not denied to anyone in this district on the basis of their religion.�
The Justice Department�s investigation was conducted under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and religion in places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment.
New Congressional Funding to Enhance Department of Justice Southwest Border Strategy
WASHINGTON - Today�s passage by Congress of the Border Security Appropriations Bill provides $196 million for the Department of Justice to surge federal law enforcement efforts in high crime areas in the Southwest Border region, announced Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary G. Grindler.
�I commend Congress for passing the Border Security Appropriations Bill to add important resources to bolster security on our Southwest Border,� said Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary G. Grindler. �These assets are critical to bringing additional capabilities to crack down on transnational criminal organizations and reduce the illicit trafficking of people, drugs, currency and weapons.
�This bill will help strengthen the Department of Justice�s historic security efforts on the Southwest Border. Over the past 18 months, this Administration and this Department have dedicated unprecedented personnel, technology, and resources to the border, with unprecedented results, and we will continue to focus our efforts on disrupting criminal organizations and the networks they exploit,� said Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler was joined in the announcement by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division; Deputy Director Kenneth Melson of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart; Assistant Director Kevin Perkins of the FBI�s Criminal Investigative Division and U.S. Marshals Service Director John Clark.
Specifically, the funding will allow for more than 400 new positions and the temporary deployment of up to 220 personnel along the border as part of the Justice Department�s broader Southwest Border Strategy, including:
� ATF Project Gunrunner Teams - Establishment of seven ATF Project Gunrunner teams comprised of special agents and industry operations investigators to target firearms trafficking along the Southwest Border;
� Target Drug Enforcement Efforts at the Cartels - Enhancing and increasing intelligence operations against drug cartels as well as adding 50 new positions in Southwest Border offices;
� FBI Hybrid Squads - Creation of five additional Hybrid Squads on the Southwest Border dedicated to combating the violent crime threat along the border and expanding intelligence collection efforts;
� Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) - Increased funding for the Southwest Border region including its seven OCDETF Strike Forces in the area to support investigations and prosecutions of high level Mexican drug cartels;
� U.S. Attorneys - Deployment of more than 30 prosecutors in targeted locations to provide additional prosecutorial resources dedicated to combating Southwest Border firearm and drug trafficking, and bulk cash smuggling;
� Criminal Division - Creation of 26 positions to review wiretap requests, along with mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) and extradition requests as well as to provide additional support for the investigation and prosecution of transnational gangs, firearms and drug traffickers, and money launderers operating along the Southwest Border;��
� USMS International Investigations - Deployment of more than 20 Deputy U.S. Marshals to support its international investigations, including establish offices in Mexico to address cross-border investigations and enhance USMS presence at El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) to facilitate more intelligence-driving investigations;
� Immigration Litigation - Increased funding for Immigration Judge Teams to expedite the adjudication of removal proceedings involving criminal aliens;
� Prisons and Detention -� Increased funding for contract beds and USMS personnel to accommodate prisoner levels; and
� Training for Mexican law enforcement - Additional funding to support Mexican law enforcement operations with ballistic analysis, DNA analysis, information sharing, technical capabilities and assistance.
The Southwest Border Strategy, led by the Deputy Attorney General, uses federal prosecutor-led task forces that bring together all law enforcement components to identify, disrupt and dismantle the Mexican drug cartels through investigation, prosecution and extradition of their key leaders and facilitators, and seizure and forfeiture of their assets. The Department of Justice is increasing its focus on investigations and prosecutions of the southbound smuggling of guns and cash that fuel the violence and corruption and attacking the cartels in Mexico itself, in partnership with the Procuradur�a General de la Rep�blica (PGR) and the Secretariat of Public Security (SSP).�
The latest resources and funding announced by the United States build on the framework of expertise and experience that have been announced during the last year, as well as the successes these resources and funding have achieved, as part of the Obama administration�s support of the fight against the cartels.
As the largest law enforcement presence in Mexico with offices throughout, and a decades-long history of working with the Mexican government, the DEA has a strategic vantage point from which to assess the drug trafficking situation in Mexico, the related violence, its causes and its historical context. Currently, DEA has 29 percent of its domestic agent positions allocated to its Southwest border field divisions. Project Deliverance, announced in June 2010, led to the arrest of more than 2,200 individuals on narcotics-related charges in the United States and the seizure of more than 74.1 tons of illegal drugs as part of a 22-month multi-agency law enforcement investigation.
Through ATF�s Project Gunrunner, agents gather intelligence from federal firearms licensee records, ballistics and other laboratory analysis and trace data as well as use traditional methods of intelligence gathering to deny the �tools of the trade� to the firearms trafficking infrastructure of criminal organizations operating in Mexico and throughout the United States. As a result of Project Gunrunner, ATF seized 2,589 firearms and 265,500 rounds of ammunition destined for the Southwest Border in FY 2009.
ATF has significantly expanded its efforts by deploying GRIT teams to target areas along the border. As a result of the first GRIT team deployment to Houston, agents researched and completed more than 1,000 investigative leads resulting in the initiation of more than 275 firearms cases and seizure of more than 440 illegal firearms. GRIT teams also completed more than 1,100 federal firearms licensee (FFL) inspections.
Recovery Act funding provided Project Gunrunner with $10 million to hire special agents, industry operations investigators and others to staff new offices in McAllen, Texas; El Centro, Calif.; and Las Cruces, N.M. (including a satellite office in Roswell, N.M.,) to target the gun traffickers that enable weapons to make their way to violent criminals.
ATF has also expanded its successful eTrace initiative, which allows law enforcement agencies to identify firearms trafficking trends of drug trafficking organizations and other criminal organizations funneling guns into Mexico from the United States, as well as to develop investigative leads in order to stop firearms traffickers and straw purchasers (people who knowingly purchase guns for prohibited persons) before they cross the border.
In addition to the five new Hybrid Squads, the FBI is continuing to operate its National Border Corruption Task Force, with representatives from the FBI, Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, U.S. Customs and Border Protection - Internal Affairs and TSA to guide and oversee border corruption programs across the country.
USMS has stepped-up its efforts along the Southwest border, deploying 94 additional Deputy U.S. Marshals and sending four additional deputies to Mexico City to assist the Marshals Service Mexico City Foreign Field Office in FY09. Twenty-five new Criminal Investigators-Asset Forfeiture Specialists have been placed in USMS asset forfeiture units in the field.� The new positions are unique in that they are solely dedicated to the USMS Asset Forfeiture Division and support U.S. Attorneys Offices and investigative agencies in investigations of cartels and other large-scale investigations.
Extraditions from Mexico reached an all-time high in 2009, with 107 individuals extradited from Mexico to the United States to stand trial for alleged crimes committed in the United States. The Criminal Division�s Office of International Affairs has already achieved the extradition of 54 fugitives from Mexico in 2010, 22 of whom have been for drug trafficking offenses. This included the extradition from Mexico of Mario Ernesto Villanueva Madrid, the former governor of the Mexican state of Quintana Roo.
In addition to increased resources and funding, the Department of Justice has continued to support Mexican law enforcement through training initiatives. The Criminal Division�s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training (OPDAT) and others are providing real time hands-on training through seminars for investigators and prosecutors in Mexico on the investigation and prosecution of complex cases, as Mexico transitions to an adversarial system. The training of 5,462 Mexican prosecutors and investigators at the state and federal level and in the executive and judicial branches has already occurred, and the department is on target to reach 9,261 trained by the end of 2010.
In addition, the OCDETF program has increased its analyst personnel along the Southwest Border and the Office of Justice Programs invested $30 million in stimulus funding to assist with state and local law enforcement to combat narcotics activity coming through the southern border and in high intensity drug trafficking areas.
Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli Speaks at the Department of Education�s Bullying Summit
Washington, D.C. ~ Thursday, August 12, 2010:
"Good morning and thank you. I am very happy to be joining you today on behalf of the Department of Justice. It is great to see Secretary Duncan and the Department of Education taking leadership on this important issue through this Anti-Bullying Summit. The Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools is doing great work, and I�m pleased to be with all of you here today.
I am pleased to be here for two reasons. First and foremost, I am a parent. I have two sons, and, like all parents, I want them to have every opportunity in life. I know that education will be their key, as it was for me. To that end, I want my sons to be safe in school, and without fear of harassment by fellow students. Our nation�s children deserve a learning environment that allows them to reach their full potential, and no child should be scared to go to school because of bullying. What all of you in this room are doing matters to me personally.
What you are doing also matters to me professionally. It isn�t often that, as Associate Attorney General, I get to walk into a room full of educators and education advocates. I think that in many communities, and for many Americans, what the Department does and what so many of you do are thought of as opposite ends of the spectrum. The theory goes that students have had to make choices and they can either make good choices, and succeed in school, or they can make bad choices, and end up in the criminal justice system. The theory would follow that you take care of the good kids and get them to college, and we take care of the bad kids and get them off the streets.
One of the reasons I am here today is because you and I know that that�s not how the world works. People who actually work in law enforcement, and people who actually work in our nation�s schools, know that our jobs are closely interwoven. When their neighborhoods and homes don�t feel safe, our children have a tough time focusing in school. And when our children are not engaged at school � if they are bullying others or being bullied � we know that can lead them onto a path to the criminal justice system, for bullies and victims alike.
Attorney General Janet Reno really drove this point home to me when I worked for her back in the 1990s. I remember once, when she was on a long plane flight, she took out a pen and paper and outlined everything that was required to reduce crime and keep communities safe. A number of the things on that list focused on what we think of as traditional law enforcement issues: Do we have enough officers on the streets? Are those officers using the right techniques? Are we being smart in how we prosecute crime?
But what stood out to me most was how many of the elements on that list were things that most people never think of as law enforcement issues. She started with pre-natal care, and her list included Head Start and available childcare for working families. Wherever one thinks we should start, we all know that it takes a lot more than police, prosecutors and prisons to make a community safe. You need people who watch out for each other and who have a stake in their community. You need an economic base that keeps people engaged and relatively free from need. And you need safe schools.
Our current Attorney General has a similarly broad view about how to make communities safe. When Attorney General Eric Holder served as Deputy Attorney General during the 1990s, he was struck by the research that showed that for every child who ends up in the criminal justice system, there were 40, 50, 100 opportunities for intervention early in life that were missed. He led the Department to take an in-depth look at the problem of children exposed to violence and uncovered some deeply troubling facts. That research revealed, for instance, that exposure to violence � whether the child was an observer or a direct victim � was associated with long-term physical, psychological, and emotional harm. The studies showed that children exposed to violence are more likely to go on to abuse drugs and alcohol. They�re at greater risk of depression, anxiety, and other post-traumatic disorders. They fail in school more often than other kids. They�re more likely to develop chronic diseases and to have trouble forming emotional attachments. And they�re more likely to commit acts of violence themselves.
The work that he started has continued to this day, and we have doubled down on it upon his return as Attorney General. Last fall, through our National Survey on Children Exposed to Violence, which is the first comprehensive look at children as victims and witnesses of crime, abuse, and violence from infancy to age 17 and which is an outgrowth of then-Deputy Attorney General Holder�s initiative from more than a decade ago, the Department of Justice found that most children are exposed to violence in their daily lives. Indeed, the study found that the majority of our kids � more than 60 percent � have been exposed to crime, abuse, and violence. And the Department has renewed its efforts in this area, beginning a new pilot program to address the problem of children exposed to violence.
And all that helps explain why I am here and why the work that you do is so extraordinarily important. We know that bullying has lasting, serious effects for both victims and perpetrators, and that bullying can be a sign of other serious anti-social and violent behavior. The Health Resources and Services Administration reports that kids who bully are more likely to get into frequent fights, vandalize and steal property, be truant or drop out of school, and carry a weapon. And these impacts are long-lasting, as the research tells us there is a strong association between victimizing peers during school years and engaging in illegal behavior as adults. Indeed, just two weeks ago when I was visiting the Menominee Indian Reservation of Wisconsin, tribal leaders emphasized the direct link between bullying among youth and occurrences of domestic violence in later years.
So if we realize that bullying is not just a school�s problem, how do we respond to it? When I was a kid, students were bullied for being overweight or for being labeled a nerd, not for being gay or because of sexual promiscuity. And the sitcom response from the 1960s and 70s was for parents to give kids boxing gloves because, we were taught, that if you have the courage to fight back, the bully backs down.
But bullying is not that simple and the notion that �kids will be kids� isn�t an answer to problem. When we talk about bullying, we are talking about a destabilizing force that not only disrupts the school environment; it disrupts young lives in serious, far-reaching ways, with dangerous academic, health, and safety consequences. From this summit and the work you all are doing, we know that bullying starts early; that bullying is widespread; that it escalates when unchecked, and that it takes many forms and is evolving. And as the tragic suicides of Megan Meier and Phoebe Prince make apparent, we know that bullying can also be fatal.
With the increasing use of social networking sites and text messaging, the face of bullying is changing. Previously, an incident may have involved girls bickering with each other over boys on the playground. Today, insults � and retaliation for insults -- are not only made face-to-face, they are also posted on a classmate�s Facebook profile for all to see. As the internet becomes today�s playground, the previous distinction between what took place inside and outside of school is disappearing. Unsurprisingly, teachers are now spending time mediating conflicts between students that began online or through text messages.
What�s more, the apparent anonymity offered by technology can lead to more vicious insults. It is apparent that children (and frankly adults) are willing to push the envelope in cyberspace and say malicious things that they might not otherwise say in person. Never before has particularly cruel harassment from school persisted as long as it does now online, where for example, a Facebook group, populated with hundreds of members, is dedicated solely to making fun of a fellow classmate because of his hair color. The Journal of Adolescent Health reported that the number of adolescent victims of online harassment increased by 50 percent between 2000 and 2005. And as students become more technologically sophisticated at younger ages, they learn early on that the Internet can be a powerful, and hurtful, tool.
Bullying is changing in other ways as well, as harassment has also become increasingly sexually explicit. In Los Angeles� San Fernando Valley, middle school, high school, and college students posted comments on a web site that were full of sexual innuendo attacking fellow students. The online message boards had been accessed more than 67,000 times in a two-week period. This type of far-reaching harassment haunts and torments kids who are keenly aware that not just a few classmates can view these posts, but the whole world c
