In Sec. 404 Transition Procedures, Section 1 – “Continued Effect Of Orders, Authorizations, Directives” and Section 2 – “Applicability Of Protect America Act Of 2007 To Continued Orders, Authorizations, Directives”, I would like to see some verbiage that states:

…shall continue in effect until the expiration of such order, authorization, or directive, unless determined by a court to be illegal/unlawful.

And, that such a judicial review shall be undertaken immediately on all intelligence activities begun by this Administration after 9/11 wrt to surveillance, data-mining, etc.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for such inclusion…sigh! *g*

I like the way that the Government’s role is expressly stated to be one of an “intervener”, as opposed to a “party”. The distinction is important in terms of standing, an intervener has fewer rights in litigation than a party, and it’s role, at least if the language is followed, as an intervener any participation by the Government would be as prescribed by the judge – and interveners don’t always have appeal rights, as do parties to an action. So, good drafting by the House, in any event.

Speaking of soap boxes, I’d say Brad Jacobson has Bill Keller’s number:

Maybe Keller was a great reporter. Maybe his editorial work was exceptional prior to taking on his current role…. But it’s clear Keller has been a lousy executive editor for The Times. During a period when the most secretive and criminal administration in our nation’s history has held office, The Times, under Keller’s stewardship, has too often shown an apprehension to report the cold hard facts in an intellectually honest and timely fashion.

His leadership at our paper of record has not only damaged journalism but our country as well….It’s time for Bill Keller to step down….

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/…..ously.html

Isn’t Schumer a Senator from New York? Isn’t he on the banking committee? Wouldn’t he have some expertise about how this would play out? Might he possibly be interested since this is a Democratic Governor, and be able to shine some light on this?

I got it– the term is “Politically Exposed Person”

The Invasion of Spitzer’s (Financial) Privacy

I just heard Adam Davidson on NPR’s “All Things Considered” try to explain the reason that Eliot Spitzer was targeted. He said that after 9/11 banks/law-enforcement came up with software that scrutinized cash withdrawals to look for suspicious patterns. The old Mafia threshhold of $10,000 went out the window. Now a series of 1000 withdrawals of $5, to make $5,000, was a red flag.

Davidson said that another layer of scrutiny was of PEP–”politically exposed persons”–which includes even the relatives of elected officials. Their bank accounts got an even finer-toothed comb. So maybe, Davidson speculated, Spitzer moved around a few sums of $2,000… Davidson presented all this as cutting edge, routine and gee-whiz.

BayStateLibrul caught the right name of the report but the link should be
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..d=88116176

Here’s more on PEP in a report from last year:

Government must clean up money laundering rules

Posted 27/03/2007 by Fiona Woolf

It’s difficult for me not to shudder a little on hearing a mention of the Government’s dreaded draft money laundering regulations. They could not only impose significant extra costs on solicitors for compliance but also reduce the competitiveness of UK firms by gold-plating the implementation of the EU directive. They could put even conscientious solicitors at risk of conviction and imprisonment.

One of the many issues we are trying to get the Government to look at is around the requirement for solicitors to conduct enhanced customer due diligence (CDD) if your customer is a politically exposed person (PEP).

For the uninitiated in such matters, this enhanced CDD involves:

* having appropriate risk-based procedures to determine whether the customer is a PEP and the approval of senior management for establishing a business relationship with such a person;
* taking adequate measures to establish the source of wealth and source of funds which are involved in the business relationship or transaction; and
* conducting enhanced monitoring of the business relationship.

No small undertaking, I’m sure you’ll agree.

But a PEP isn’t just anyone though. Interestingly, a PEP cannot be a person who is resident in the UK so, while the Government is keen to fight corruption abroad, it has no interest in having solicitors looking into what its own officials may be up to.

A PEP may have been entrusted with a prominent function in another nation state, the EU or an international body.

For the record, a prominent function includes:

* head of state, head of government, ministers and deputy or assistant ministers;
* members of parliament;
* members of supreme courts, of constitutional courts or other high-level judicial bodies;
* members of courts of auditors or the boards of central banks;
* ambassadors, charges d’affaires and high ranking-officers in the armed forces; and
* members of administrative management or supervisory bodies of state-owned enterprises.

A PEP will also be the immediate family (spouse, partner, child and parent) and close business associates of the person who holds the prominent function. Quite a list!

I think it’s fair to say that as solicitors we recognise there is a greater risk of corruption – and therefore money laundering – with respect to PEPs. And we also recognise that they may be some of the first people in the UK to be aware of the intention of a PEP to move corruptly obtained funds into ‘safe havens’ because they are given instructions to set up the vehicles or transactions to facilitate this.

So we’ve told the Government that while solicitors would like to assist in stopping such activities from happening, in reality they have limited resources and ability to actually know who is a PEP, particularly given the extended definition in the regulations.

Some 84.7% of law firms consist of fewer than four partners and only 1.6% of firms have over 26 partners. Many of those firms will rarely, if ever, deal with potential PEPs, as such the cost of mitigating this slight risk must be proportionate.

In deciding whether a person is a known close associate, a solicitor will have to have regard to any information which is in his possession or is publicly known. But just because information is publicly known, it does not mean it is universally known. For example – it was widely publicised and publicly known that Peter Foster had convictions for fraud in a number of countries including the UK, yet both the Prime Minister and his wife claimed to be completely taken by surprise by this information after entering into business deals with him.

And then there’s the issue of the accuracy of commercial databases – don’t get me started on the difficulties there! In their consultation on the new regulations, the Government has stated that it will not be providing lists or databases for solicitors or other person covered by the regulations to help them ascertain whether their client is a PEP (although they are better placed that most to get hold of this information).

By refusing to assist in this way the Government is requesting that, as solicitors, we are to form a line of defence against PEP money laundering – with one hand tied behind our backs.

So what is our take on all this? The Law Society is advocating for production of lists of everyone who qualifies as a PEP by the UK/EU and for these to be provided free of charge to persons covered by the regulations. In reality, this is the only way to ensure this is effective, if they are really serious about the risks posed by corrupt government officials.

Bob in HI

Legal question: Can a judge so order?

“Judge Walton also ordered that Ms. Locy pay the fines with no help from her employer, friends, family or anonymous supporters.”

Too bad Reggie couldn’t order Libby to pay his own legal fees…

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03…..tml?ref=us

On a Mac, 10.5, Leopard.

Activate Finder or any Cocoa written app like Safari, Mail, etc.(make name next to black apple on upper left side of screen read as, say, Finder – or click once the two-faced icon in Dock.)

With mouse, select Edit -> Special Characters….

Will give you a floating Character palette. If not already there, open Symbols and select “Numbers and Number Symbols.

bobs @ 49

Now a series of 1000 withdrawals of $5, to make $5,000, was a red flag.

Davidson said that another layer of scrutiny was of PEP–”politically exposed persons”–which includes even the relatives of elected officials. Their bank accounts got an even finer-toothed comb.

There is also the PIP software that scrutinizes Politically Informed Persons who comment at EW, FDL, TPM…

Those $$$ withdrawals of $20 on a weekly pattern of 52 weeks annually gets you put into the system and red-flagged…

Thanks for the info Bob.

on topic: bmaz I am with you on the need for a harsh penalty to secure true information…

The “factual determinations” section makes me uneasy simply by your point of cherry picking.

…to the extent practicable and consistent with national security, request that any party present briefs and arguments on any legal question the court determines is raised by such a submission even if that party does not have full access to such submission.

How is “practicle and consistent with national security” determind in regards to FISA?