Categories
Saved Web Pages

Russia sanctions 25 more Americans, including Sean Penn, Ben Stiller

12204201_090622-stiller-penn.jpg?w=1600

Several American senators were also cited: Mark Kelly, Kyrsten Sinema, Kevin Cramer, Mike Rounds, Rick Scott and Pat Toomey.

Russia imposed personal sanctions Monday on 25 Americans, including actors Sean Penn and Ben Stiller, in response to U.S. sanctions against Russians stemming from the conflict in Ukraine.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo was on the new sanctions list, as were several American senators: Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Rick Scott of Florida, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said the group, which also included business leaders, academics and government officials, would be banned permanently from entering Russia.

MORE: Sean Penn among celebrities in Ukraine as Russian invasion unfolded

Previous rounds of Russian sanctions against Americans have included President Joe Biden and members of his family, as well as lawmakers and business leaders. The U.S. has sanctioned numerous Russians, including government officials and business people.

Penn and Stiller have been outspoken critics of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Penn is an activist involved in relief work, among other causes. Stiller is a goodwill ambassador for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

WATCH | Ukraine launches wider counter attack against Russia

Categories
Saved Web Pages

Preserving the Rule of Law: Successful law enforcement has a domino effect

illustration_trumpdonald_082622mm-ap-jon

Need evidence that successful law enforcement actions in cases involving the rule of law can have a domino effect?

Exhibit A: On Sept. 3, we learned that former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows had recently coughed up texts and emails that he had previously failed to produce to the National Archives. “It could be a coincidence,” an unnamed source told CNN, “but within a week of the Aug. 8 search on Mar-a-Lago, much more started coming in.”

The court-approved search of former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence occurred after Trump had failed to comply voluntarily with multiple government requests to return all documents, including classified ones. The search warrant listed three criminal statutes that Trump may have violated. Anyone paying attention could see that Trump had put himself in danger of being prosecuted.

Meadows was apparently paying attention.

Exhibit B: No Jan. 6 participant whom the DOJ has charged has gone to trial since May 2. That’s likely the domino effect of a jury’s guilty verdict against Thomas Webster — a Marine Corps veteran and former NYC policeman — that day and two other similar verdicts in the weeks before.

The jury took less than four hours to convict Webster, as did the juries that rendered guilty verdicts against Gary Reffitt and Dustin Byron Thompson.

Since then, no one else involved in Jan. 6 has tested their luck with a jury. That doesn’t mean there won’t be future trials, but it suggests that swift justice in a courtroom has an impact on others. They learn the lesson: When the evidence is strong against you, juries don’t waste a lot of time convicting you. So you might as well get the benefit of a guilty plea.

Exhibit C: And if others had any doubt, Webster’s and Reffitt’s sentencings likely dispelled it. On Aug. 2, Reffitt was sentenced to more than seven years in prison. At the time, that was the longest term of imprisonment any judge had meted out for being part of the insurrection. Then, on Sept. 1, Webster received a 10-year sentence. (Thompson, the other insurrectionist who went to trial, remains to be sentenced.)

While every accused person has a right to a trial, our judicial system deploys carrots and sticks. It encourages those against whom the evidence of guilt is compelling to acknowledge their wrongdoing, and it penalizes those who don’t.

So do not expect to see many future trials of the Reffitt and Webster variety. Effective law enforcement by good investigators, prosecutors, judges and juries has a compounding effect.

Finally, here’s Exhibit D: Smart law enforcement actions can domino into unsmart defendant reactions.

After the FBI released the photo of top secret documents placed on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago office carpet, Trump posted a response on social media: “The FBI took them out of cartons and spread them around on the carpet, making it look like a big ‘find’ for them,” he asserted. “They dropped them, not me — Very deceiving.”

Trump was again playing his “aggrieved martyr” card to his base — but in the process, he added to prosecutors’ portfolio against him. His own words confirm that he held sensitive national security documents at Mar-a-Lago — in “cartons,” in his desk and elsewhere.

Take note: What a subject of investigation doesn’t say when he talks can be as important as what he does say. Prosecutors will note the absence of any assertion that the FBI “planted” the evidence, as Trump had previously suggested. So there goes that defense if Trump tries to make it at a future trial.

Feehery: Biden’s disgraceful speech is proof that only divided government can heal nation’s soul Liz Truss’s job won’t be easy — and the West needs her to succeed

Trump may not understand that when a Justice Department he doesn’t control is breathing down his neck, he’s in a different world from the one he’s known. It’s not smart to play the same old cards. The ones that worked on social media won’t have the same effect in a courtroom.

Political narratives are not what count with the FBI, with prosecutors and judges or with juries. What matters is how the facts fit into the criminal code. And what you say in public “can and will be used against you.”

Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor, currently of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

Categories
Saved Web Pages

What Factors Determine How Child Pornography is Prosecuted?

What Factors Determine How Child Pornography is Prosecuted?

It is illegal to create, receive, distribute or possess child pornography. The penalties for breaking child pornography laws are severe. State laws set forth consequences for perpetrators, which include prison time and hefty fines. If the U.S. government also presses charges, the offender is also subject to prosecution under federal law. The following factors influence the way that child pornography is prosecuted.

Federal vs. State Prosecution of Child Pornography

In general, child pornography becomes a federal case when it involves interstate or international commerce. If the images crossed state lines or national borders, the U.S. government becomes involved.

This is obviously relevant if the USPS is involved in transporting material between states or countries. Federal prosecution is also applicable to situations that involve the internet. It’s fairly easy to track the dissemination of child pornography over the internet using IP addresses. Most internet content originates from servers that are in a different location than the viewers.

18 U.S. Code § 2252 provides details about child pornography laws. This section defines child pornography offenses and sets forth guidelines for prosecution.

Other federal codes set forth guidelines for prosecuting other types of crimes involving sexually explicit depictions of children. For example, statute 18 U.S.C. §2252A has to do with the sexual exploitation of minors. Statute 18 U.S.C. §1466A involves obscene representations of sexual abuse of minors.

Was It Done Knowingly?

Child pornography is a sex crime. To be charged with a child pornography offense, someone must knowingly watch, disseminate or own a visual representation of a minor participating in sexually related conduct. Most nudity qualifies as child pornography if it involves a minor. This is true even if the nudity is not inherently sexual.

The defendant must demonstrate that the crime was committed intentionally. In some cases, such as those in which a defendant downloads several incriminating videos or visits an illegal website more than once, intent is evident.

In other cases, however, it’s more difficult to prove whether the defendant knew about the images. For example, someone working on a shared computer that contains questionable files could claim that someone else downloaded the media. A shady link could redirect you to a child pornography site without your knowledge.

How Many Images Were Involved?

When fewer than three images are involved, the accused individual reports the issue to a law enforcement agency and takes reasonable action to destroy the visual materials and prevent others from seeing them, an affirmative defense may be available.

This is a legal exemption that applies only to federal law. State laws differ regarding the amount of child pornography involved. You should consult with a lawyer before attempting to contact a law enforcement agency about child porn.

The state will typically handle a child pornography prosecution if only a few images were involved. When a large amount of material is in question, the feds usually get involved. The goal is to thwart the creation and dissemination of child pornography. If a defendant can provide details that provoke an investigation of other offenders, they may be able to reduce the severity of their sentence.

Does the Defendant Have a Prior Record?

State sentencing guidelines for individuals with no prior record are not usually as serious as federal sentencing guidelines for the same offense.

Federal sentencing for a first conviction could include five to 20 years of prison time for each offense. Those guidelines shift to 15 to 40 years of prison time for someone with a prior record.

In state court, possession of child pornography could earn you several years in prison. However, for many first offenders with no aggravating factors are sentenced to probation.

In other words, you’re more likely to receive a serious penalty if the federal government is involved.

Disproving Child Pornography Accusations

An individual who commits a child porn crime can be prosecuted. Anyone who attempts or conspires to commit a child pornography offense is also subject to prosecution. But individuals may also be falsely accused.

Some defenses that can prevent prosecution include:
• Mistaken identity – Someone else downloaded, watched, received or distributed child porn on your computer or stole your IP address by changing the VPN.
• No criminal intent – The creator of the material stated that participants were 18 or older, and you had no reason to believe otherwise.

• No knowledge – You didn’t know that you possessed any child porn content.

However, committing child pornography crimes is serious. In many cases, declaring that you viewed questionable materials but weren’t aware of the age of the individuals involved is not a solid defense.

Child pornography is a serious offense. If the crime attracts federal attention, it could lead to decades of jail time, fines and a lifetime on the sex offender registry. If you have been accused of a crime that involves child pornography, contact a lawyer immediately. Authorities will use anything that you say against you. Protect yourself by working with an experienced attorney.

WP Radio
WP Radio
OFFLINE LIVE