Mediaboss Marketing

A federal grand jury in Tampa, Florida, returned a superseding indictment charging four U.S. citizens and three Russian nationals with working on behalf of the Russian government and in conjunction with the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) to conduct a multi-year foreign malign influence campaign in the United States. Among other conduct, the superseding indictment alleges that the Russian defendants recruited, funded and directed U.S. political groups to act as unregistered illegal agents of the Russian government and sow discord and spread pro-Russian propaganda; the indicted intelligence officers, in particular, participated in covertly funding and directing candidates for local office within the United States.

Additionally, in a separate case out of the District of Columbia, a criminal complaint was unsealed charging Russian national Natalia Burlinova with conspiring with an FSB officer to act as an illegal agent of Russia in the United States.

Russias foreign intelligence service allegedly weaponized our First Amendment rights freedoms Russia denies its own citizens to divide Americans and interfere in elections in the United States, said Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Departments National Security Division. The department will not hesitate to expose and prosecute those who sow discord and corrupt U.S. elections in service of hostile foreign interests, regardless of whether the culprits are U.S. citizens or foreign individuals abroad.

Efforts by the Russian government to secretly influence U.S. elections will not be tolerated, said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. of the Justice Departments Criminal Division. As todays announcement demonstrates, the Criminal Division is committed to eradicating foreign malign influence from the U.S. political system and helping ensure the integrity of our elections.

Todays announcement paints a harrowing picture of Russian government actions and the lengths to which the FSB will go to interfere with our elections, sow discord in our nation and ultimately recruit U.S citizens to their efforts, said Acting Assistant Director Kurt Ronnow of the FBIs Counterintelligence Division. All Americans should be deeply concerned by the tactics employed by the FSB and remain vigilant to any attempt to undermine our democracy. The FBI remains committed to confronting this egregious behavior and ultimately disrupting our adversaries and those who act on their behalf.

United States v. Ionov, et al.

According to the superseding indictment returned in the Middle District of Florida, Aleksandr Viktorovich Ionov, a resident of Moscow, was the founder and president of the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia (AGMR), an organization headquartered in Moscow, Russia, and funded by the Russian government. Ionov allegedly utilized AGMR to carry out Russias malign influence campaign. Ionovs influence efforts were allegedly directed and supervised by Moscow-based FSB officers, including indicted defendants Aleksey Borisovich Sukhodolov and Yegor Sergeyevich Popov.

The prosecution of this criminal conduct is essential to protecting the American public when foreign governments seek to inject themselves into the American political process, said U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg for the Middle District of Florida. We thank our partners at the FBI for their tireless investigation of these events and their commitment to ensure justice is done.

Among other illegal activities, the superseding indictment alleges that Ionov, Sukhodolov and Popov conspired to directly and substantially influence democratic elections in the United States by clandestinely funding and directing the political campaign of a particular candidate for local office in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2019. For instance, the superseding indictment alleges that Popov expressly referred to this effort on behalf of the FSB as our election campaign, and Ionov referring to the candidate as the candidate whom we supervise. Ionov and Popov allegedly intended that this election interference plot would extend beyond the 2019 local election cycle in St. Petersburg, and subsequently discussed that the USA Presidential election was the FSBs main topic of the year.

Moreover, from at least November 2014 until July 2022, Ionov allegedly engaged in a years-long foreign malign influence campaign targeting the United States. As a part of the campaign, Ionov allegedly recruited members of political groups within the United States, including the African Peoples Socialist Party and the Uhuru Movement (collectively, the APSP) in Florida, Black Hammer in Georgia and a political group in California (referred to in the superseding indictment as U.S. Political Group 3), to participate in the influence campaign and act as agents of Russia in the United States, including the following indicted defendants:

One focus of Ionovs alleged influence operation was to create the appearance of American popular support for Russias annexation of territories in Ukraine. For example, in May 2020, Ionov allegedly sent a request he stated was from Russia, the Donetsk Peoples Republic an apparent reference to a Russian-occupied region in eastern Ukraine to Yeshitela and members of other U.S. political groups to make statements in support of the independence of the so-called Donetsk Peoples Republic, a Russian-backed breakaway state in eastern Ukraine. Ionov later allegedly touted to the FSB that Yeshitelas video-recorded statement of support was the first time that American nonprofit organizations congratulated citizens of the occupied region.

Ionovs use of the APSP to promote Russian propaganda relating to Ukraine allegedly continued after Russias invasion of Ukraine. On the day Russia invaded Ukraine, Feb. 24, 2022, Ionov allegedly emailed Nevel an URGENT MESSAGE which contained pro-Russian talking points in support of the invasion. Thereafter, throughout March 2022, the APSP repeatedly hosted Ionov via video conference to discuss the war, during which Ionov falsely stated that anyone who supported Ukraine also supported Naziism and white supremacy, and Yeshitela and another APSP member allegedly made statements of solidarity with the Russian government.

Ionov, Sukhodolov, Popov, Yeshitela, Hess, Nevel and Romain are charged with conspiring to have U.S. citizens act as illegal agents of the Russian government within the United States without providing prior notification to the Attorney General, as required by law. If convicted, they each face a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Yeshitela, Hess and Nevel are also charged with acting as agents of Russia within the United States without such prior notification. If convicted, they each face a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. If convicted, a federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel J. Marcet and Risha Asokan for the Middle District of Florida, Trial Attorney Menno Goedman of the Justice Departments Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, and Trial Attorney Demetrius Sumner of the Criminal Divisions Public Integrity Section are prosecuting the case.

United States v. Burlinova

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint unsealed in the District of Columbia, Russian national Natalia Burlinova, a resident of Moscow, conspired with an FSB officer to recruit U.S. citizens from academic and research institutions to travel to Russia to participate in a public diplomacy program called Meeting Russia. The program was operated by PICREADI, a Russian organization led by Burlinova, funded by the Russian government and devoted to promoting Russian national interests.

The defendant is accused of subverting our foreign agent notification laws to promote Russian national interests here in the United States, concealing from the public that her recruitment efforts were funded by a Russian security service, said U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves for the District of Columbia. We will continue to expose these serious crimes and hold all who perpetrate them accountable.

The affidavit alleges that the FSB officer provided funding and other support for Burlinovas foreign recruitment and her efforts to advance Russian interests in the United States. In return, Burlinova provided the FSB officer with extensive information about U.S. citizens who were recruited to attend her programs, including their rsums, passport information, photographs and analyses of their views toward Russia. Burlinova further identified for the FSB officer particular U.S. citizens who, in Burlinovas view, had expressed positive attitudes towards Russia and were prepared to continue to collaborate. During a recruitment trip to the United States in fall 2018, Burlinova met with U.S. citizens at various universities and research institutions and provided to photographs of her meetings to the FSB officer. The FSB officer used the information Burlinova provided prepare FSB intelligence reports. Burlinova never notified the Attorney General of these efforts or otherwise disclosed to the public that her recruitment efforts were supported and funded by a Russian security service.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Friedman for the District of Columbia and Trial Attorney Emma D. Ellenrieder of the National Security Divisions Counterintelligence and Export Control Section are prosecuting the case.

An indictment and a complaint are merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Original post:
U.S. Citizens and Russian Intelligence Officers Charged with ... - Department of Justice

RIVERSIDE, Ill., April 18, 2023 (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) The EveryLibrary Institute, a national nonprofit focused on public policy and libraries, is proud to announce that bestselling author Nora Roberts and the Nora Roberts Foundation have made a generous donation to the organization to support the launch of Fight for the First, its new advocacy and organizing site with a mission of protecting the First Amendment in libraries across the country.

Image Caption: The EveryLibrary Institute.

Ms. Roberts, the best-selling author of nearly 250 novels, has long been a champion of intellectual freedom and the importance of libraries as community resources. The Nora Roberts Family Foundation is committed to supporting initiatives that promote literacy, education, and the arts. Ms. Roberts donations to the EveryLibrary Institute will help the organization continue its work ensuring that all people have free and open access to information and ideas, and that libraries are able to provide a safe and welcoming space for all. The Foundations donation to EveryLibrary reflects its commitment to defending the right to free speech and access to libraries.

In a statement, Ms. Roberts said, I have always believed that libraries are essential to our society and the preservation of our democracy. They provide access to knowledge and ideas that are critical for personal and intellectual growth. I am proud to support the EveryLibrary Institute and its mission to protect the First Amendment in libraries.

Kathryn Pong, Vice President of Operations for the Nora Roberts Foundation, said, Libraries are the heart and soul of our communities, and they play a vital role in promoting literacy, education, and a love of reading. They are also a bastion of free speech and a place where people can come together to learn and grow. We are proud to support the EveryLibrary Institutes mission to protect the First Amendment in libraries and ensure that these institutions remain a cornerstone of our society.

EveryLibrary Executive Director John Chrastka expressed his gratitude for Ms. Roberts donation, saying, We are thrilled to have the support of such a prominent figure in the literary world. Ms. Roberts generosity will help us to continue our important work of advocating for libraries and the freedom to read. We are honored to have her personal support as well as that of the Foundation. Her donation will help us continue our work to protect the essential role that libraries play in our communities.

More information: https://www.fightforthefirst.org/

About EveryLibrary Institute:

The EveryLibrary Institute works to promote the value and visibility of libraries as essential institutions that serve the public good. The mission of EveryLibrary Institute is to defend and advance library values, including access to information and intellectual freedom. The organization works to ensure that all individuals have access to the information and resources they need to succeed and that libraries remain a vital part of our democracy.

Learn more: https://www.everylibraryinstitute.org/

MULTIMEDIA:

IMAGE link for media: https://www.Send2Press.com/300dpi/23-0418-s2p-everylibrary-300dpi.jpg

View post:
Bestselling Author Nora Roberts Donates to the EveryLibrary ... - Send2Press Newswire

MADISON, Wis.The University of Wisconsins Wisconsin Institute for Citizenship and Civil Dialogue is hosting a panel discussion Monday, April 24, on the First Amendment, civil dialogue, and creating a marketplace of ideas at our public universities.

Fostering a Marketplace of Ideas will take place at UW-Eau Claires Centennial Hall, room 1614, 1698 Park Avenue, Eau Claire, Wis., from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. The event is free and open to the public.

The panel will feature Rep. Jodi Emerson, D-Eau Claire; Sen. Jesse James, R-Altoona; Eric Kasper, professor of political science and director of the Menard Center for Constitutional Studies; and April Bleske-Rechek, professor of psychology. Bleske-Rechek and Kasper are members of the research team that conducted the recent survey of UW System student viewpoints on free speech. The discussion will be moderated by UW System President Jay Rothman.

The Wisconsin Institute for Citizenship and Civil Dialogue is overseen by the Wisconsin Institute for Public Policy and Service and is one of several new UW System civil dialogue initiatives. It helps coordinate various research and policy centers across the UW System that are focused on the Constitution and public affairs for the purpose of sharing best practices, joint programming, and discussing ways to elevate civil dialogue and the First Amendment on UW campuses.

Note: Visitors to campus may park in Visitor Lots A or B near the Flesch Family Welcome Center, 127 Roosevelt Avenue.Please stop at the Welcome Center front desk to register for a parking permit at no cost before proceeding to Centennial Hall.

The University of Wisconsin System serves approximately 161,000 students. Awarding nearly 37,000 degrees annually, the UW System is Wisconsins talent pipeline, putting graduates in position to increase their earning power, contribute to their communities, and make Wisconsin a better place to live. Nearly 90 percent of in-state UW System graduates stay in Wisconsin five years after earning a degree with a median salary of more than $66,000. The UW System provides a 23:1 return on state investment. UW System universities also contribute to the richness of Wisconsins culture and economy with groundbreaking research, new companies and patents, and boundless creative intellectual energy. The UW System and its employees are purpose-driven, people-focused, and committed to stewardship.

Read the original here:
Rep. Emerson, Sen. James, UW-Eau Claire scholars to join UW ... - University of Wisconsin System

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. Republican state Sen. Blaise Ingoglia has filed an amendment to a Senate bill that would void any agreements made by the Walt Disney World company and the former Reedy Creek board and halt land development plans.

The move comes after the previous board handed governing control over to Disney, essentially leaving the newly appointed board with little power.

This board loses, for practical purposes, the majority of its ability to do anything beyond maintain the roads and maintain basic infrastructure, board member Ron Peritold Spectrum News digital partner the Orlando Sentinel.

On Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis proposed legislation that would revoke any deal Disney made with the previous board, subject the company to state inspections of all its rides and give the state-run board control over undeveloped land around Disney.

Ingoglia (R-District 11) said discussions over Disneys power have been going on for years, and he said says Republicans decided something needed to be done after digging deeper into Disneys oversight.

The punishment here is a level playing field, said Ingoglia, whose district includes Citrus, Hernando, Sumter and part of Pasco counties. Because we know for years Disney has had an unlevel playing field: being able to govern themselves, not having to go through the same regulatory hoops or governmental burdens that another theme park right down the street would have to do.

The dispute between DeSantis and Disney began after the company took a stand against the controversial Parental Rights in Education law, which prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identityin kindergarten through the third grade. Instruction after third grade must be deemed age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate by state standards.

Spectrum News spoke with State Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-District 42) when DeSantis announced plans for new legislation, but before the amendment was officially filed.

The policies that Governor DeSantis is proposing are punitive in nature and targeting one specific corporation for expressing their First Amendment rights, said Eskamani, whose district includes Orlando. I find it disingenuous. I find it anti-consumer. And hes also not closing corporate tax loopholes, which would be the easiest thing to do to hold every corporation accountable.

SB 1604 is on a Senate committee agenda for Thursday. The DeSantis-appointed board, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District,will meet Wednesday.

View post:
Amendment filed to regain control over Disney deals - News 13 Orlando

The issue before the Supreme Court on Monday: whether a federal law that prohibits inducing unlawful immigration for financial gain violates the First Amendment. Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Imag hide caption

The issue before the Supreme Court on Monday: whether a federal law that prohibits inducing unlawful immigration for financial gain violates the First Amendment.

Look at the the Supreme Court's history, and you will see a lot of cases in which odious defendants bring tough First Amendment questions. Monday's case was one of those.

The issue was whether a federal law that makes it a crime to encourage or induce illegal immigration transforms some speech protected by the Constitution into a crime.

The defendant in this case is Helaman Hansen, who conned 471 noncitizens into believing that they could obtain U.S. citizenship through adult adoption. By enrolling these noncitizens in this nonexistent program, Hansen defrauded these people of more than $1.8 million. In 2017, a jury convicted him on 15 counts of mail and wire fraud, for which he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. But it also found him guilty of two counts of encouraging or inducing these noncitizens to remain in the United States, and it is those two counts that were the focus of Monday's argument.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hansen, declaring that the federal law making it a crime to induce unlawful immigration sweeps up a substantial amount of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The government appealed, and on Monday Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher sought to thread a tiny legal needle: With one hand he made strategic concessions, while with the other he sought to uphold the statute. He conceded that the jury had not been properly instructed on the defendant's intent, and that the statute could be read too broadly. But, noting that the law has been applied for 70 years, he argued that if it is narrowly construed, it does not run afoul of the First Amendment.

"Prohibitions on soliciting or facilitating both criminal and civil violations have long been common and have never been thought to raise a First Amendment problem," Fletcher said. "The First Amendment does not protect speech that is intended to induce or commence specific illegal activities."

"What do you say to the charitable organizations that say, even under your narrowing construction, there's still going to be a chill or a threat of prosecution for them for providing food or shelter and aid," asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor followed up, saying, "We do know that the Customs Department made a list of all the people, religious entities, the lawyers and others who were providing services to immigrants at the border and was saying they were going to rely on the statute to prosecute them."

Justice Elena Kagan added, "What happens to all the cases where it could be a lawyer, it could be a doctor, it could be a neighbor, it could be a friend, it could be a teacher and could be anybody, says to a noncitizen, 'I really think you should stay.' What happens to that world of cases?"

Responding to a question from Sotomayor about a grandmother who worries that her immigration status might be a burden on her children but stays in the U.S. at their urging, Fletcher acknowledged that when family members urge someone to stay, that is the hardest case. He said there is no way to deal with all the variables that could come up, prompting Sotomayor to ask, "Why should we uphold a statute that criminalizes words . . . that's what we're doing with this statute. It's a first of [its] kind."

Unless the court clips the wings of this statute, she said, "Congress and the states will be free . . . to criminalize speech soliciting violations of the vast range of administrative and regulatory laws that govern us today, from mask and vaccine mandates to parking ordinances."

But she too faced some tough hypotheticals. "What about someone who encourages a person who is intellectually disabled to commit suicide?" asked Justice Samuel Alito.

Bhandari replied that the government has an interest in protecting the vulnerable, and if a statute were narrowly drawn, it could survive.

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Bhandari how her client's rights are being violated, noting that under just about any standard of intent, he would be convicted.

Bhandari acknowledged that her client had defrauded many people and will go to jail for 20 years. But, she said, the challenge here is to the statute as a whole and how it could inhibit speech about almost anything.

The government, with all its concessions on Monday, tried its best to persuade the court that a decision narrowly construing the statute would allow it to remain on the books. Whether it won the day remains to be seen.

Continue reading here:
At the Supreme Court, when is immigration advice a crime? - NPR