Judiciary: Hearing on the History and Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Obama & Holder: The National Democratic Redistricting Committee

 The National Democratic Redistricting Committee

Former President Barack Obama highlights the damaging effects of partisan and racial gerrymandering on our democracy and calls on Americans to get engaged in the 2018 mid-term elections as it is a critical year for redistricting and restoring fairness back to elections. 

 The National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) is the centralized hub for executing a comprehensive redistricting strategy that shifts the redistricting power, creating fair districts where Democrats can compete. To learn more about what you can do to fight for fair maps alongside the NDRC, visit www.democraticredistricting.com.

(Those example districts were the 13th & 14th Congressional Districts of Michigan.)

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

U.S. Representatives Conyers, Fudge and Clay Letter to DOJ Inquiry Into Michael Brown Death, August 11, 201

U.S. Representatives Conyers, Fudge and Clay Letter to DOJ Inquiry Into Michael Brown Death, August 11, 201... by Beverly Tran

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers: GOP Needs to End Partisan Diversions and Get Back to Doing the Business of the American People

WASHINGTON – Today, Congressman John Conyers Jr. , Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, made opening remarks at the full House Judiciary Committee legislative hearing on the “IRS Targeting Scandal: The Need for a Special Counsel.” Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“Mr. Chairman, today is the last full working day before the August recess. 

“I am concerned, and deeply disappointed, by how we have chosen to spend it.

“Under federal regulations, and according to all available precedent, the appointment of special counsel is reserved for extraordinary circumstances—where a conflict of interest at the highest levels of government requires the Department of Justice to abandon its normal process of investigation and prosecution.

“Two separate congressional committees have sorted through more than half a million pages of documents, conducted 40 transcribed interviews, and held more than three-dozen hearings and markups to examine the criteria used by the IRS to screen applicants for tax-exempt status.

“The committees have not uncovered one shred of evidence to suggest that the involvement of senior officials at the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, or the White House.

“Without that evidence, calls for a special counsel are simply unwarranted.

“The Chairman has mentioned H. Res. 565, which demands that the Attorney General appoint special counsel in this matter.  Of course, as a matter of law, the Attorney General has absolute discretion to determine whether a special counsel is necessary.  Congress cannot compel him to do so.

“We might have explained this point had we maintained regular order, and discussed H. Res. 565 in this Committee prior to consideration on the House floor.

“What troubles me most about this resolution is its preamble: 8 pages of unsubstantiated claims, carefully tailored half-truths, and political innuendo.

“For example, the resolution references two anonymous sources in a January 13th Wall Street Journal article, who claim that the Department has concluded its investigation.  That claim ignores the testimony of both Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director James Comey, who assured this Committee that the investigation is ongoing.

“The resolution claims that the Department of Justice and the FBI “have refused to cooperate with congressional oversight.” 

“Of course, the Chairman knows that—under longstanding policy, applied consistently by Administrations of both parties—Congress is not entitled to materials related to an ongoing criminal investigation.  Otherwise, the Department’s attempt to accommodate our needs have been extraordinary.

“The resolution’s largest error is the same false premise underlying this hearing.  H. Res. 565 claims that the IRS “targeted conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny in connection with applications for tax-exempt status.” 

“That is partly true.  But it is a deliberate half-truth, and one that leads to the wrong conclusion.

“The record is clear: overwhelmed with applications for tax-exempt status after the Citizens United decision, the IRS created a list of search terms in an attempt to sort legitimate applicants from mere political shells. 

“Those search terms applied across the political spectrum—to Tea Party groups, but also to groups with the words “progressive” and “Occupy” in their titles.  We all agree that this approach was poorly conceived, but not a single applicant was denied tax-exempt status because of it.

“The Majority knows that this is a case of bureaucratic ineptitude, and not so-called ‘political targeting.’ They only frame it as such because it is politically expedient to do so.

“This underscores my final point. Given the long list of urgent matters pending before us, this hearing is an unacceptable misuse of our time and resources.

“The 113^th Congress has spent more than $18 million taxpayer dollars investigating the IRS.  The House has held more than three dozen hearings and markups on the topic.  We have already voted on the particular question of appointing special counsel.

           

“But we have held not one hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on comprehensive immigration reform.

“Not one hearing on legislation to update the Voting Rights Act.

“Not one hearing on much-needed reform of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.           

“Not one hearing on stemming the tide of gun violence in this country, a scourge that has claimed nearly 20,000 lives since this Congress began.

“Not one hearing on a range of local civil rights issues across the map: including police practices in New York, due process rights for minors at the Texas border, prison conditions in California, access to the ballot box in Florida, and access to drinking water and other basic utilities in Michigan.

“Any one of these topics would be appropriate for consideration today, our last full day of work before the break. 

“Instead, we will hold one more hearing—in the line of dozens of hearings—on a so-called “scandal” in which one office in the IRS bureaucracy denied zero applications for tax-exempt status.

“In terms of actually compelling the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel, this hearing stands about as much a chance of success as the Speaker’s woefully misguided lawsuit against the President.

“I hope that, after the break, cooler heads will prevail.  There is still time to correct this Committee’s priorities before the Congress ends. 

“I yield back.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Ranking Member Conyers Statement at Department of Justice Oversight Hearing

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a full committee hearing entitled, “Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice.” During his opening remarks, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) delivered the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by asking you to join me in reminding our members that we must conduct ourselves in a manner that befits the House Judiciary Committee. The Attorney General of the United States is our guest.  No matter what our political differences may be, he is worthy of our full attention, our courtesy, and our respect. Attorney General Holder, welcome,” said Conyers.

“In the vast jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, there are many topics worthy of discussion today.

“First among them, your commitment to enforcing voting rights for all Americans in the wake of the Shelby County decision.  Voter discrimination of all kinds is alive and well in this country, and it ought to be this Committee’s overwhelming priority to take up H.R. 3899, the Voting Rights Amendment Act, without delay.

“Your work in sentencing reform is remarkable.  In a country where nearly half of all federal inmates are serving time for drug offenses, the harshest crimes should be reserved for violent offenders.  As you stated before the Sentencing Commission last month, our ‘focused reliance on incarceration is not just financially unsustainable - it comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.’

“We should note the Department’s efforts to engage state and local agencies, juvenile justice systems, and community leaders to end the school-to-prison pipeline and ensure that every young person has the opportunity to reach his full potential, regardless of the color of his skin.

“And we should celebrate the Department’s commitment to marriage equality, as more and more of this country makes progress in what you have called one of ‘the defining civil rights challenges of our time.’

“Mr. Attorney General, your leadership on these and other issues has been invaluable. Of course, throughout your tenure, you have been asked to do all this and more with fewer and fewer resources. If you can give us any guidance as to the effect of the draconian Ryan budget proposal on the Department of Justice, we would like to engage with you on that topic as well.

“I would like to focus the balance of my time on one overriding issue: our collective effort to roll back government surveillance of U.S. persons. Much of our recent debate has focused on how to end the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Ending that program, and correcting the deeply troubling legal argument at its foundation, are of paramount importance. But the President’s proposal, and the proposal advanced by some on the House Intelligence Committee deal only with Section 215. In other words, they focus on one program used to access one database collected under one legal authority. The problem is far more complicated than that narrow lens implies - and in his January 17^th speech, President Obama committed to much more.

“First, the President instructed you, Mr. Attorney General, to ‘institute reforms that place additional restrictions on the government’s ability to retain, search, and use in criminal cases’ the content of communications intercepted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. On March 28, in a letter to Senator Wyden, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed that the government mines this data for information about U.S. persons. Section 702 implicates content, not metadata. Under any other circumstance, the government would require individualized suspicion and probable cause to seize these communications. The FISA Amendments Act was never intended to authorize backdoor surveillance of U.S. persons, and the Department of Justice should work with this Committee to correct any impression to the contrary.

“Second, the President asked the Attorney General to ‘amend how we use National Security Letters’ so that gag orders ‘will not be indefinite, and will terminate within a fixed time.’ I view this modest amendment as the bare minimum change necessary to the NSL regime in light of what the public now knows about government surveillance. And yet, this Committee has received no indication that this reform is underway at the Department of Justice.  Mr. Attorney General, I hope we will hear news of this development in your testimony today.

“Third, President Obama recognized that there is ‘an inevitable bias within the intelligence community… to collect more information about the world, not less.’ That bias is consistent with their mission to maintain national security - but national security is not the only value we hold dear. We must also be vigilant against government overreach, and protect our constitutional rights to privacy and free association. In the Congress, this Committee has always been the proper forum for a discussion about civil rights, especially in the national security context. In the executive branch, that role falls to the Department of Justice - and specifically, Mr. Attorney General, to you.  This country would be well served by your leadership on this issue. In years past, the Department of Justice and the House Judiciary Committee have worked together to draft, pass, and implement the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the FISA Amendments Act. We should renew that partnership without delay, Attorney General Holder, and move the USA FREEDOM Act through this Committee with all necessary speed.

“I look forward to your testimony, Mr. Attorney General, and I yield back.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers, Nadler, and Scott Write AG Holder on DEA Surveillance Allegations

(WASHINGTON) – Today, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, and Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder concerning reports that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) uses information collected by the National Security Agency (NSA) in criminal investigations entirely unrelated to terrorism and the collection of foreign intelligence.

A copy of the letter is provided below:

August 9, 2013

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

As you know, we have a number of concerns about the collection and use of information under the extraordinary authority granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FISA Amendments Act, and the USA PATRIOT Act.  Among those concerns is that the government may use this information for purposes wholly unrelated to counterterrorism or the collection of foreign intelligence.  We are particularly alarmed by recent reports about what appears to be the routine use of foreign intelligence information in criminal trials.

On August 5, 2013, Reuters reported that the Special Operations Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration is “funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants, and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.”[1] 

The Special Operations Division includes representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency.  The Reuters report suggests that the SOD obtains surveillance information from the NSA, then distributes that information to other DEA units for use in criminal cases.[2]

The report alleges further that federal agents are trained in “parallel construction” techniques—i.e., fabricating an investigative trail to make it appear as if the agency obtained the information through routine criminal investigations techniques, rather than through the NSA’s national security apparatus.[3]

If this report is accurate, then it describes an unacceptable breakdown in the barrier between foreign intelligence surveillance and criminal process.

The types of information described in the Reuters report are consistent with what the public now knows about the acquisition of foreign intelligence information under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[4]  Over the past several weeks, the government has assured both Congress and the general public that this authority cannot be used to target United States citizens.[5]  If the government has institutionalized the sharing of foreign intelligence information across agencies to aid in the routine criminal prosecution of U.S. persons, then we will be forced to take a closer look at those assurances.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides for the possibility that information acquired under Section 702 may be used in a criminal prosecution in certain circumstances.  The statute expressly requires that, if the government intends to use such information in court, then it must provide advance notice of intent to do so, both to the court and to the criminal defendant.[6]  The U.S. Supreme Court recently and explicitly affirmed this rule.[7]  The idea that federal agents devise “parallel” storylines to avoid this disclosure is deeply troubling.  It also raises  constitutional questions. As a matter of due process, a criminal defendant has a right to know how the government has obtained the evidence used against him, and the government has an obligation to disclose those sources.[8]

We do not believe that the practices described in this report are consistent with the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or with the manner in which this Administration has recently described its surveillance programs.  Accordingly, please respond to the following questions by August 26, 2013:

1.       Which components of the U.S. Department of Justice have access to information collected by the government under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?

2.       Does the Drug Enforcement Administration, or any other component of the Department of Justice, use or give to any other federal, state, or local agency foreign intelligence surveillance information collected under FISA for the purpose of criminal investigation or criminal prosecution?  If so, with what frequency?  Under which authorities is such information collected?

3.       Does the Drug Enforcement Administration, or any other component of the Department of Justice, use “parallel construction” or any other similar technique to obscure the source of evidence that may be used in a criminal investigation?

4.       Has any component of the Department of Justice ever used or given to any other federal, state, or local agency for their use, foreign intelligence surveillance information in a judicial or administrative proceeding without providing the notices required by law?

5.       Under the doctrine announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland, an accused has a right to examine evidence that may be favorable to the defense.  Under Brady, if the government has deliberately obscured the source of evidence used in a criminal trial—though “parallel construction” or any other technique—what remedies are available to the defendant?

6.       Has the Department of Justice launched its own investigation of this revelation?  If so, when can the House Judiciary Committee expect to receive your preliminary findings?

We appreciate the willingness of the Department to provide information about these programs in a classified setting, but we ask that you provide a written, unclassified response to this inquiry.  The public deserves a full explanation of the use of these surveillance programs. 

Thank you for your prompt and personal attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

______________________

John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Member

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Testimony before the Committee and the Justice Department’s Investigation of National Security Leaks Minority Staff Report July 31, 2013

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Testimony before the Committee and the Justice Department’s Investigati...

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Why Is the Best Attorney General Receiving the Worst Treatment?

By U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

Tomorrow, the House is expected to vote on whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over internal deliberative documents related to Operation Fast and Furious.

Last week, the attorney general -- who has testified on this matter on nine separate occasions and has provided more than 7,600 pages of documents already -- offered to resolve the dispute by turning over to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform internal deliberative documents responsive to the Committee's key question. The Department of Justice stood ready to brief the Committee and to answer any questions that might come up regarding the documents. Chairman Issa responded by saying, "I can't accept the [deal the attorney general offered]. No other chairman would."

I must beg to differ. As a former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I accepted a similar deal with the Bush administration. The issue arose in connection with my investigation into the involvement of the Justice Department and the White House into the peremptory firing of nine U.S. Attorneys in early 2007.

As a former chair of both the Committee on Government Operations and the House Judiciary Committee, I take a back seat to no one in the vigor and completeness of my investigations. At the same time, I appreciate the need for both Democratic and Republican administrations to have some breathing space when they respond to congressional oversight. In the U.S. Attorney firings investigation, we were interested in learning how the firings came about, who made the decisions, and why. We were less interested in obtaining documents detailing what members of the Bush administration thought about our efforts.

With regard to the Justice Department, we worked out an agreement to access certain internal deliberative documents that were created before the Judiciary Committee's oversight investigation began. These documents were germane to our efforts to learn why the United States Attorneys were fired and who was responsible for it.

Getting to the bottom of White House involvement in the scandal proved more difficult. President Bush made a blanket assertion of executive privilege, refusing to turn over any White House documents or make any key administration witnesses available for testimony. The Judiciary Committee successfully challenged President Bush's sweeping privilege assertion in court. In March 2009, after the administration changed, we negotiated an accommodation with representatives of the former president that met our needs and respected theirs.

Our Agreement of Accommodation provided that the Judiciary Committee would receive White House documents generated prior to the commencement of our investigation on March 8, 2007, but we were only able to review (without retaining copies) a very small subset of the White House documents generated after that date. In short, we were able to conduct legitimate oversight into the actual allegations regarding the U.S. Attorney firings while respecting the Administration's ability to deliberate in confidence over how to respond to my investigation.

This basic respect for confidential communications is well established. In the 1974 U.S. v. Nixondecision, the Supreme Court reasoned that compelled disclosure of deliberative material would discourage executive branch officials from giving candid advice, because "those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision making process." From President Reagan to President Obama, every administration has sought to protect this material and, for the most part, Congress has balanced its oversight needs with the need of executive branch officials to advise the president in confidence.

There are two principal differences between my deal with the Bush administration and the deal Attorney General Holder has offered to the Oversight Committee. First, it took us far longer, and required far more legal process, to bring the Bush administration to the point where it would agree to the deal. Attorney General Holder has sought, in good faith, to head off this conflict for weeks now. Second, Attorney General Holder has offered to turn over outright (rather than just make available for review) some of the documents that were generated in the course of the Department's efforts to respond to the Oversight Committee's demands.

Attorney General Holder has made a compelling offer -- one that serves the needs of the investigation, and one that is quite similar to the deal I accepted last Congress.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Praises Attorney General Holder’s Record on Voting and Civil Rights

(WASHINGTON)—Today, Attorney General Eric Holder testified at a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Department of Justice.  Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) released this statement following the hearing.

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“I applaud Attorney General Holder and the Department of Justice for its aggressive enforcement of voting and civil rights laws,” said Conyers.  “Conservatives on this committee have characterized the Department of Justice’s challenge to state voter laws as ‘politically motivated.’  But under the Voting Rights Act, prescribed states and jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory practices towards protected classes must obtain preclearance before voting and redistricting changes can be implemented.  The Department of Justice is correct to use its enforcement authority to address these attacks on voting rights and other ongoing civil rights issues. 

·         Enforcing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  The Department has aggressively enforced Section 5, which ensures that states with a history of discrimination cannot create additional barriers to minority access to the ballot box.  The Department has already blocked discriminatory voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina.

·         Stopping illegal “purges” of the voting rolls.  Last week, the Voting Section wrote to the State of Florida demanding that they cease and desist from “purging” voters from the rolls.  The practice was not submitted to the Department under Section 5, and would not have been approved if it had been.

·         Protecting the voting rights of members of the Armed Services.  The Department has secured court orders and consent decrees in 14 jurisdictions to better enforce the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act. 

·         Restoring the integrity of the Civil Rights Division.  After the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility completed their review of illegal, partisan hiring practices under the last Administration, their final report included recommendations for improved, transparent hiring process at the Civil Rights Division.  Under the leadership of AssistantAttorney General Tom Perez, the Division has fully adopted each of those recommendations—and is now predominantly staffed by attorneys with actual experience in the field of civil rights law.

·         Enforcing the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.  The Department’s $335 million settlement with Countrywide Financial Corporation last December compensated families who were charged higher fees and interest rates because of their race or national origin.  This enforcement action makes clear that the Department will not hesitate to hold financial institutions accountable for lending discrimination.

“Lastly, it is unfortunate that some conservative members chose to spend their allotted time criticizing the attorney general, rather than listening to the facts regarding Operation Fast and Furious, a failed ‘gun walking’ operation conceived by agents assigned to a local ATF field office and individuals in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona.  Perhaps if they took the time to listen to Mr. Holder’s response, they would realize the attorney general has been exceedingly accommodating to requests for information by this and other congressional committees.  To date, the Department of Justice has provided over 7,600 pages of documents to Congress.  It has made additional law enforcement sensitive materials available to Congress in dozens of briefings.  Senior Department officials have been questioned in hearings and transcribed interviews.  The attorney general has testified before multiple congressional committees about this issue.  In fact, today marks his eighth appearance before a congressional committee this Congress.  I find it hard to characterize his and the Department of Justice’s actions as ‘stonewalling.’”

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/#ixzz1xQjNPTW9
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Attorney General Holder Promises to Defend Voting Rights

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder promises to defend voting rights at Conference of National Black Churches annual meeting.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder promised to uphold voting rights in his keynote address this morning at the Conference of National Black Churches annual meeting in Washington D.C. The three-day event is being held in conjunction with the Congressional Black Caucus and focuses on issues of concern to members of the nation’s nine largest African American denominations.

The Attorney General promised to defend the Voting Rights Act of 1965, especially Section 5, which requires Justice Department clearance before changes can be made to voting laws in Southern states and those that have a history of disenfranchising Black voters.

“This process, known as ‘preclearance,’ has been a powerful tool in combating discrimination for decades.  And it has consistently enjoyed broad bipartisan support – including in its most recent reauthorization, when President Bush and an overwhelming Congressional majority came together in 2006 to renew the Act’s key provisions – and extend it until 2031. Yet, in the six years since its reauthorization, Section 5 has increasingly come under attack by those who claim it’s no longer needed,” said Holder.

He also said that between 1965 and 2010, only eight challenges to Section 5 were filed in court, but in the last two years there have been “no fewer than nine lawsuits contesting the constitutionality of that provision.” Each challenge “claims that we’ve attained a new era of electoral equality, that America in 2012 has moved beyond the challenges of 1965, and that Section 5 is no longer necessary,” he said, adding that “nearly two dozen new state laws and executive orders” enacted in more than a dozen states “could make it significantly harder for many eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.”

“We’re now examining a number of redistricting plans in covered jurisdictions, as well as other types of changes to our election systems and processes – including changes to the procedures governing third-party voter registration organizations, to early voting procedures, and to photo identification requirements – to ensure that there is no discriminatory purpose or effect.  If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change.  And, as we have demonstrated repeatedly, when a jurisdiction fails to meet its burden of proving that a proposed voting change would not have a racially discriminatory effect – we will object, as we have in 15 separate cases since last September,” said Holder.

The Attorney General also promised to protect the voting rights of military personnel and other Americans living abroad, as well as veterans, citizens with disabilities, college students, and language minorities at home, but said “no form of electoral fraud ever has been – or ever will be – tolerated by the United States government.”

Coincidentally, in a statement published by The Hill today, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), the ranking members of the Committees on the Judiciary and House Administration, announced that they were joining other Democrats in introducing theVoter Empowerment Act, which they say “protects the integrity of elections by improving eligible voters’ access to the ballot box” by modernizing voter registration, “automatically and permanently enroll consenting eligible voters,” providing for online registration, allowing same day voter registration at the poll, and simplifying the registration process for members of the military serving overseas, among other things.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Attorney General Eric Holder Launches Consumer Protection Working Group to Combat Consumer Fraud

Attorney General Eric Holder Launches Consumer Protection Working Group to Combat Consumer Fraud
Working Group Created Under President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force Brings Together Federal, State, and Local Partners

U.S. Department of JusticeFebruary 13, 2012

Office of Public Affairs(202) 514-2007/TDD (202)514-1888

WASHINGTON—The Consumer Protection Working Group, formed under President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF), convened its first meeting in Washington, D.C., today to address consumer fraud, which can financially cripple households and can cause extensive losses to our economy. The newly created group will work across federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies, and with state and local partners, to strengthen efforts to address consumer-related fraud, including schemes targeting vulnerable populations, such as the unemployed, those in need of payday loans, and those suffering from the burden of high credit card and other debt. The new working group will also focus on scams that exploit prospective students, active-duty military personnel, and veterans.

“The schemes we are combating are as diverse as the imaginations of those who perpetrate them, and as sophisticated as modern technology will permit. Thanks in large part to the leadership of the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force we are tackling financial fraud, in all its forms, head on,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “Through the extensive and coordinated partnership we start today, we will strengthen our collective efforts, enhance civil and criminal enforcement of consumer fraud and educate the public in an effort to prevent consumers from being victimized in the first place.”

Attorney General Holder delivered remarks at today’s meeting which was convened by FFETF Executive Director Michael Bresnick along with the working group’s co-chairs: Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Civil Division Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division Lanny Breuer, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California André Birotte and Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) David Vladeck. Another co-chair, Director of Enforcement for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Kent Markus, was unable to attend the meeting.

“We know all too well how opportunistic fraudsters have adapted their schemes to take advantage of consumers facing financial hardships, using false promises of mortgage modification, debt relief, and job placement, to name a few. Since 2009, the FTC has brought over 90 cases to stop these scams,” said Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection for the FTC David Vladeck. “This partnership will only serve to enhance our collective efforts to protect consumers.”

The Consumer Protection Working Group will address several areas of concern, including payday lending and other high-pressure telemarketing or Internet scams, business opportunity schemes, for-profit schools that engage in fraud or misrepresentation, and fraudulent third party payment processors that facilitate payments on behalf of other fraudsters without the permission of the customer.

At today’s meeting, the Consumer Protection Working Group members set priorities and discussed taking collaborative steps to continue to seek out and prosecute consumer fraud as well as protect consumers from fraud before it happens through outreach and education. The new working group plans to establish a best-practices tool kit, legislative, regulatory and policy initiatives, and an information sharing structure.

Other members of the Consumer Protection Working Group include representatives from the Department of Treasury, FBI, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, U.S. Secret Service, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Trustee Program, the National Association of Attorneys General, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board, and the National Credit Union Administration. The state attorneys general are represented on the working group by Attorney General Lisa Madigan from Illinois, Attorney General Greg Zoeller from Indiana, and Attorney General Roy Cooper from North Carolina.

The Consumer Protection Working Group is part of ongoing enforcement efforts by President 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.

Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets; and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions, and other organizations. Task force members have charged a record number of mortgage fraud cases in the past two years, trained more than 100,000 professionals responsible for awarding and overseeing Recovery Act funds and held regional summits around the country to discuss strategies, resources and initiatives, as well as to meet with communities most affected by the financial crisis.

Learn more about the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force at www.stopfraud.gov.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©