webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Mazzella, J cif

Ur TP

see ctr indiv rights

telecomm

~ Gigi

see open letter fodder

A new memo from the Department of Homeland Security authorizes Federal Protective Service officers to leave federal property and, if necessary, enter private homes to “eliminate” threats, including what it describes as an “identified sniper” located blocks away from a federal facility, journalist Marisa Kabas reported Friday in her newsletter The Handbasket.

The internal memo, titled “Federal Protective Service [FPS] Policy and Off-Property Jurisdiction,” was written by DHS Acting General Counsel Joseph Mazzara and circulated to all FPS personnel on Wednesday by Benjamine Huffman, the DHS Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary for Management, per the report.

Addressing concerns about the legal limits of FPS jurisdiction, Mazzara wrote that such limits “are misplaced,” and that “the limits to FPS’s authority off federal property are the edges of the Constitution on one side and necessity on the other.

Mazzara stated that FPS officers are permitted to respond to incidents even far from federal buildings if a “reasonable nexus” to the protection of federal property exists.

He wrote: “FPS could even enter a private residence containing an identified sniper blocks away from a federal facility in order to eliminate that exigent threat. There is simply no legal barrier to FPS taking action off federal property where a reasonable nexus to protecting that property exists.”

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

The phrase “identified sniper” refers to an individual who has been clearly recognized by FPS as posing a lethal, long-range threat — likely armed and positioned to target a federal building or officers.

The memo frames this as a justification for the use of force and warrantless entry in urgent situations.

Mazzara also wrote that FPS may set up barriers, fences, and other physical controls in areas near, but not limited to, federal buildings.

“This is not limited to the sidewalk or streets immediately adjacent to federal buildings as we do not live in a world of sticks and stones, but Mausers and Winchesters,” he said, referencing rifle brands.

One FPS employee, who was not named, told The Handbasket: “It’s quite clear that agents are being told they can go wherever. All of it was quite alarming and an unusual email to receive both in content and tone.”

The guidance comes as National Guard troops have been deployed to cities like Chicago, where DHS agents have recently been involved in arrests of immigrants, journalists and clergy. U.S. Northern Command confirmed Wednesday that these deployments are intended to protect DHS personnel and property.

In an accompanying email, Huffman wrote that the guidance “reaffirms that FPS officers and, by extension, any DHS personnel performing protective functions at ICE or CBP facilities may operate beyond federal boundaries when a clear nexus exists to the protection of federal property. Meanwhile, although the memo presents its scenarios as responses to threats, internal reports from DHS itself suggest a different picture.

The New York Times reported that FPS assessments of recent protests in cities like Portland described them as “low energy,” offering no indication of heightened threats that would warrant expanded enforcement powers.

Another FPS employee told The Handbasket: “I guess they got jealous of ICE being able to do anything they want.”

We strongly urge you to reject Sohn’s nomination to the FCC and hold our regulators to the highest standard.

Sincerely,

Center for a Free Economy

Americans for Tax Reform

60 Plus Association

American Commitment

Center for Individual Freedom

Citizen Outreach

Conservatives for Property Rights

Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

Institute for Liberty

Less Government

Market Institute

Independent Women’s Voice

Eagle Forum

Affiliations listed for identification purposes only.

Here’s the full list of signatories:

==

bs pr

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") today unveiled a national grassroots campaign to rally conservatives in opposition to the Obama Administration's efforts to impose onerous "Net Neutrality" rules on the Internet.  The 'Stop Net Regulation' campaign, launched during the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., encourages Americans to get active online through a national petition and by contacting their elected officials.

The campaign features prominent conservatives from CFIF and other organizations, and utilizes a network of social media outlets to educate consumers on the significant harms to economic growth and jobs if federal regulators implement Net Neutrality.

"The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration seeks over the Internet is both unnecessary and dangerous," said Timothy Lee, CFIF's VP of Legal and Public Affairs.  "The type of Net Neutrality regulations the administration seeks to impose on the Internet threaten to cut off tens of billions of dollars in private investment annually, and will cost our struggling economy good-paying American jobs at a time when we can least afford it."

"Consumers are benefiting from rapid and ever-increasing Internet-based innovation," said CFIF President Jeffrey Mazzella.  "The Obama Administration's proposed Net Neutrality rules threaten to grind that innovation to a screeching halt."

Economic studies released last month show Net Neutrality regulations will dramatically impact job growth and economic recovery efforts and will lead to significant decreases in private investment by Internet companies.

"'Stop Net Regulation' will serve as the hub for the growing movement of conservatives across the country opposed to the federal government regulating the Internet," Mazzella said.  "Hundreds of thousands of American jobs depend on private investment by Internet companies and these new regulations stand directly in the way of the nation's economic recovery."

For more information, visit www.StopNetRegulation.org.

Founded in 1998, the Center for Individual Freedom is a constitutional and free market advocacy organization with hundreds of thousands of activists and supporters nationwide.

www.CFIF.org

SOURCE Center for Individual Freedom

RELATED LINKS

http://www.cfif.org

http://www.stopnetregulation.org/

==

https://www.alternet.org/activism/fcc-moves-end-net-neutrality-did-telecom-lobby-forge-tens-thousands-pro-industry-public

no surprise that the GOP-dominated Federal Communications Commission announced plans Tuesday to jettison Obama-era net neutrality rules, which barred internet gatekeepers from imposing a matrix of new fees pegged to user habits.

In typical corporate double-speak, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that removing price-gouging barriers would “benefit consumers,” because, “instead of [websites] being flyspecked by lawyers and bureaucrats, the internet would once again thrive under engineers and entrepreneurs.”

Pai’s pro-consumer defense of corporate greed is hardly new. It’s an old trope honed by generations of Washington consultants selling unpopular policies as benefiting the public interest. But what’s different this time around is Pai’s FCC has been trolled by tens of thousands of fake pro-industry comments filed online, which the FCC chairman is citing as part of his public relations effort to repeal net neutrality.

This is the Washington equivalent of waving the propaganda flag put online by Russian trolls in 2016's election. And just like the GOP last year, or others who denied social media messaging had a serious impact, Pai’s FCC doesn’t care if the process was rigged or the target of fake lobbying-via-identity theft. 

“The process the FCC has employed to consider potentially sweeping alterations to current net neutrality rules has been corrupted by the fraudulent use of Americans’ identities — and the FCC has been unwilling to assist my office in our efforts to investigate this unlawful activity,” wrote New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, in an open letter posted on Medium.com Tuesday.

“Specifically, for six months my office has been investigating who perpetrated a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities," he said. "Such conduct likely violates state law — yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed.”

Put bluntly, not only has the FCC been trolled by a pro-corporate marketing campaign based on identity theft and impersonating citizens, but the FCC is obstructing the New York State attorney general from investigating what is a serious and major crime.

Fabricating Consent

The “massive scheme” to fraudulently lobby the FCC on gutting net neutrality protections was first reported by theVerge.com, a technology website, in May 2017. As Verge reported, popular late-night television host John Oliver encouraged his “viewers to post to a public comment thread with support for strong regulation, and a massive number of people did so. But many others appeared to have a different point of view.”

Verge noticed that tens of thousands of the electronic comments opposed to net neutrality were identical.

“‘The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation,’ read thousands of identical comments posted this week, seemingly by different concerned individuals,” Verge reported. “The comment goes on to give a vigorous defense of deregulation, calling the rules a ‘power grab’ and saying the rollback represents ‘a positive step forward.’ By midday Tuesday, the thread was inundated with versions of the comment. A search of the duplicated text found more than 58,000 results as of press time, with 17,000 of those posted in the last 24 hours alone.”

Verge reporters contacted some of the people submitting identical comments and found they did not write them, nor did the impersonated authors have any idea who sent them. Then Verge went fishing for explanations, or at least something approximating a plausible explanation.

“It’s unclear who may have orchestrated the comments,” it wrote. “A line of the language used in the comment, specifically about the ‘unprecedented regulatory power [of] the Obama administration,’ has some resemblance to a 2010 press release from the Center for Individual Freedom, a conservative, anti-net neutrality group.”

When Verge contacted the group, its spokesman said that, yes, it “is asking our supporters and other activists across the nation to submit comments,” and that “our messaging on this general issue has been consistent for nearly a decade.” Verge theorized that a pro-industry group turned the center’s message into lobbying spam, which the center didn’t discount. “Your question about the possibility of someone corrupting the effort is something we need to look into,” a spokesperson said.

Schneiderman said the submission of thousands of fabricated comments violates the spirit of representative government and letter of the law on identity theft.

“In May 2017, researchers and reporters discovered that the FCC’s public comment process was being corrupted by the submission of enormous numbers of fake comments concerning the possible repeal of net neutrality rules,” he wrote. “In doing so, the perpetrator or perpetrators attacked what is supposed to be an open public process by attempting to drown out and negate the views of the real people, businesses, and others who honestly commented on this important issue.”

“Worse, while some of these fake comments used made up names and addresses, many misused the real names and addresses of actual people as part of the effort to undermine the integrity of the comment process. That’s akin to identity theft, and it happened on a massive scale,” Schneiderman continued. “My office analyzed the fake comments and found that tens of thousands of New Yorkers may have had their identities misused in this way. (Indeed, analysis showed that, in all, hundreds of thousands of Americans likely were victimized in the same way, including tens of thousands per state in California, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and possibly others.) Impersonation and other misuse of a person’s identity violates New York law, so my office launched an investigation.”

The FCC’s response to Schneiderman’s inquiries is what one would expect from the Trump administration—ignoring anything that clashes with its political goals.

But this quagmire goes deeper. The FCC’s Pai is siding with telecom companies that want to gouge consumers (just compare broadband costs in the U.S. to overseas), and turning a blind eye to lobbying fabrications that corrupt a public process—federal rule making. This shadowy behavior also runs counter to notable public support to keep net neutrality, Schneiderman said. 

“This [New York] investigation isn’t about the substantive issues concerning net neutrality. For my part, I have long publicly advocated for strong net neutrality rules under the Title II of the Communications Act, and studies show that the overwhelming majority of Americans who took the time to write public comments to the FCC about the issue feel the same way while a very small minority favor repeal,” the New York attorney general said. “It’s about the right to control one’s own identity and prevent the corruption of a process designed to solicit the opinion of real people and institutions. Misuse of identity online by the hundreds of thousands should concern everyone — for and against net neutrality, New Yorker or Texan, Democrat or Republican.”

But this is the Trump era, where pursuit of corporate profits is the government’s most pressing purpose. If that means fabricating tens of thousands of online public comments in 2017—so be it. In another eyebrow-raising way, industry insiders wielding new technologies have hijacked a democratic process and the federal official in charge, the FCC’s Pai, couldn’t care less.

==

2/10 bs pr

:{:{:{

WASHINGTON}:}:}:, Feb. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") today unveiled a national grassroots campaign to rally conservatives in opposition to the Obama Administration's efforts to impose onerous "Net Neutrality" rules on the Internet.  The 'Stop Net Regulation' campaign, launched during the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., encourages Americans to get active online through a national petition and by contacting their elected officials.

The campaign features prominent conservatives from CFIF and other organizations, and utilizes a network of social media outlets to educate consumers on the significant harms to economic growth and jobs if federal regulators implement Net Neutrality.

"The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration seeks over the Internet is both unnecessary and dangerous," said Timothy Lee, CFIF's VP of Legal and Public Affairs.  "The type of Net Neutrality regulations the administration seeks to impose on the Internet threaten to cut off tens of billions of dollars in private investment annually, and will cost our struggling economy good-paying American jobs at a time when we can least afford it."  

"Consumers are benefiting from rapid and ever-increasing Internet-based innovation," said CFIF President Jeffrey Mazzella.  "The Obama Administration's proposed Net Neutrality rules threaten to grind that innovation to a screeching halt."

Economic studies released last month show Net Neutrality regulations will dramatically impact job growth and economic recovery efforts and will lead to significant decreases in private investment by Internet companies.

"'Stop Net Regulation' will serve as the hub for the growing movement of conservatives across the country opposed to the federal government regulating the Internet," Mazzella said.  "Hundreds of thousands of American jobs depend on private investment by Internet companies and these new regulations stand directly in the way of the nation's economic recovery."

For more information, visit www.StopNetRegulation.org.

Founded in 1998, the Center for Individual Freedom is a constitutional and free market advocacy organization with hundreds of thousands of activists and supporters nationwide.

www.CFIF.org

SOURCE Center for Individual Freedom

RELATED LINKS

http://www.cfif.org

http://www.stopnetregulation.org/

==

 http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/20/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815.long

Other third-party groups: tobacco industry and Tea Party affiliations

In 2001, Humber announced that the NSA would be dissolved, with some of its funds being transferred to the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF, figure 1),133 ,134 which Humber founded in 1998.135 Its mission is to ‘protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.’136 As of 2012, CFIF's president was former NSA spokesperson Jeffrey Mazzella137 ,138 and CFIF's corporate counsel and senior vice president was former NSA attorney Renee Giachino.139 ,140  glantz

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 30, 2003 

Contact:  Jennifer Ellison 

Shirley & Bannister Public Affairs

703-739-5920 

Jeffrey Mazzella Named Executive Director of Center for Individual Freedom Alexandria, Va — The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) today is pleased to announce the appointment of Jeffrey L. Mazzella as Executive Director effective August 1, 2003.  

For the past two and a half years, Mr. Mazzella has headed up CFIF’s legislative and public affairs department where he was responsible for the development and implementation of the organization’s legislative and regulatory agenda.  He has been CFIF’s chief representative before Congress, the Executive Branch and state and local governments across the country on issues involving taxation, judicial confirmations, energy, technology and the First Amendment, among others.

“CFIF has come a long way since its founding in 1998,” said Mazzella.  “I look forward to building on its reputation as an organization that gets the job done.  The Constitution and principles of our Founding Fathers all too often get lost in the public policy debate.  My job at CFIF is to ensure that doesn’t happen,” continued Mazzella.

“It is an honor to assume this leadership role and be entrusted with strengthening our organization’s voice in the name of individual freedoms and rights protected by the U.S. Constitution,” Mazzella concluded.

Mr. Mazzella will be taking over for Eric Schippers who has led CFIF as Executive Director since its founding.  After ten years in leadership positions in the non-profit sector, Mr. Schippers will be moving on to future challenges in the private sector.  Mr. Schippers will remain involved in the group’s efforts as a member of the Board of Directors. 

“Jeff has done a fabulous job in developing and carrying CFIF’s message since he joined our team more than two years ago,” said Schippers.   “I have always been very proud of the work we’ve done as a constitutional advocacy organization and know that CFIF will be in good hands with Jeff at the helm,” Schippers concluded.

The Center for Individual Freedom is a 501 (c)(4) non-partisan constitutional advocacy group that fights to protect and defend individual freedoms and rights in the legal, legislative and educational arenas.

kos

This morning, Jesse Holland of the Associated Press reported on yesterday's filibuster shenanigans in the Senate.

In an article titled "Byrd, Frist, Spar Over Filibuster Changes," Holland reprts on the exchange between Frist and Byrd, but also brings in Harry Reid's comments on Judge Henry Saad's FBI file.

Writing that Reid "was criticized by conservatives for mentioning it," Holland goes on to quote one such critc:

"With his unsubstantiated charges, Senator Reid unfairly and irresponsibly defames Judge Saad," said Jeffrey Mazzella, president of the Center For Individual Freedom.

Who's that, now?

The Center for Individual Freedom?  Sounds like a nice group. After all, who can argue with freedom for individuals? Oh, and look, they say right on their web page that they're a "non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution."  You'll need to take their word for that, since they are remarkably less-than-forthcoming with their Board of Directors.

Fortunately, my time over at ePluribus Media has taught me the value of a good search through corporate filings at the state level.  A quick query in the Virgina State Corporation Commission website reveals the players:

Guy A Vander Jagt   SEC/TREAS   

Anthony M Fabrizio JR   CHAIRMAN   

Jeffrey L Mazzella   EXEC DIRECTOR   

Bruce Herschensohn DIRECTOR

Even the most cursory Google search reveals that these folks are as partisan as they come.  In fact, Mazzello, in addition to his duties at the CFIF, serves as one of the "experts" at the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, along with, wait for it - Manuel Miranda.

Shame on the reporter for failing to do his homework on this one.  Kos's debunk of this smear was up hours before Holland filed his story.  That liberal media is at it again. 

Update [2005-5-13 10:29:13 by Biblio]:I mentioned in comments that I didn't find this article to be in need of a retraction, as there is nothing demontrably false reported. My problem comes from the way in which Mazzello is given the last word in an attempt to "balance" a story that didn't require it. I've attempted to address this in the e-mail I've sent to the AP:

To Whom it May Concern, I have been following the debate in the Senate over the use of the filibuster and read Jesse Holland's 5/13 article "Byrd, Frist Spar Over Filibuster Changes" with interest. Overnight, Harry Reid's rationale for continuing to oppose Bush-nominee Judge Henry Saad, namely that there is a "problem" in Saad's FBI report, was characterized by Washinton Times reporter Charles Hurt as justification for Reid's expulsion from the Senate. Hurt quoted former Frist staffer Manuel Miranda saying "Harry Reid is a disgrace to the Senate and to [his] Church of Latter-day Saints," simply for referring to an FBI file that is not secret and which has already been repoted on by the media. The Washinton Times is well-known for its conservative slant, so I was interested in how the presumably neutral AP would report the story. I was surprised to see that Mr. Holland also reported the conservative objection to Mr Reid's comments without clarifying that Mr. Reid had revealed nothing secret nor broken any Senate rules. Mr Holland quotes Jeffrey Mazzella, president of Center For Individual Freedom, a conservative lobbying group:"With his unsubstantiated charges, Senator Reid unfairly and irresponsibly defames Judge Saad." Mr Holland fails to note that Mr. Mazzella, who is on the record calling for Republicans to exercise the so-called "nuclear option" of doing away with the filibuster, serves as an "expert" for the right-wing Committee for a Fair Judiciary, along with Mr. Reid's other critic, Manuel Miranda. Sincerely, Biblio

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/about-cfif/about-cfif-staff/12-cfif-staff/2-jeffrey-mazzella