close X
12/7/2017

Inside NOAA’s Secret Staff Newsletter

Imagine being a New England fisherman.  You’re subject to complex and burdensome regulation, and the federal government isn’t exactly helping to keep your way of life afloat.  In fact, its officials have worked increasingly to limit your ability to catch fish and to impose onerous costs on your continued livelihood.  Take, for example, the legally dubious requirement that groundfish sector members pay up to $700 per day to have “at-sea monitors” ride their boats and watch them fish—a scheme that could put 60% of small-scale fishermen out of business.  Consider also the efforts underway to expand industry-funded monitoring to all other regional fisheries.

If oppressive regulation weren’t enough, now picture these same officials publishing a secret internal newsletter that describes their dealings with you and your fellow fishermen in less-than-flattering terms.  Sadly, this isn’t a hypothetical situation.  According to records obtained by Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) from whistleblowers and under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) employees in the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office have long circulated a paper that often contains their candid feelings towards the fishermen with whom they are supposed to collaborate.

In one article, dated June 29, 2010, Port Agent Victor Vecchio, who works in the “Stakeholder Engagement Division,” described fishermen at a “groundfish outreach meeting” as spreading “various conspiracy theories,” at least until they “ran out of steam (or vodka . . . or whatever).”

Figure 1: Vic Vecchio, “Groundfish Outreach Meeting–Montauk, NY 6/29/2010,” Fathoms (July 2, 2010)

In response to an October 17, 2017 FOIA request, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a complete copy of its April 1-15, 2017 issue of Fathoms, which was heavily redacted to “protect” confidential commercial information.  The range of topics covered in the paper include news about enforcement actions, in-season events (such as the opening of the recreational fishery), the impact of weather patterns on fishing activity, and even scientific developments.  Much of this appears benign and, indeed, informative.  But, as expected, the issue also discusses the industry’s frustration with planned regulatory actions.  The entire content of that article was conspicuously redacted.

In addition to filling a follow-up request for all issues of Fathoms from December 2015 to the present, CoA Institute has filed an administrative appeal challenging NOAA’s heavy-handed redactions.  Exemption 4, which protects confidential commercial information, does not typically apply to government-generated information.  More importantly, the sort of information contained in Fathoms could hardly be described as “confidential” because it would neither impair NOAA’s ability to obtain information from fishermen in the future nor cause a competitive disadvantage to any part of the fishing industry.

It seems instead that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is hiding behind an exemption designed to protect businesses in order to actually keep secret its criticism of businesses.  CoA Institute’s staff attorneys have spoken to a number of fishermen who are completely unaware of the existence of Fathoms.  Given the derision they likely receive in its pages, they are unlikely to be too pleased by efforts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to block disclosure.

NOAA’s shenanigans don’t end there.  Another record disclosed to CoA Institute suggests that there’s a second internal digest—Dock Buzz—that could similarly provide insight into the government’s relationship with the New England fishing industry.  CoA Institute also continues to investigate NOAA’s likely violation of federal records management laws in failing to preserve employee Google Chat/Google Hangout records.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
12/7/2017

The Unintended Consequences of Mandatory Minimums

This blog post will re-examine the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (SRCA) and focus on mandatory minimums. For the purposes of this blog post, “mandatory minimums” refers to “when a person convicted of a crime must be imprisoned for a minimum term, as opposed to leaving the length of punishment up to judges.”[1] “Mandatory minimum sentencing forces judges to deliver fixed sentences to individuals convicted of a crime, regardless of culpability or other mitigating factors.”[2]

Although originally intended for violent offenders, mandatory minimums now impact non-violent offenders as well.[3] Mandatory minimums are often excessive and unjust, but this is not new.  In 1994, Congress created a “safety valve” for those offenders “who most warrant proportionally lower sentences” and “are least culpable”.[4] The safety valve allows federal judges to go below an otherwise applicable mandatory minimum sentence in low-level drug cases (“essentially non-violent, first time offenders.”)[5] If signed into law, the SRCA will go beyond the 1994 safety valve and reduce penalties for those who are non-violent repeat offenders. Further, under SRCA, federal judges will also gain discretion in the cases of low-level offenders below the 10-year mandatory minimum, and in sentencing those individuals who possess a firearm illegally, provided that the firearm was not brandished or discharged in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking.[6]

Earlier this year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a memorandum on sentencing guidelines that is inconsistent with the goals of the 1994 safety valve and the proposed SRCA. These sentencing guidelines instruct federal prosecutors to “charge and pursue the most serious readily provable offense”—claiming that this method “affirms…responsibility to enforce the law, is moral and just, and produces consistency.”[7] In the memorandum, Sessions goes on to say, “the most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences”[8]

Despite the influence of the Sessions memo, some of the federal judges (who enforce these mandatory minimums) are speaking out about the grave injustice mandatory minimums are creating. In an interview with Rachel Martin of NPR, Federal Judge Mark Bennett addressed the “consistency claim” suggested by Sessions’ memo by saying “mandatory minimums support unwarranted uniformity by treating everyone alike even though their situations are dramatically different.”[9] In the same interview, Bennett said “mandatory minimums are so incredibly harsh and they’re triggered by such low levels of drugs that they snare at the non-violent, low-level addicts…”[10] According to Judge Bennett, about 80% of the cases involving mandatory minimums are unfair.[11]

One case where Judge Bennett felt the mandatory minimum was too harsh involved 28-year-old Mark Paul Weller. In 2015, Judge Bennett issued a ten-year sentence in response to Mr. Weller’s guilty plea to two counts of distributing methamphetamine (“meth”) in his home town.[12] While Weller did have a brief criminal history, he had made significant efforts to improve his life.[13] Unfortunately, with an unexpected, emotional life event, he turned to drugs and alcohol.[14] This downward spiral led Weller to eventually sell meth.[15] Over the course of eight months, Weller had sold 2.5 kilograms of meth across state lines.[16] Weller had traded meth for his sister’s rent, a used car, gas money, and even an unregistered SKS rifle.[17] The unregistered rifle was still in the car when he was pulled over with 223 grams of meth.[18]

“Weller was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture which contained 50 grams or more of pure methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, and distributing 50 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture which contained 5 grams or more of pure methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B).”[19]

Because of Weller’s guilty plea to these charges, his mandatory minimum established by Congress was 10 years. Sadly, his entire sentence involved only the calculation of the following factors: victim impact, criminal history, cost of imprisonment, and the guideline sentence. The answers to this calculation were as follows:  no identifiable victim, minimal criminal history, $2,440.97 per month of imprisonment, and a suggested sentence of 151-188 months.

After sentencing Weller to 120 months, Bennett considered the result of this punishment: “one more nonviolent offender packed into an overcrowded prison; another $300,000 in government money spent.” “I would have given him a year in rehab if I could…How does 10 years make anything better? What good are we doing?” Judge Bennett noted, there were many mitigating factors in Mr. Weller’s case, like neglect and abuse by his mother, addiction, and remorse. Yet, even after consideration of those mitigating factors, he was forced to give Mr. Weller the 10-year sentence. Judge Bennett had absolutely no power to shorten or change the sentence type, i.e.: rehab instead of prison.[20], [21]

If passed, SRCA would scale back police and prosecutor power by restoring the use of judicial discretion.

Katie Parr is a law clerk at Cause of Action Institute.

 

[1] U.S. Legal, https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mandatory-minimum-sentencing/

[2] See Id.

[3] See 4, Erik Luna, Reforming Criminal Justice, Punishment, Incarceration and Release, Mandatory Minimums, 2017, at 126.

[4] Id. at 122.

[5] Id.

[6] Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2017, S.1917, 115th Cong. (1st Sess. 2017)

[7]  Memorandum from Jefferson B. Sessions, Att’y Gem., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to All Federal Prosecutors, Department Charging and Sentencing Policy 1 (May 10, 2017).

[8] Id.

[9] A Federal Judge Says Mandatory Minimums Don’t Fit The Crime, Rachel Martin, NPR (June 1, 2017), https://www.npr.org/2017/06/01/531004316/a-federal-judge-says-mandatory-minimum-sentences-often-dont-fit-the-crime

[10] Id.

[11] Mallory Simon, Sara Sidner, The judge who says he’s part of the gravest injustice in America, CNN, updated: (June 3, 2017).

[12] Against His Better Judgment, Eli Saslow, The Washington Post (June 6, 2017) http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/06/06/against-his-better-judgment/?utm_term=.0adf2f2f412d

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Weller v. United States of America, No. CR-14-4059-1-MWB, 2015 U.S. Dist.

[20] See Luna supra, note 12 at 2.

[21] In addition to unfair sentencing, mandatory minimums may also help to maintain job security for prison guards. Some prison guard unions have sponsored and lobbied for harsher sentencing laws. supra note 3 at 131, at 1.

 

Media, Blog Learn More
12/6/2017

SCOTUS Oral Arguments Rundown: Marinello v. United States

Today the Supreme Court heard argument in Marinello v. United States No. 16-1144.  As we’ve noted before here and at the Federalist Society blog this case considers what level of knowledge a tax payer has to have to be subject to the omnibus felony penalties of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) .  Petitioner (Marinello) was represented by Matthew S. Hellman, Esq. and the government by Robert Parker.  From my perch, the Court showed enormous skepticism towards the Government’s position that virtually any act or omission, no matter how slight, could subject one to felony conviction, even though the particular tax code penalties for those actions are misdemeanors.  Justice Sottomayor, an active questioner in this case, seemed open to the view that the Government’s case was overcriminalizing acts that Congress had set out lesser penalties for but she seemed equally hesitant to adopt Petitioner’s solution-there can be no “corrupt” obstruction without knowledge by the Defendant that there is an IRS investigation.  She and Justice Gorsuch teamed up to offer Petitioner another way out, that there must be some affirmative interaction with the IRS.  Mr. Hellman appeared to resist this at first but, upon reflection, and most clearly in rebuttal, stated such a ruling would be acceptable (while continuing to press Petitioner’s view).

The Justices, including Justice Kagan, seemed troubled by the Petitioner’s proposed “fix” of the Government’s overreach on the statute because they could not square it with the text of Section 7212(a).  Even so, Justice Kagan, unprompted, called the statute “ungodly borad.”  Justices Breyer, Alito and Roberts, pressed the Government on the danger of common behaviors, such as using cash, that could become felonies under the Government’s construction.  Justice Breyer was concerned that paying a gardener or snow shoveler in cash could be felonious.  Justice Alito posited that a lower price for services if cash was paid is “known” to be for the purposes of not reporting income, and Justice Kagan agreed.  (This universal interpretation among the Justices is belied by what a small business owner once told me “Cash don’t bounce.”).  Justice Gorsuch took issue with the IRS position that it is a “brooding omnipresence” always collecting taxes and so a taxpayer should know throwing out receipts or keeping sloppy records will, as Justice Alito noted “impede” the IRS in administering the tax code.

Mr. Parker for the Government attempted to convince the Justices that the IRS and the Government were circumspect in the use of the omnibus provision.  Justice Kagan pounced.  Attorney General Sessions has famously issued a directive that the Justice Department charge the highest crime, with the most penalties possible in every case.  Mr. Parker’s attempt to lean on prosecutorial discretion was undermined as he had to admit the Justice Department policy to both Justices Kagan and Roberts who were concerned about it and obviously eager to make sure that policy was in the record and admitted by the Government.  Justice Ginsberg, whose late husband, Martin was a tax Professor at Georgetown, worried that any code violation could be charged as being done corruptly and thus subject to the extra three-year penalty and felony conviction.  Justices Gorsuch posited that the statutory language seemed to point to having to “corruptly” impede something other than just make the IRS’s job harder somewhere someday.  Justice Breyer insisted the Government agree with his definition of the mens rea requirement, which Mr. Parker eventually gamely did.

Upon rebuttal Petitioner made clear his position that any cabining of the statute the Court arrived at that recognized Mr. Marinello’s actions did not fall within the statute would be acceptable to Petitioner.  He and Justice Gorsuch agreed that “a win’s a win.”  Having picked up the signal from the Chief and Justice Kagan, Mr. Hellman finished noting that whether not giving everything to your accountant, using cash or keeping meticulous records would be criminalized rested on prosecutorial discretion that was obviated by the Justice Department’s “charge the highest crime” mandate.

At least from oral argument it appears the Government’s overbroad interpretation of the statute and its play for unrestrained prosecutorial power regarding it, is likely to doom its case despite a well-argued defense of that policy.  It also appears that the bright line rule that Marinello sought (and that we also pressed in our amicus) does not have the full support of the Court.  Nonetheless, today in this case it was a good day to be the Petitioner.

To learn more about this case, watch the short SCOTUSbrief video below, via The Federalist Society

John J. Vecchione is president and CEO at Cause of Action Institute, amicus

 

Media, Blog Learn More
12/6/2017

CoA Institute Investigates CFPB’s ‘Dumbledore Army’ Using Encrypted Messaging Apps to Thwart Transparency

Washington D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) today filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request after media reports identified a number of career employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) who use encrypted messaging apps to communicate about ways to resist changes under newly Trump-appointed acting director Mick Mulvaney. The group reportedly refers to itself as Dumbledore’s Army, a nod to a fictional resistance movement in the Harry Potter novels.

CoA Institute Counsel Eric Bolinder: “A number of CFPB employees are reportedly using encrypted apps on their phones to evade transparency laws and conceal their communications from oversight. Under the Federal Records Act, the CFPB has a legal obligation to preserve all records made by employees working on official government business. Congress and the public have a right to know if federal employees are intentionally evading transparency in order to resist changes under CFPB’s new leadership.”

A December 5, 2017 article by the New York Times reported that CFPB employees are communicating among themselves using encrypted messaging applications:

An atmosphere of intense anxiety has taken hold, several employees said. In some cases, conversations between staff that used to take place by phone or text now happen almost exclusively in person or through encrypted messaging apps.

It is unknown whether these employees discuss work-related issues using their CFPB-issued or personal devices. Under the Federal Records Act, the CFPB has a legal obligation to preserve records evidencing employees working on government business, no matter the medium of their communication.

CoA Institute’s FOIA seeks all records reflecting the number of CFPB devices on which encrypted messaging applications were installed, internal policy guidelines on the use of such apps, as well as the communications themselves and efforts by CFPB to recover and archive these messages. The FOIA also specifically requests all communications that contain the words “Dumbledore,” “Dumbledore’s Army,” “Snape,” “Voldemort,” and “He-who-shall-not-be-named,” among other records.

The full FOIA can be found here.

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications at CoA Institute: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org.

Media, Press Release Learn More
11/29/2017

Inaccessible Criminal Codes and Their Domino Effects

On October 4, 2017, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2017 (“SRCA”) was reintroduced in the Senate with bipartisan support. A version of the bill was first introduced in the Senate in October of 2015, but never received a vote. If signed into law, SRCA would reduce and restrict enhanced penalties for non-violent repeat drug offenders and eliminate the so-called “three-strike” mandatory life provision. SRCA also would apply to pending cases, “where the offense was committed before the date of enactment of this Act,” if a sentence has not been imposed as of the date of enactment,[1] and, would apply to past cases where, before the date of enactment, the defendant “was convicted of an offense for which the penalty is amended…and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the offense.”[2] Imprisonment terms may be reduced only if, “the defendant has not been convicted of any serious violent felony, and the sentencing court, after considering the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person, the community, or any crime victims, and the post sentencing conduct of the defendant, finds a reduction is consistent with SRCA and its amendments.”[3] This bill would also provide judicial discretion in the sentencing of certain low-level offenders below the 10-year mandatory minimum.[4]

The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act is just the beginning of a much-needed conversation regarding reform of the criminal justice system. This post, the first in a series of posts on criminal justice reform, will focus on overcriminalization. For the purposes of this blog post, “overcriminalization,” means “the act of imposing unbalanced penalties with no relation to the gravity of the offense committed or the culpability of the wrong doer. It is the imposition of excessive punishment or sentences without adequate justification.”[5]

Over the past forty years, America has seen a dramatic increase in duplicative federal criminal laws.[6] While many have sought to enumerate federal crimes, the exact count remains unknown.[7] One estimate suggests that there are more than 4,000 federal criminal statutes.[8] Many of these statutes, include mandatory minimums.[9] With the use of mandatory minimums on the rise, the federal prison population has increased tenfold and the average federal sentence more than doubled since 1980.[10] The effects of overcriminalization do not end with the criminal code and excessive mandatory minimums; as many as 300,000 regulatory offenses now have criminal penalties that include prison time.[11]

If SRCA is signed into law, then the Attorney General will be required to submit a comprehensive list of “all criminal statutory offenses” to Congress, within one year.[12] Such a list will be the first of many tools available to begin reining in the ever-expanding criminal code and regulatory offenses.

Overcriminalization does not just affect those who end up behind bars, but also those who are unreasonably prosecuted. A few examples:

  • Bobby Unser, retired racecar driver was prosecuted by federal authorities for driving his snowmobile on protected federal land. Unser and a friend got lost during a snowstorm and were seeking shelter or assistance.[13]
  • In a Ft. Lauderdale park, members of a Christian outreach group were arrested and prosecuted for feeding the homeless. Local rules restricted food sharing.[14]
  • Christian Stanfield, who suffers from ADHD and was a victim of extreme bullying at South Fayette High School, PA, was charged with disorderly conduct under a wiretapping statute, because he recorded the abuse and went to school officials. Charges were eventually dropped.[15]

As these examples show, current application of criminal statutes reaches even the most innocent and sympathetic of “offenders.” Surely the statutes that produced these prosecutions were not intended to criminalize self-protection or charitable acts, and yet they did.[16],[17]

Overcriminalization needs to be stopped and reversed. Legislation like the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act is a good first step.

Katie Parr is law clerk at Cause of Action Institute.

[1] Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2017, S.1917, 115th Cong. (1st Sess. 2017)

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] U.S. Legal, https://definitions.uslegal.com/o/over-criminalization/

[6] Cato Institute, Cato Handbook for Policymakers, Chapter 17, Overcriminalization, 8th ed. 2017.

[7] See Ilya Shapiro, Not Everything Can Be a Federal Crime, Cato Institute (March 8, 2012), https://www.cato.org/blog/not-everything-can-be-federal-crime

[8] Overcriminalization, Right on Crime, http://rightoncrime.com/category/priority-issues/overcriminalization/

[9] FAMM, What are Mandatory Minimums?, http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chart-All-Fed-MMs-NW.pdf

[10] See 4, Erik Luna, Reforming Criminal Justice, Punishment, Incarceration and Release, Mandatory Minimums, 2017, at 137.

[11] Supra note 6 at 1.

[12] Supra note 1, at 1.

[13] Cato, supra note 4 at 1.

[14] Id.

[15] Sasha Goldstein, Criminal charge dropped against Pennsylvania bullying victim with learning disability who recorded his abusers, New York Daily News (April 14, 2014), http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/charge-dropped-penn-bullying-victim-recorded-abusers-article-1.1760448

[16] Luna, supra note 5 at 133.

[17] With overcriminalization on the rise, the potential for undercriminalization may also rise. As Douglas Husak put it, “some conduct that should not incur penal liability will be subject to it, and some conduct that should incur penal liability will not be subject to it.” 1, Douglas Husak, Reforming Criminal Justice, Introduction and Criminalization, Overcriminalization, 2017, at 28.

Media, Blog Learn More
11/28/2017

DC courts are becoming the place to muzzle scientists (Washington Examiner)

DC courts are becoming the place to muzzle scientists

by John McGlothlin | Nov 22, 2017, 12:01 AM

Science is mostly known for groundbreaking discoveries, quirky characters, and complicated theories. But there is another tradition which has long been part of the field — scientists being incredibly mean to each other.

Few professions are as inherently competitive as science, where one researcher can completely invalidate the work of another. The resulting rivalries are fierce and emotions often run high. One botanist named foul-smelling weeds after a rival who called his work “loathsome harlotry.” Another storied dispute gave rise to the epithet “disgusting old fart neoliberal hypocrite.”

These arguments are usually settled with a witty reply or more research, but a misguided decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals is now prompting scientists to file lawsuits instead. If not corrected, this mistake will pose a serious threat to scientific inquiry, free speech, and the status of the nation’s capital as a place where open debate is protected.

Read the full article at The Washington Examiner

Media, News Learn More
11/28/2017

CoA Institute Files Second Lawsuit for Records Concerning EPA Employees’ Use of Encrypted Messaging App

Washington, D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) today filed a second lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) for the failure to disclose records about an ongoing investigation into agency employees’ use of an encrypted messaging application, called “Signal.”  The records at issue—which were the subject of two Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests (here and here)—include a special report, requested by the EPA Office of Inspector General and generated by an agency contractor, which identifies the mobile applications running on most EPA-furnished devices, as well as documents concerning the agency’s continuing efforts to address allegations of wrongdoing, including the avoidance of federal records management laws.

CoA Institute Counsel Ryan Mulvey: “We now know that a small group of career EPA employees used Signal to avoid transparency.  These employees’ work-related communications—including their messages concerning any proposed efforts to thwart the new administration’s political appointees from carrying out the president’s policy agenda—should have been preserved for disclosure to the public.  Records released by the EPA, however, prove that this preservation never took place.  Now, the EPA has effectively refused to disclose any additional documents that could show how pervasive the use of Signal was and how seriously the agency has tried to rectify deficiencies in meeting its record preservation obligations.”

CoA Institute opened its investigation into the use of Signal at the beginning of the year, following media reports that suggested a select number of career officials were using the application to plan methods for obstructing the Trump administration’s incoming political leadership.  CoA Institute’s investigation was widely discussed in the press, along with Congress’s request for the EPA’s watchdog to independently investigate the matter.

Just hours after CoA Institute filed its first FOIA lawsuit, on March 23, 2017, the EPA’s Office of General Counsel acknowledged that there was, indeed, an “open law enforcement” investigation and, as a result, responsive records would have to be redacted.  The EPA ultimately reconsidered its position and, notwithstanding its active investigation, agreed to release relevant records.  Those records prompted the follow-up FOIA requests at issue in today’s lawsuit.

More information on CoA Institute’s investigation can be found here.

The full complaint can be found here.

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications at CoA Institute: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org.

Media, Press Release Learn More