Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (18537)	7/17/2001 10:33:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I haven't seen the details of the problems about the style but except for the global warming/Kyoto treaty issues these where not matters where the US was dealing with the Europeans or had any sort of understanding with them that GW could have broken with. He may have acted like a cowboy in that issue. I don't see it but perhaps I have not looked hard enough. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (18537)	7/18/2001 8:46:32 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I found this piece on the use of deceit in law enforcement interesting. No undercover activities. I had no idea. Tucson, Arizona Wednesday, 18 July 2001 Ethics rules in Oregon bar use of undercover agents By Terrence Petty THE ASSOCIATED PRESS The Associated Press Rules handcuff Mike Mosman, Oregon interim U.S. attorney. PORTLAND, Ore. - For nearly a year, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have been handcuffed in Oregon, constrained from launching undercover operations as basic as sending an agent to buy drugs from a suspected dealer. The reason is an Oregon Supreme Court ruling that all attorneys - prosecutors included - must abide by state ethics rules against the use of deceit. Under Justice Department policy, undercover activities by federal agents must be approved by federal prosecutors. Since the Aug. 17 ruling, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Portland has suspended some undercover operations and has not approved any new ones for fear of disciplinary action from the Oregon State Bar, which can disbar members. "I consider this the single greatest challenge as U.S. attorney in Oregon. It's a terrible problem," said Mike Mosman, interim U.S. attorney. The FBI said the cases hampered include an undercover operation against Russian mobsters, an investigation of adults who go into Internet chat rooms to try to lure children into having sex and a probe of a check fraud scheme involving more than $1 million in losses in four states. Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, said that because of the ruling, if the FBI wanted to bust a drug dealer, "we'd have to walk up and say: 'I'm an FBI agent. Here's $10,000. I'd like to buy some coke.' " The ruling was triggered by an ethics case that had nothing to do with prosecutors. In 1998, the bar ruled that an attorney had violated ethics rules by posing as a chiropractor while preparing a lawsuit against an insurance company. The rules say lawyers must not engage in "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." The state Supreme Court backed the bar last August. But the court went even further. Before the ruling, the Justice Department had asked the court to grant an exemption for prosecutors to get involved in undercover operations. But the court said the ethics rules apply to all members of the bar without exception. Now, it's not just federal agents who are feeling the squeeze. The state Attorney General's Office has suspended undercover operations by its consumer fraud and organized crime units. County and city prosecutors are not directly involved in undercover operations as often as federal prosecutors. But many are not even giving advice to local law enforcement agencies about undercover operations. "I can't even allow my deputy DAs to advise the local drug team on proper ways to use an informant," said Joshua Marquis, district attorney for Clatsop County and president of the Oregon District Attorneys Association. A task force representing law enforcement and private attorneys is trying to work out a solution acceptable to the court. In January, the bar recommended to the high court that the code of ethics be rewritten to allow prosecutors to supervise or give advice on covert activities. But the court rejected the proposal, with several justices saying it was too broad. The Legislature this year passed a bill saying prosecutors can use covert activities, even if deception is required. But the law does not alter the wording of the state bar's ethics code, and prosecutors say they are still subject to disciplinary action. azstarnet.com