In reaching the charging decisions described in Volume 1 of the report, the Office determined whether the conduct it found amounted to a violation of federal criminal law chargeable under the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See Justice Manual § 9-27.000 et seq. (2018). The standard set forth in the Justice Manual is whether the conduct constitutes a crime; if so, whether admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction;
Justice Manual § 9-27.000 et seq. (2018) (click here)
That manual was recently revised. It is a huge conflict of interest for this administration to bring about a new decision making manual when it was facing an inquiry into Russian influence in the 2016 election. The manual should have been applied by the following administration once it was reviewed. It is like raises for Congress and the president. They are voted by one administration and begun with the signature of the next.
This is even more reason for the US House to have the complete document of the Special Counsel Report and supporting documents. I would like to know what the Former Directors' Comey and Mueller think of the new manual. I would expect Congress to open up inquiries to that effect as well; ie: did US Attorneys drop investigations and prosecutions because of the new manual?
"The Revised Manual for Federal Prosecutors" (click here)
A Pragmatic Approach to Being Tough on Crime – Including White Collar Crime
Barry M. Hartman, Michael D. McKay, Megan N. Moore, David I. Kelch
18 December 2018
The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recently released a comprehensive update and review of the United States Attorneys’ Manual, now called the Justice Manual (the “Manual”). [1] The last substantial overhaul of the Manual was in 1997. [2] The Manual is a Department-wide document applicable to the entire DOJ, not just the U.S. Attorneys. It compiles DOJ policy, procedure, and guidance in one publicly accessible location. The Manual, while not binding, [3] is regularly consulted by DOJ officials when making charging decisions, determining enforcement priorities, and conducting other day-to-day functions. Because the DOJ—with its 93 offices and main office—does not operate as a monolith, the Manual is designed to strike the appropriate balance between global consistency and respecting prosecutorial discretion. In the updated Manual, the DOJ incorporated significant internal policy memoranda not previously included in the United States Attorneys’ Manual, eliminated redundancies, clarified some policies, and updated policies to reflect current law and practice. For instance, the Manual incorporates former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s 2017 memorandum urging prosecutors to “charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.” [4].
This is called corruption. There should be no Executive Branch aspirations for the DOJ. The DOJ is supposed to operate independently from the Oval Office. The idea Trump imposed political directives on the DOJ is outrageous.
Here again, Trump has overreached and deregulated from the Oval Office. These are legislative decisions. Questions need to be asked of the US Attorneys to find out if this new manual exonerated or relieved any Trump properties of regulation. I know they cause a lot of problems in Chicago with water quality.
The update also reflects two Trump Administration priorities for the DOJ: (1) reducing the extent to which prosecutorial decisions are perceived to be over-regulation and over- criminalization of traditional regulatory offenses and (2) deterring crime through the implementation of “tough on crime” policies. The DOJ’s fiscal year 2019 budget request reflects these two goals, emphasizing measures to reduce violent drug crime and the Trump Administration’s commitment “to establishing a smaller, leaner federal government that reduces, both, bureaucracy and costs to the American taxpayer.” [5] This Alert analyzes notable updates to the Manual and considers how these may impact the DOJ’s enforcement priorities. [6]
The Manual Recommends More Business-Friendly Enforcement Policies
The Trump Administration has made deregulation and the reduction of federal bureaucracy a top priority, [7] which is reflected in two important changes to the Manual. First, the Manual incorporates many of the principles found in the so-called Granston Memorandum. [8] Additionally, the Manual now explicitly discourages “piling on” of fines, penalties, and forfeitures and encourages a consideration of the interests of other enforcement entities when making prosecutorial decisions. In November 2018, the DOJ also incorporated important limitations to the Yates Memorandum. [9] Together, these changes—which are analyzed further below—demonstrate a distinct preference for business-friendly prosecutorial policies that could reduce some of the burden on businesses related to federal enforcement. [10]
I would think any entity negatively effected by this new manual, since it is non-binding, should pursue relief in court taking into consideration the new decision tree. I am confident there are problems occurring in expectations, including that of US Attorneys.
The entire idea this is now a political document rather than a legal one is reason to throw it in the nearest dumpster.
Incorporation of the Granston Memorandum....
The inclusion of this memorandum is new. It is more addition of corruption.
May 2018
By Gerald L. Aben, Dykema, Ann Arbor, MI and Lea Courington, Dykema, Dallas, Texas
A recent memorandum (Memo) (click here) issued by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to attorneys in the Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Fraud Section suggests that the DOJ may be adopting a more assertive attitude with regards to dismissal of False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam cases.1 The Memo, authored by Michael Granston, Director of the Civil Fraud Section and issued on January 10, 2018, addresses the DOJ’s authority to dismiss a FCA qui tam case under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) and outlines a number of factors that DOJ attorneys should use to determine whether the DOJ should seek dismissal when it has otherwise declined to intervene....
This memo alone creates a lot of problems for the rights of Americans. First, it creates a judge and jury out of a prosecutor. Now, prosecutors have to take viable claims of lawlessness on the merits. This memo allows prosecutors to dismiss an entire lawsuit if it appears to be something they don't want to prosecute or litigate. It is more of a political paradigm written in fancy language to cause it to sound as though it has brevity to average Americans. Lawyers in practice need to critic this entire mess that Sessions installed into the DOJ.
I think this politicizing of the DOJ decision manual should be brought up regularly in litigation to invoke an inert status to it's priorities.
There is a law that has been in existence for a long time that addresses these issues and manifested from legislation, not a Trump wish list.
The False Claims Act: A Primer (click here)
The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 - 3733 was enacted in 1863 by a Congress concerned that suppliers of goods to the Union Army during the Civil War were defrauding the Army. The FCA provided that any person who knowingly submitted false claims to the government was liable for double the government’s damages plus a penalty of $2,000 for each false claim. Since then, the FCA has been amended several times. In 1986, there were significant changes to the FCA, including increasing damages from double damages to treble damages and raising the penalties from $2,000 to a range of $5,000 to $10,000. The FCA has been amended three times since 1986. Over the life of the statute it has been interpreted on hundreds of occasions by federal courts (which sometimes issue conflicting interpretations of the statute). The purpose of this primer is not to explain how the FCA evolved over the decades or to discuss judicial interpretations of its provisions. Rather, in this primer we simply explain the most significant elements of the FCA to give one new to the statute an introductory understanding of the FCA and how it works. The complete text of the False Claims Act is provided at the end of this primer....
Bill Barr is chasing down the myth of a federal investigation that never should have been conducted because it will negate all the work AND CONVICTIONS of the investigation. In that is the reality that Manafort will walk without Trump signing a pardon.
continued in next entry
The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recently released a comprehensive update and review of the United States Attorneys’ Manual, now called the Justice Manual (the “Manual”). [1] The last substantial overhaul of the Manual was in 1997. [2] The Manual is a Department-wide document applicable to the entire DOJ, not just the U.S. Attorneys. It compiles DOJ policy, procedure, and guidance in one publicly accessible location. The Manual, while not binding, [3] is regularly consulted by DOJ officials when making charging decisions, determining enforcement priorities, and conducting other day-to-day functions. Because the DOJ—with its 93 offices and main office—does not operate as a monolith, the Manual is designed to strike the appropriate balance between global consistency and respecting prosecutorial discretion. In the updated Manual, the DOJ incorporated significant internal policy memoranda not previously included in the United States Attorneys’ Manual, eliminated redundancies, clarified some policies, and updated policies to reflect current law and practice. For instance, the Manual incorporates former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s 2017 memorandum urging prosecutors to “charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.” [4].
This is called corruption. There should be no Executive Branch aspirations for the DOJ. The DOJ is supposed to operate independently from the Oval Office. The idea Trump imposed political directives on the DOJ is outrageous.
Here again, Trump has overreached and deregulated from the Oval Office. These are legislative decisions. Questions need to be asked of the US Attorneys to find out if this new manual exonerated or relieved any Trump properties of regulation. I know they cause a lot of problems in Chicago with water quality.
The update also reflects two Trump Administration priorities for the DOJ: (1) reducing the extent to which prosecutorial decisions are perceived to be over-regulation and over- criminalization of traditional regulatory offenses and (2) deterring crime through the implementation of “tough on crime” policies. The DOJ’s fiscal year 2019 budget request reflects these two goals, emphasizing measures to reduce violent drug crime and the Trump Administration’s commitment “to establishing a smaller, leaner federal government that reduces, both, bureaucracy and costs to the American taxpayer.” [5] This Alert analyzes notable updates to the Manual and considers how these may impact the DOJ’s enforcement priorities. [6]
The Manual Recommends More Business-Friendly Enforcement Policies
The Trump Administration has made deregulation and the reduction of federal bureaucracy a top priority, [7] which is reflected in two important changes to the Manual. First, the Manual incorporates many of the principles found in the so-called Granston Memorandum. [8] Additionally, the Manual now explicitly discourages “piling on” of fines, penalties, and forfeitures and encourages a consideration of the interests of other enforcement entities when making prosecutorial decisions. In November 2018, the DOJ also incorporated important limitations to the Yates Memorandum. [9] Together, these changes—which are analyzed further below—demonstrate a distinct preference for business-friendly prosecutorial policies that could reduce some of the burden on businesses related to federal enforcement. [10]
I would think any entity negatively effected by this new manual, since it is non-binding, should pursue relief in court taking into consideration the new decision tree. I am confident there are problems occurring in expectations, including that of US Attorneys.
The entire idea this is now a political document rather than a legal one is reason to throw it in the nearest dumpster.
Incorporation of the Granston Memorandum....
The inclusion of this memorandum is new. It is more addition of corruption.
May 2018
By Gerald L. Aben, Dykema, Ann Arbor, MI and Lea Courington, Dykema, Dallas, Texas
A recent memorandum (Memo) (click here) issued by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to attorneys in the Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Fraud Section suggests that the DOJ may be adopting a more assertive attitude with regards to dismissal of False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam cases.1 The Memo, authored by Michael Granston, Director of the Civil Fraud Section and issued on January 10, 2018, addresses the DOJ’s authority to dismiss a FCA qui tam case under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) and outlines a number of factors that DOJ attorneys should use to determine whether the DOJ should seek dismissal when it has otherwise declined to intervene....
This memo alone creates a lot of problems for the rights of Americans. First, it creates a judge and jury out of a prosecutor. Now, prosecutors have to take viable claims of lawlessness on the merits. This memo allows prosecutors to dismiss an entire lawsuit if it appears to be something they don't want to prosecute or litigate. It is more of a political paradigm written in fancy language to cause it to sound as though it has brevity to average Americans. Lawyers in practice need to critic this entire mess that Sessions installed into the DOJ.
I think this politicizing of the DOJ decision manual should be brought up regularly in litigation to invoke an inert status to it's priorities.
There is a law that has been in existence for a long time that addresses these issues and manifested from legislation, not a Trump wish list.
The False Claims Act: A Primer (click here)
The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 - 3733 was enacted in 1863 by a Congress concerned that suppliers of goods to the Union Army during the Civil War were defrauding the Army. The FCA provided that any person who knowingly submitted false claims to the government was liable for double the government’s damages plus a penalty of $2,000 for each false claim. Since then, the FCA has been amended several times. In 1986, there were significant changes to the FCA, including increasing damages from double damages to treble damages and raising the penalties from $2,000 to a range of $5,000 to $10,000. The FCA has been amended three times since 1986. Over the life of the statute it has been interpreted on hundreds of occasions by federal courts (which sometimes issue conflicting interpretations of the statute). The purpose of this primer is not to explain how the FCA evolved over the decades or to discuss judicial interpretations of its provisions. Rather, in this primer we simply explain the most significant elements of the FCA to give one new to the statute an introductory understanding of the FCA and how it works. The complete text of the False Claims Act is provided at the end of this primer....
Bill Barr is chasing down the myth of a federal investigation that never should have been conducted because it will negate all the work AND CONVICTIONS of the investigation. In that is the reality that Manafort will walk without Trump signing a pardon.
continued in next entry
