Andrews, Barber, Barrow (GA), Bera (CA), Bishop (GA), Bishop (NY), Brown (FL), Brownley (CA), Butterfield, Carney, Castor (FL), Castro (TX), Cooper, Costa, Cuellar, Davis (CA), Delaney, Duckworth, Engel, Enyart, Esty, Foster, Frankel (FL), Gallego, Garcia, Green, Al., Gutiérrez, Hanabusa, Heck (WA), Higgins, Himes, Hinojosa, Hoyer, Israel, Jackson Lee, Johnson (GA), Johnson, E. B., Kaptur, Kelly (IL), Kennedy, Kilmer, Kind, Kirkpatrick, Kuster, Langevin, Larsen (WA), Levin, Lipinski, Lowey, Maloney, Se., Matheson, McIntyre, McNerney, Meeks, Meng, Murphy (FL), Payne, Pelosi, Peters (CA), Peters (MI), Peterson, Price (NC), Quigley, Ruiz, Ruppersberger, Ryan (OH), Schakowsky, Schneider, Schwartz, Scott, Da., Sewell (AL), Sinema, Sires, Slaughter, Smith (WA), Thompson (CA), Titus, Van Hollen, Vargas, Veasey, Visclosky, Wasserman Schultz, Wilson (FL)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml

TOP SE CRE OMIN ONW OF ORN

1109-0002 WORKING DRAFT
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL



NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE
24 March 2009

...

Background

TOP SE CRE OMIN OF ORN

1109-0002 WORKING DRAFT

I. INTRODUCTION

(U) This Report

On 4 October 2001, President George W. Bush issued a
memorandum entitled FOR SPECIFIED
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES DURING A LIMITED
PERIOD TO DETECT AND PREVENT ACTS OF TERRORISM
WITHIN THE UNITED The memorandum was based on the
President's determination that after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks
in the United States, an extraordinary emergency existed for national
defense purposes.

The 4 October 2001 Presidential authorization delegated
authority to the Secretary of Defense, who further delegated it to the
Director of National Securitv Agencv/Chief. Central Securitv Service
to conduct specified electronic surveillance on targets
related to Afghanistan and intemational terrorism for 30 days. Because the
surveillance included wire and cable communications carried into or out of
the United States, it would otherwise have required FISC authority.

...

(U) Access to Program Information

Between 4 October 2001 and 17 January 2007, NSA
cleared over 3,000 people for the PSP. The majority worked at NSA.
Others were fiom the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Justice, Congress,
the FISC, the ODNI, the White House, and the

PSP Clearance Totals

Agency Number of Cleared
Personnel
NSA 1,936
CIA 460
FBI 467
DOJ 64
Congress 60

TOP SE CRE OMIN 0NflV 0F ORN

23

T-09-0002
WORKING DRAFT

TOP SE CRE ONW 0F ORN

FISC 14
ODNI 13
White House 14
DOD (excluding NSA) 5
Total 3,033

Within the first 30 days of the Program, over 190
people were cleared into the Program. This number included Senators
Robert Graham and Richard Shelby, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi,
President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Counsel to the
Vice President David Addington, and Presidential Assistant 1. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby. By 31 January 2002, FISC Judge Royce Lamberth was
cleared. By June 2002, over 500 people had been cleared, including two
additional members of Congress, Senator Daniel Inouye and former
Senator Theodore Stevens, as well as FISC Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
See Appendix for a list, by date, of the number of people briefed into the
Program.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/27/nsa-inspector-general-report-document-data-collection

6:53:20 P.M. H.R. 2397 On agreeing to the Amash amendment; Failed by recorded vote: 205 - 217 (Roll no. 412).

Andrews, Barber, Barrow (GA), Bera (CA), Bishop (GA), Bishop (NY), Brown (FL), Brownley (CA), Butterfield, Carney, Castor (FL), Castro (TX), Cooper, Costa, Cuellar, Davis (CA), Delaney, Duckworth, Engel, Enyart, Esty, Foster, Frankel (FL), Gallego, Garcia, Green, Al., Gutiérrez, Hanabusa, Heck (WA), Higgins, Himes, Hinojosa, Hoyer, Israel, Jackson Lee, Johnson (GA), Johnson, E. B., Kaptur, Kelly (IL), Kennedy, Kilmer, Kind, Kirkpatrick, Kuster, Langevin, Larsen (WA), Levin, Lipinski, Lowey, Maloney, Se., Matheson, McIntyre, McNerney, Meeks, Meng, Murphy (FL), Payne, Pelosi, Peters (CA), Peters (MI), Peterson, Price (NC), Quigley, Ruiz, Ruppersberger, Ryan (OH), Schakowsky, Schneider, Schwartz, Scott, Da., Sewell (AL), Sinema, Sires, Slaughter, Smith (WA), Thompson (CA), Titus, Van Hollen, Vargas, Veasey, Visclosky, Wasserman Schultz, Wilson (FL)

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 412

H R 2397 RECORDED VOTE 24-Jul-2013 6:51 PM
AUTHOR(S): Amash of Michigan Amendment No. 100
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment

Party Affiliation----Ayes----Noes----NV
Republican-----------94-----134-----6
Democratic----------111------83-----6
Independent
TOTALS-------------205-----217----12


---- AYES 205 ---

Amash
Amodei

Bachus
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess

Capps
Capuano
Cárdenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings

Daines
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)

Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo

Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Fudge

Gabbard
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva

Hahn
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren

Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan

Keating
Kildee
Kingston

Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Luján, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch

Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Mica
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney

Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Nugent

O'Rourke
Owens

Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)

Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Rush

Salmon
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)

Takano
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas

Vela
Velázquez

Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Williams
Wilson (SC)

Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)

---- NOES 217 ---

Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews

Bachmann
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Butterfield

Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson

Davis (CA)
Delaney
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth

Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Esty

Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen

Gallego
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutiérrez

Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Hunter
Hurt

Israel
Issa

Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Joyce

Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster

Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer

Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)

Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee

Olson

Palazzo
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Price (NC)

Quigley

Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)

Schakowsky
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Stutzman

Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Turner

Upton

Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Visclosky

Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall

Young (FL)
Young (IN)

---- NOT VOTING 12 ---

Barletta
Beatty
Bustos

Campbell
Coble

Herrera Beutler
Horsford

McCarthy (NY)

Negrete McLeod

Pallone

Rokita

Schock

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml

CSF OATH

I WILL NEVER BETRAY OUR COUNTRY, OUR INTEGRITY, OUR CHARACTER, OUR HONOR
I WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE COURAGE TO HOLD MYSELF AND OTHERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS,
I WILL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR COUNTRY IN WHICH WE SERVE, I WILL NEVER SPEAK ILL OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, I WILL NEVER DISARM AMERICAN CITIZENS, I WILL NEVER UNLAWFULLY DETAIN AMERICAN CITIZEN, I WILL RESPOND TO THE CALL IF I AM EVER NEEDED TO RESIST TYRANNY THAT SEEKS TO DESTROY OUR REPUBLIC

Chief Mark Kessler

http://www.chiefkessler.com/index.php/csf-information/csf-oath

MISSION STATEMENT

THE CONSTITUTIONAL SECURITY FORCE WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RIGHTS IT SETS FORTH BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AIDING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTITUTION PERSEVERATION, PREPARATION, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION, ORGANIZATION, AND SKILL SET



What we are not

We are NOT a militia but support the concept of constitutional militias!

We are NOT advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether, local, state or Federal

We are NOT advocating violence towards any organization's, groups or persons

We are not advocating or promoting any constitutional changes EVER! nor we will support such acts Nor are we asking for any amendment to said constitution

We are NOT advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any reason including but not limited to ; Race, Religion, National Origin, Political Affiliation, Gender or Sexual Orientation

...

WHAT WE WILL NOT DO

WE WILL NOT ASSIST OR AID ANY GOVERNMENT, MILITARY, OR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT GOES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, OUR COUNTRY OR OUR FREEDOM
(EVER)

...

3) You must swear an OATH the protect and defend the constitutions as written by our founding fathers ANY INFRINGEMENT against the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bear arms or the constitution itself SHALL NOT BE RECOGNIZED BY THE (CONSTITUTIONAL SECURITY FORCE) (it is our GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS one not granted by any government)

...

9) You must be willing to supply your own ammunition, ( reloaded ammunition will not be accepted)

...

http://www.chiefkessler.com/index.php/csf-information/mission-statement

Girls Of CSF Calander

for information on modeling for our calendar please email us at

chiefmarkkessler@gmail.com

http://www.chiefkessler.com/index.php/equpiment/gils-of-csf-callander

Welcome to CSF / Welcome to Constitution Security Force Forum
« on: April 27, 2013, 08:49:50 PM »

i would like the welcome each and every one of you to Constitutional Security Force ( CSF ) forum we are a friendly forum that like chilling with friends and shooting some rounds.

This forum was started because CSF founder Chief Mark Kessler keeps getting deleted off Facebook so we took the liberty to give him a place that he can talk do and or say anything he wants and will not be punished


please bare with us as the forum is brand new and i am aware that it needs work so if you have any suggestions please leave them in the suggestion area
http://chiefkessler.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0


cosmetics and bells and whistles are still to come

http://chiefkessler.com/forum/index.php?topic=2.msg2#msg2

Why US v Blewett is the Obama Justice Department's greatest shame
Explain the paradox that the US still jails thousands of African Americans on sentences it admits were unfair? It can't be done

Alec Karakatsanis
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 23 July 2013 11.44 EDT

The differential treatment of crack cocaine and powder cocaine by America's criminal "justice" system has been exposed as discriminatory and admitted to be unfair. Yet, the secret nightmare continues for thousands of African Americans still in prison for crack cocaine offenses, while people convicted of powder cocaine offenses – the majority of whom are white or Hispanic – have served far shorter sentences. Even as the US government has reformed the injustice of punitive sentencing for crack, it has doubled down on the injustice for those imprisoned before the reforms.

I'll never forget the first time I had to explain federal crack cocaine laws to a client. I was 25 years old, fresh out of law school, and working as a public defender in Alabama. I had come to the local jail, where my client was being held in a 6ft x 8ft cell with three other men and no access to fresh air or to a single window.

My client thought he would be released from jail and home with his family after our first appearance in court. Instead, I told him, the tiny bag of crack cocaine that police had found in his car – less than half the size of a ping-pong ball – meant that he would likely spend the next five to 40 years in prison.

Last month, President Obama quietly did something that should shake every American to the core. Seeking to enforce federal crack cocaine laws that have since been repealed, the Obama administration asked a federal appeals court to ensure that thousands of human beings, mostly poor and mostly black, remain locked in prison – even though everyone agrees that there is no justification for them to be there.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/us-v-blewett-obama-justice-department-shame

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 13a0141p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CORNELIUS DEMORRIS BLEWETT(12-5226)
and JARREOUS JAMONE BLEWITT(12-5582),
Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 12-5226/5582
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green.
No. 1:04-cr-36—Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief District Judge.

Decided and Filed: May 17, 2013

Before: MERRITT, MARTIN, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

...

[hr]
Page 16

...

IV. Conclusion

The old crack cocaine statutory minimums are racially discriminatory as the
legislative history of the Fair Sentencing Act makes clear, as the Dorsey case states, and

[hr]
Page 17

as the Sentencing Commission reports to Congress advise. Perpetuation of such racially
discriminatory sentences by federal courts is unconstitutional and therefore the
sentencing guidelines must be interpreted to eliminate such a result. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded for the resentencing of plaintiffs
in accordance with this opinion.

...

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0141p-06.pdf

12-5226/12-5582

IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

v.

CORNELIUS BLEWETT
JARREOUS BLEWITT
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

___________________________________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE JOSEPH H. McKINLEY, JR.

___________________________________________

UNITED STATES’ PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

...

Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 14

...

ARGUMENT
I. The Majority Opinion is Seriously Flawed.
The majority’s holding is legally in correct, in conflict with prior Sixth
Circuit decisions, in conflict with the law of every other circuit, and inconsistent
with Dorsey. Moreover, the effect of the decision will be widespread if it is
allowed to stand. The panel majority’s core reasoning is seriously flawed in
multiple respects, but two central errors highlight the need for en banc
consideration.

A. No Equal Protection Clause Violation Can Exist Without
Discriminatory Intent.

The majority believed that the FSA must be interpreted to apply
retroactively to already-final sentences in order to avoid a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause. The panel conceded that “when the old 100-to-1 crack cocaine
statute was adopted [in 1986] it presumably did not violate the Equal Protection

9
[hr]

Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 15

Clause because there was no intent or design to discriminate on a racial basis.”
Blewett, slip op. at 8. But the majority believed that, with current knowledge of
the racially discriminatory impact of the 100:1 ratio, construing the FSA not to
apply to final sentences would amount to intentional discrimination. See ibid.
(“Like slavery and Jim Crow laws, the intentional maintenance of discriminatory
sentences is a denial of equal protection.”). That analysis overlooks that a decision
not to apply the FSA retroactively would violate equal protection only if the
purpose of such a decision was itself discriminatory. Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442
U.S. 256 (1979), cited by the majority, makes that clear: “Discriminatory
purpose,” the Court said, “implies more than intent as volition or intent as
awareness of consequences. It implies that the decision maker, in this case a state
legislature, selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part
because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.”
Id. at 279 (citation, footnotes, and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis
added). No evidence suggests that Congress drew the line for the application of
the FSA at post-enactment sentencings, thereby leaving final sentences
undisturbed, for the purpose of perpetuating racially disparate effects. Rather, the
purpose of the FSA was to eradicate the unfairness of the 100:1 ratio in cases going
forward, while respecting finality interests in already-sentenced cases (where the
costs and disruption associated with resentencing are substantial). See United

10
[hr]

Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 16

States v. Bigesby, 685 F. 3d 1060, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (rejecting argument “that
not giving the FSA retroactive effect raises equal-protection concerns,” because
“any such concerns are resolved by Congress’ rational basis for limiting the FSA’s
retroactive effect—its ‘interest in the finality of sentences.’”) (quoting Johnson v.
United States, 544 U.S. 295, 309 (2005)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 981 (2013).

Background principles of federal sentencing law, on which the Supreme
Court relied in Dorsey, draw the same line. Dorsey ascribed significance to the
“background principle” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii) that a sentencing court
uses the law in effect on the date of sentencing, 132 S. Ct. at 2332-33, while
recognizing that applying the “new minimums to pre-Act offenders sentenced after
August 3 will create a new set of disparities,” i.e., with defendants sentenced
earlier. Id. at 2335. But the Court was untroubled by those disparities because
they reflected a “line-drawing effort” that is inevitable “whenever Congress enacts
a new law changing sentences (unless Congress intends re-opening sentencing
proceedings concluded prior to a new law’s effective date).” Ibid. Dorsey gave no
hint that it perceived any congressional intent to reopen final sentences; to the
contrary, the Court’s analysis presupposes that such sentences remain undisturbed.
The legislative decision to limit the retroactive effect of an ameliorative law, in
order to avoid disruption to final sentences, is thus not a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause. And for the courts to apply the law as Congress wrote it, and

11
[hr]

Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 17

not to overturn sentences without legal authority to do so, implicates no
discriminatory judicial purpose. The majority’s reliance (Blewett, slip op. at 10-
11) on cases such as Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is entirely misplaced.
A court does not give effect to “[p]rivate biases,” or biases of any kind, by
adhering to statutory limitations on the reach of a remedial sentencing law.
Accordingly, the majority’s “constitutional avoidance” rationale rests on a non-
existent equal-protection problem.

B. The Sentencing Commission Cannot Alter Statutory Sentencing
Direction Enacted By Congress.

The majority held, purportedly as an independent basis for its decision, that
the Sentencing Commission’s lowering of the crack guidelines and its decision to
make those changes retroactive somehow authorizes courts to disregard the
mandatory minimum sentences. In the court’s view, because the mandatory
minimum brackets are interwoven into the Guidelines and incorporated into them,
“[t]he new minimums ordered by the Fair Sentencing Act to be incorporated into
the guidelines are no longer ‘statutory’ only,” but are “just as much a part of the
retroactive guidelines as other guidelines.” Blewett, slip op. at 13-14. It is true
that the new 18:1 ratio in the FSA formed the basis for the Commission’s new
crack guidelines—“[t]he Fair Sentencing Act . . . required the Commission to write
new Guidelines consistent with the new law”— and that in order to function
harmoniously, both the mandatory minimums and the guidelines must reflect the

12
[hr]

Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 18

same ratio—“[A]pplication of the 1986 Drug Act’s minimums to pre-Act offenders
sentenced after the new Guidelines take effect would produce a crazy quilt of
sentences, at odds with Congress’ basic efforts to achieve more uniform, more
proportionate sentences.” See Dorsey, 132 S. Ct. at 2334-35. But the mandatory-
minimum provisions establish a statutory constraint that falls well outside the
Commission’s power to control. The Sentencing Commission cannot, by making
the new crack guidelines retroactive, alter a statutory sentencing direction enacted
by Congress and addressed to sentencing courts. Cf. Kimbrough v. United States,
552 U.S. 85, 107 (2007).

The Sentencing Commission recognized this point, both in amending USSG
§1B1.10 to authorize retroactive application of the reduced post-FSA crack
guidelines and in the accompanying statements announcing that change. As the
Sentencing Commission said in its press release on making the crack guidelines
retroactive:

The Commission’s vote to give retroactive application to the proposed
amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines does not give
retroactive effect to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Only Congress
can make a statute retroactive. Many crack offenders will still be
required under federal law to serve mandatory five- or 10-year
sentences because of the amount of crack cocaine involved in their
offenses.

http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Newsroom/Press_Releases/20110630_Press_Release.pdf. The Commission’s Federal Register notice was

13
[hr]

Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 19

equally emphatic: the Commission did not assert authority to make the FSA’s
statutory changes retroactive, but recognized that the issue lay beyond its grasp:
“It is important to note that the inclusion of [the post-FSA crack guidelines] in
§1B1.10(c) only allows the guideline changes to be considered for retroactive
application; it does not make any of the statutory changes in the Fair Sentencing
Act of 2010 retroactive.” http://www.ussc.gov/Legal/Federal_Register_Notices/20110707_FR_Amendment_on_Retroactivity.pdf.

The Commission’s amended retroactivity policy statement, which governs
motions to reduce sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and “bind[s] the courts”
(see Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691, 2693 (2010)), echoes the
recognition that mandatory-minimum provisions remain applicable. Section
1B1.10 provides: “[A] reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not
authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with this policy
statement if . . . the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the
defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another
guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment).” USSG §1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)). The majority rejected the
United States’ reliance on that provision, concluding that the Commission’s
reference to a “statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment,” which
operates as a hard stop on a sentencing reduction motion, was ambiguous—it

14
[hr]

Case: 12-5226 Document: 006111708324 Filed: 05/31/2013 Page: 20

could, the majority thought, refer to the “new, more lenient ones,” rather than the
“old, discriminatory minimums.” Blewett, slip op. at 16. Quite apart from the
bootstrapping inherent in the majority’s reasoning (it assumes what it needs to
prove, i.e., that the Commission could alter the mandatory minimum provisions by
substituting the FSA thresholds for the prior thresholds), the Commission plainly
had no such intention. It believed (correctly) that its authority to apply a reduced
guidelines range retroactively gave it no power to apply a reduced statutory range
retroactively.

CONCLUSION
This Court should grant the United States’ petition for rehearing en banc,
vacate the panel’s opinion, and affirm the district court’s orders below.

...

http://sentencing.typepad.com/files/blewett_petition-for-rehearing.pdf

Head-to-Head with PhRMA on transparency in the BMJ
July 12th, 2013 by Ben Goldacre

This week in the BMJ there’s a head-to-head on trials transparency between me and PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry representative body in the US. My article is here, PhRMA’s is here, both articles are open access for one week (since it was press released, them’s the rules at the BMJ…) but mine is open access forever, I think, on this link.

The article from PhRMA is remarkable. Firstly, they imply that people like me, who call for all trial results to be reported, also somehow call for the reckless disclosure of individual patients’ electronic health records online. This is untrue.

More disturbing is PhRMA’s suggestion that the problem has already been fixed. For example, John Castellani says that “information on clinical trials for potential new medicines is already required by US law to be posted on ClinicalTrials.gov“. As I explain in my piece, the best available published evidence on compliance with this law comes from Prayle et al, BMJ 2012: in reality, the legislation here has been very widely ignored.

We need to fix the problem of withheld results. Doctors (and patients, and researchers, and payers, and the public) need access to all the results, of all the trials, on all the uses, of all the treatments currently being prescribed, in order to make informed decisions about which is best.

...

http://www.badscience.net/2013/07/head-to-head-with-phrma-on-transparency-in-the-bmj/

Head to Head

Are clinical trial data shared sufficiently today? Yes
BMJ 2013; 347 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1881 (Published 9 July 2013)
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f1881

John Castellani, president and chief executive officer, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
Contact via Matthew Bennett: MBennett@phrma.org

...

Mandatory public disclosure of intellectual property, confidential commercial information, and proprietary scientific methods found in clinical trials could stifle discovery and open the possibility of competitors or unscrupulous actors using the information for their own products in other markets or countries. Without appropriate protection for intellectual property to incentivize the enormous investment risk involved, biopharmaceutical companies will be discouraged from investing in the next generation of new medicines, leading to patients and physicians being deprived of innovative therapies to tackle the serious and life threatening diseases of the 21st century.

...

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f1881

Linguist Finds a Language in Its Infancy

By NICHOLAS BAKALAR
Published: July 14, 2013

There are many dying languages in the world. But at least one has recently been born, created by children living in a remote village in northern Australia.

Carmel O’Shannessy, a linguist at the University of Michigan, has been studying the young people’s speech for more than a decade and has concluded that they speak neither a dialect nor the mixture of languages called a creole, but a new language with unique grammatical rules.

The language, called Warlpiri rampaku, or Light Warlpiri, is spoken only by people under 35 in Lajamanu, an isolated village of about 700 people in Australia’s Northern Territory. In all, about 350 people speak the language as their native tongue. Dr. O’Shannessy has published several studies of Light Warlpiri, the most recent in the June issue of Language.

“Many of the first speakers of this language are still alive,” said Mary Laughren, a research fellow in linguistics at the University of Queensland in Australia, who was not involved in the studies. One reason Dr. O’Shannessy’s research is so significant, she said, “is that she has been able to record and document a ‘new’ language in the very early period of its existence.”

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/science/linguist-finds-a-language-in-its-infancy.html?src=me&ref=general

Warlpiri

WALS coordinates: 20° S, 132° 20? E

spoken in Australia

Find examples here.

Alternative Names

Ethnologue: Warlpiri

Ruhlen: Warlpiri

Routledge:

Other: Walbiri, Waljbiri

ISO 639-3: wbp (article in Wikipedia)

...

http://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_wrl

Kriol (Ngukurr)

WALS coordinates: 14° 50? S, 135° E

spoken in Australia

Find examples here.

Alternative Names

Ethnologue: Kriol

Ruhlen: Roper River Creole

Routledge:

Other: Kriol (Roper River), Roper River Kriol, Ngukurr Kriol

ISO 639-3: rop (article in Wikipedia)

...

http://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_knq

The role of multiple sources in the formation of an innovative auxiliary category in Light Warlpiri, a new Australian mixed language
Carmel O'Shannessy

From: Language
Volume 89, Number 2, June 2013
pp. 328-353 | 10.1353/lan.2013.0025


Abstract:

Light Warlpiri, a new Australian mixed language combining Warlpiri (Pama-Nyungan) with varieties of English and/or Kriol that has emerged within approximately the last thirty-five years, shows radical restructuring of the verbal auxiliary system, including modal categories that differ from those in the source languages. The structure of Light Warlpiri overall is that of a mixed language, in that most verbs and some verbal morphology are drawn from English and/or Kriol, and most nominal morphology is from Warlpiri. Nouns are drawn from both Warlpiri-lexicon and English-lexicon sources. The restructuring of the auxiliary system draws selectively on elements from Warlpiri and several varieties and styles of English and/or Kriol, combined in such a way as to produce novel constructions. It may be that when multiple sources provide input to a rapidly emerging new system, innovative categories are likely to appear.

...

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/language/v089/89.2.o-shannessy.pdf

Department of Linguistics, University of Michigan
Carmel O'Shannessy

...

Listen to a child telling "The Monster Story" in Warlpiri.
Listen to a child telling "The Monster Story" in Light Warlpiri and another here.

Watch a report about how children speak Warlpiri in Lajamanu / Nyirrpi / Willowra / Yuendumu.

...

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~carmelos/

October 14, 2011
Implicit Statement by the President


The death of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not a tragedy. Not for his father whom we have already duly executed, not for his grandfather who has no legal standing, and not for America's citizens who have been protected. Visceral, emotional reactions must be dismissed for we are a nation of laws, and this act has kept America strong. I now ask every American to calmly reflect and understand that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki should have had a more responsible father. And as this need for responsibility is understood, we should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to expand our circle of compassion and to stem the tide of violence in the world community. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can best forestall future terrorism. As citizens, that is a job for all of us - a job that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki badly shirked.

July 14, 2013
Statement by the President

The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/14/statement-president

Obama's Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen



(The reporter's question starts at time index 1:57.)

...

Reporter (at time index 2:03) : "Do you think that the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son who is an American citizen is justifiable?"

...

Reporter: "His son was still an American citizen."

...

Reporter: "That's an American citizen that's being targeted without due process of law - without trial and he's underage. He's a minor."

Robert Gibbs (at time index 2:38) : "I would suggest that you...uh...should have a far more responsible father. If they're...uh...truly concerned about the well-being of their children.... uh...I don't think becoming an...an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way...uh...to go about doing your business."

May 23, 2013, 11:47 AM

The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama
by Tom Junod - Esquire

Sure, we as a nation have always killed people. A lot of people. But no president has ever waged war by killing enemies one by one, targeting them individually for execution, wherever they are. The Obama administration has taken pains to tell us, over and over again, that they are careful, scrupulous of our laws, and determined to avoid the loss of collateral, innocent lives. They're careful because when it comes to waging war on individuals, the distinction between war and murder becomes a fine one. Especially when, on occasion, the individuals we target are Americans and when, in one instance, the collateral damage was an American boy.

...

http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812

For Obama's Lethal Presidency, New Suit Aims at Justice
By Tom Junod at 9:58AM

It was a pre-emptive strike against a pre-emptive strike.

When Nasser al-Awlaki found out in early 2010 that his American-born son Anwar was on American kill list, he responded in a very American way: He sued. "I used every legal means possible to stop the killing of my son," he said in an interview this past spring. Snd (sic) so — despite the notoriety of Anwar al-Awlaki and the success of Anwar al-Awlaki in inspiring terrorist attacks against the United States — he contacted the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, and they eventually filed a suit that attempted to enjoin the Obama Administration from carrying out its plans to kill him before he could carry out his alleged plans to kill Americans.

Nasser al-Awlaki did not win. Legal pre-emption was no match for the policy of lethal pre-emption. A federal judge ruled in December 2010 that despite the "profound questions" raised by the lawsuit, the father lacked the legal standing to sue on behalf of his son, and that the policy of targeted killing was a political issue outside the purview of the court. The hunt for Anwar al-Awlaki proceeded apace, and he was executed, by drone, on September 30, 2011, in the mountains of Yemen.

...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/aclu-drone-lawsuit-10785942