DOCSLIB.ORG

Selected Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Selected Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section Selected Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes Including Statutes Amended by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act, and the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act May 2006 Table of Contents Table of Contents • 16 U.S.C. § 1376. Seizure and Forfeiture of Cargo Title 7 (Marine Mammal Protection Act) ..........................10 • 7 U.S.C. §§ 2024(g) and (h). Forfeiture of Property • 16 U.S.C. § 1377. Enforcement (Marine Mammal Involved in Illegal Food Stamp Transactions; Protection Act) ........................................................11 Criminal Forfeiture ...................................................1 • 16 U.S.C. § 1540. Penalties and Enforcement Title 8 (Endangered Species) .............................................12 • 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b). Seizure and Forfeiture of • 16 U.S.C. § 1860. Civil Forfeitures (National Fishery Conveyances, Gross Proceeds, and Property Management Program) ...........................................17 Traceable to Such Conveyances or Proceeds ...........3 • 16 U.S.C. § 3374. Forfeiture (Lacey Act) ..............18 Title 15 • 16 U.S.C. § 3606. Violations and Penalties (North • 15 U.S.C. § 715f. Forfeiture of Contraband Oil Atlantic Salmon Fishing) .......................................18 Shipped in Violation of Law; Procedure ..................5 • 16 U.S.C. § 3637. Prohibited Acts and Penalties (Pacific • 15 U.S.C. § 1177. Civil Forfeiture of Coins and Salmon Fishing) .....................................................19 Currency in Confiscated Gambling Devices ............5 • 16 U.S.C. § 5010. Penalties (North Pacific Title 16 Anadromous Stocks Convention) ...........................20 • 16 U.S.C. §§ 470gg(b) and (c). Forfeitures; • 16 U.S.C. § 5106. Secretarial Action (Atlantic Disposition of Penalties Collected and Items Coastal Fisheries) ...................................................22 Forfeited in Cases Involving Archaeological Resources Excavated or Removed From Indian Lands (Archaeological Resources Protection Act) ...7 • 16 U.S.C. § 5154. Moratorium (Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation) .........................................................24 • 16 U.S.C. § 916f. Violations; Fines and Penalties (Whaling Convention Act) .......................................7 • 16 U.S.C. § 5509. Forfeitures (High Seas Fishing) .25 • 16 U.S.C. § 957. Violations; Fines and Forfeitures; • 16 U.S.C. § 5606. Prohibited Acts and Penalties Application of Related Laws (Tuna Conventions) ...7 (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention) ............26 • 16 U.S.C. § 971e. Violations (Atlantic Tunas Title 17 Convention) ..............................................................8 • 17 U.S.C. § 506(b). Criminal Offenses (Copyright • 16 U.S.C. § 972f. Prohibited Acts (Eastern Pacific Infringements) ........................................................27 Tuna Fishing) ...........................................................9 • 17 U.S.C. § 509. Seizure and Forfeiture • 16 U.S.C. § 1171. Seizure and Forfeiture of Vessels (Phonorecords) .......................................................27 (North Pacific Fur Seals) ........................................10 Selected Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes • i Table of Contents § 982(a)(3) and (4). FIRREA ...........................................44 Title 18 § 982(a)(5). Motor Vehicle Crimes ..................................44 § 982(a)(6). Immigration, Visa, and Passport Violations ..44 § 982(a)(7). Health Care Offenses ...................................45 • 18 U.S.C. § 38. Fraud Involving Aircraft or Space § 982(a)(8). Telemarketing Fraud ....................................45 Vehicle Parts in Interstate or Foreign Commerce ...29 • 18 U.S.C. § 983. General Rules for Civil Forfeiture Proceedings (CAFRA) ..........................45 • 18 U.S.C. § 492. Forfeiture of Counterfeit Paraphernalia ..........................................................30 § 983(a). Notice; Claim; Complaint ...............................45 § 983(b). Representation .................................................47 § 983(c). Burden of Proof ...............................................48 • 18 U.S.C. § 512. Forfeiture of Certain Motor § 983(d). Innocent Owner Defense .................................48 Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Parts ...........................31 § 983(e). Motion To Set Aside Forfeiture ........................49 § 983(f). Release of Seized Property .............................50 § 983(g). Proportionality ................................................51 • 18 U.S.C. § 545. Smuggling Goods Into the § 983(h). Civil Fine ........................................................51 United States ..........................................................31 § 983(i). Civil Forfeiture Statute Defined (for Purposes of Section 983) ................................................51 § 983(j). Restraining Orders; Protective Orders ............51 • 18 U.S.C. § 550. False Claim for Refund of Duties ..32 • 18 U.S.C. § 984. Civil Forfeiture of Fungible Property ..................................................................52 • 18 U.S.C. § 793. Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information ...................................32 • 18 U.S.C. § 985. Civil Forfeiture of Real Property ...53 • 18 U.S.C. § 794. Gathering or Delivering Defense Information To Aid Foreign Government ..............34 • 18 U.S.C. § 986. Subpoenas for Bank Records ......54 • 18 U.S.C. § 844(c). Penalties (Explosive • 18 U.S.C. § 987. Anti-Terrorist Forfeiture Materials) ...............................................................35 Protection ...............................................................55 • 18 U.S.C. § 924(d). Penalties (Firearms/ • 18 U.S.C. § 1028. Fraud and Related Activity Ammunition) ..........................................................35 in Connection With Identification Documents, Authentication Features, and Information ..............55 • 18 U.S.C. § 981. Civil Forfeiture ...........................37 • 18 U.S.C. § 1029. Fraud and Related Activity in § 981(a)(1)(A). Money Laundering .................................37 § 981(a)(1)(B). Foreign Crimes .......................................37 Connection With Access Devices ...........................58 § 981(a)(1)(C). Proceeds of All Specified Unlawful Activity ...................................................37 • 18 U.S.C. § 1037. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection With Electronic Mail ...........................61 [See specified unlawful activity table at page 201] § 981(a)(1)(D) and (E). FIRREA .....................................37 • 18 U.S.C. § 1467. Criminal Forfeiture (Obscenity) ..62 § 981(a)(1)(F). Motor Vehicle Crimes .............................37 § 981(a)(1)(G). Terrorism ................................................38 § 1467(a). Property Subject to Criminal Forfeiture .........62 § 981(a)(1)(H). Terrorist Financing .................................38 § 1467(b). Third Party Transfers ......................................62 § 1467(c). Protective Orders ............................................63 • 18 U.S.C. § 982. Criminal Forfeiture .....................43 § 1467(d). Warrant of Seizure ..........................................63 § 1467(e). Order of Forfeiture .........................................63 § 982(a)(1). Money Laundering .......................................43 § 1467(f). Execution ........................................................63 § 982(a)(2)(A). Banking Offenses ...................................43 § 1467(g). Disposition of Property ..................................64 § 982(a)(2)(B). Counterfeiting and Forgery; Smuggling; § 1467(h). Authority of Attorney General ........................64 Explosives; Identification, Access § 1467(i). Bar on Intervention ........................................64 Device, and Computer Fraud .................43 § 1467(j). Jurisdiction To Enter Orders ..........................64 ii • Selected Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes Table of Contents § 1467(k). Depositions .....................................................64 • 18 U.S.C. § 2254. Civil Forfeiture for Child § 1467(l). Third Party Interests .......................................64 Pornography ...........................................................79 § 1467(m). Construction ..................................................65 § 1467(n). Substitute Assets .............................................65 § 2254(a). Property Subject to Civil Forfeiture ...............79 § 2254(b). Seizure Pursuant to Supplemental Rules for • 18 U.S.C. § 1594. General Provisions (Trafficking Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims ........80 in Persons) ..............................................................66 § 2254(c). Custody of Federal Official ............................80 § 2254(d). Other Laws and Proceedings Applicable .......80 § 2254(e). Inapplicability of Certain Sections .................80 • 18 U.S.C. § 1762. Marking Packages ....................66 § 2254(f). Disposition of Forfeited Property ...................80 § 2254(g). Title to Property ..............................................81 § 2254(h). Stay of Proceedings ........................................81 • 18 U.S.C. § 1834. Criminal Forfeiture (Protection § 2254(i). Venue ...............................................................81 of Trade Secrets) .....................................................66 • 18 U.S.C. § 2318(d). Trafficking in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Justice Sampler
    SAA SAAMPLER SAA SAASAMPLER MPLER LAWSOCIAL & ETHICS LAW & LAW & 6” 11/16” LAW6” JU &S TICE6” ETHICS.78” 6” PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY PERSPECTIVES MPLER “ Today, legal issues are pervading archival administration more intensively and in more areas ETHICS ETHICS than ever before. Fortunately, a superb new manual, Navigating Legal Issues in Archives, “Privacy and Confidentiality Perspectives brings together a diverse selection of thoughtful and provocative essays that explore the legal, ethical, written by Menzi Behrnd-Klodt and published by the Society of American Archivists, is now administrative, and institutional considerations that shape archival available to guide archivists in facing such problems. While its predecessor, Archives and debates concerning the administration of access to records containing Manuscripts: Law, by Gary and Trudy Peterson, served the last generation well, the current personal information. It is essential reading for archivists, records impact of the law on archives has changed in both detail and extent. The coverage of this new managers, archival educators and students who wish to gain a deeper under-standing of this difficult archival issue—and it is bound to stimu- book reflects these changes well—its presentation is clear, thorough, and well-documented. late broader reflection and debate.” 9” The organization, index, and notes make the book easy to use and give assurance to its quality. — Nadine Strossen Its author and publisher are to be commended for an outstanding aid to their profession.” President, American Civil Liberties Union, and ORRIS OHEN Professor of Law, New York Law School – M L. C 9” ARCHIVISTS & ARCHIVAL RECORDS Professor Emeritus of Law, and Librarian (Retired), Yale Law School “Privacy and Confidentiality Perspectives fills a crucial void in the corpus of archival literature.
    [Show full text]
  • The Long Arm of China: Exporting Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics
    THE LONG ARM OF CHINA: EXPORTING AUTHORITARIANISM WITH CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS HEARING BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION DECEMBER 13, 2017 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available at www.cecc.gov or www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 28–385 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:36 Sep 16, 2018 Jkt 081003 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\USERS\DSHERMAN1\DESKTOP\28385 DAVID CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS Senate House MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Chairman CHRIS SMITH, New Jersey, Cochairman TOM COTTON, Arkansas ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina STEVE DAINES, Montana RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio TODD YOUNG, Indiana TIM WALZ, Minnesota DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California TED LIEU, California JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon GARY PETERS, Michigan ANGUS KING, Maine EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS Not yet appointed ELYSE B. ANDERSON, Staff Director PAUL B. PROTIC, Deputy Staff Director (ii) VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:36 Sep 16, 2018 Jkt 081003 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 C:\USERS\DSHERMAN1\DESKTOP\28385 DAVID C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS Page Opening Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio, a U.S. Senator from Florida; Chair- man, Congressional-Executive Commission on China ...................................... 1 Kalathil, Shanthi, Director of the International Forum for Democratic Studies at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) ........................................... 4 Tiffert, Glenn, Ph.D., an expert in modern Chinese legal history and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution ........................................... 6 Richardson, Sophie, Ph.D., Director of China Research at Human Rights Watch ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Scholarship Suppression: Theoretical Perspectives and Emerging Trends
    societies Review Scholarship Suppression: Theoretical Perspectives and Emerging Trends Sean T. Stevens 1, Lee Jussim 2,* and Nathan Honeycutt 2 1 The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Philadelphia, PA 19106, USA; sean.stevens@thefire.org 2 Department of Psychology Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey—New Brunswick, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8554, Canada; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 8 September 2020; Accepted: 9 October 2020; Published: 27 October 2020 Abstract: This paper explores the suppression of ideas within an academic scholarship by academics, either by self-suppression or because of the efforts of other academics. Legal, moral, and social issues distinguishing freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and academic freedom are reviewed. How these freedoms and protections can come into tension is then explored by an analysis of denunciation mobs that exercise their legal free speech rights to call for punishing scholars who express ideas they disapprove of and condemn. When successful, these efforts, which constitute legally protected speech, will suppress certain ideas. Real-world examples over the past five years of academics that have been sanctioned or terminated for scholarship targeted by a denunciation mob are then explored. Keywords: free speech; academic freedom; free inquiry; censorship; conformity; moral panics; witch hunts; heresy 1. Introduction “Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them ::: ” -John Stuart Mill (1859) The suppression of a scholarship is well documented throughout human history.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Right to Be Forgotten”: Asserting Control Over Our Digital Identity Or Re-Writing History?
    The “right to be forgotten”: Asserting control over our digital identity or re-writing history? The case of Google Spain and Google Inc. v. AEPD & Mario Costeja González Alice Pease1, CNR-IRPPS Abstract The dramatic expansion of the Internet over the past twenty years has presented society with fresh dilemmas regarding the balance of non-absolute fundamental rights, specifically the conflict between the right to freedom of expression on the one hand, and the right to privacy and data protection on the other. In this context, this article analyses the recent case of Google Spain, concerning a Spanish citizen’s request to have personal information de-listed from internet search engines. Following a description of the case, the implications, as well as the controversies, surrounding the ECJ’s ruling on the “right to be forgotten” will be explored. The article concludes that despite the many grey areas left by the ECJ’s decision, the case has ignited an important discussion regarding individuals’ relationship with the Internet, which has moved beyond the legal arena and permeated civil society. Keywords “right to be forgotten”, right to privacy, freedom of expression, balancing of rights in the Internet age, search engines, Articles 7 and 8 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC). Introduction Typing one’s name into Google, however little famous we may consider ourselves to be, can wield a whole of host of results, from personal Facebook and Twitter pages to other more obscure memories, which we may have buried in the past. In this day and age, most of us have a digital identity made up of fragments of past and present accounts, comments, posts and photos.
    [Show full text]
  • „Estetika Nepřítomnosti“ Heinera Goebbelse Diplomová Práce
    JANÁČKOVA AKADEMIE MÚZICKÝCH UMĚNÍ V BRNĚ Divadelní fakulta Ateliér scénografie Scénografie „Estetika nepřítomnosti“ Heinera Goebbelse Diplomová práce Autor práce: BcA. Jana Tkáčová Vedoucí práce: Doc. MgA. Marie Jirásková, Ph. D. Oponent práce: Doc. Mgr. Jan Štěpánek Brno 2017 Bibliografický záznam TKÁČOVÁ, Jana. „Estetika nepřítomnosti“ Heinera Goebbelse [Heiner Goebbels' “Aesthetics of Absence”]. Brno: Janáčkova akademie múzických umění v Brně, Divadelní fakulta, Ateliér scénografie, 2017, 83 s. Vedoucí práce Doc. MgA. Marie Jirásková, Ph. D. Anotace Diplomová práce „Estetika nepřítomnosti“ Heinera Goebbelse se zabývá analýzou přístupu Heinera Goebbelse k divadlu a jeho metodami tvorby s důrazem na teze, které prezentuje ve svých přednáškách a ve své práci. Goebbels se za 30 let své praxe dopracoval k principům otevřeného divadla „estetiky nepřítomnosti“, které dále rozvíjí ve své divadelní a pedagogické činnosti. Práce popisuje tyto principy v představeních Heinera Goebbelse, v moderním a současném umění a jejich prvky v reflexi vlastních projektů autorky práce. Annotation Diploma thesis Heiner Goebbels' “Aesthetics of Absence” deals with the analysis of Heinrich Goebbels' approach to the theater and its methods of production with emphasis on the theses presented in his lectures and his work. In thirty years of his practice, Goebbels worked on the principles of an open theater of "aesthetics of absence", which is further developed in his theatrical and pedagogical activities. The work describes these principles in the Heiner Goebbels' shows, in modern and contemporary art and their elements in the reflection of author's own projects. Klíčová slova Absence, hudební divadlo, prázdný střed, umělecké vzdělávání, nicota v umění. Keywords Absence, musical theater, empty center, artistic education, nothingness in art.
    [Show full text]
  • We Love Big Brother: an Analysis of the Relationship Between Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Modern Politics in the United S
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Honors Scholar Theses Honors Scholar Program Spring 5-4-2018 We Love Big Brother: An Analysis of the Relationship between Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty- Four And Modern Politics in the United States and Europe Edward Pankowski [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses Part of the Literature in English, North America Commons, and the Political Theory Commons Recommended Citation Pankowski, Edward, "We Love Big Brother: An Analysis of the Relationship between Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four And Modern Politics in the United States and Europe" (2018). Honors Scholar Theses. 559. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses/559 We Love Big Brother: An Analysis of the Relationship between Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four And Modern Politics in the United States and Europe By Edward Pankowski Professor Jennifer Sterling-Folker Thesis Adviser: Professor Sarah Winter 5/4/2018 POLS 4497W Abstract: In recent months since the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States in November 2016, George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four has seen a resurgence in sales, and terms invented by Orwell or brought about by his work, such as “Orwellian,” have re- entered the popular discourse. This is not a new phenomenon, however, as Nineteen Eighty-Four has had a unique impact on each of the generations that have read it, and the impact has stretched across racial, ethnic, political, and gender lines. This thesis project will examine the critical, popular, and scholarly reception of Nineteen Eighty-Four since its publication 1949. Reviewers’ and commentators’ references common ideas, themes, and settings from the novel will be tracked using narrative theory concepts in order to map out an understanding of how the interpretations of the novel changed over time relative to major events in both American and Pankowski 1 world history.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Section 5
    SECTION 5: CHINA’S DOMESTIC INFORMATION CONTROLS, GLOBAL MEDIA INFLUENCE, AND CYBER DIPLOMACY Key Findings • China’s current information controls, including the govern- ment’s new social credit initiative, represent a significant es- calation in censorship, surveillance, and invasion of privacy by the authorities. • The Chinese state’s repression of journalists has expanded to target foreign reporters and their local Chinese staff. It is now much more difficult for all journalists to investigate politically sensitive stories. • The investment activities of large, Chinese Communist Par- ty-linked corporations in the U.S. media industry risk under- mining the independence of film studios by forcing them to consider self-censorship in order to gain access to the Chinese market. • China’s overseas influence operations to pressure foreign media have become much more assertive. In some cases, even without direct pressure by Chinese entities, Western media companies now self-censor out of deference to Chinese sensitivity. • Beijing is promoting its concept of “Internet sovereignty” to jus- tify restrictions on freedom of expression in China. These poli- cies act as trade barriers to U.S. companies through both cen- sorship and restrictions on cross-border data transfers, and they are fundamental points of disagreement between Washington and Beijing. • In its participation in international negotiations on global Inter- net governance, norms in cyberspace, and cybersecurity, Beijing seeks to ensure continued control of networks and information in China and to reduce the risk of actions by other countries that are not in its interest. Fearing that international law will be used by other countries against China, Beijing is unwilling to agree on specific applications of international law to cyberspace.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright's Memory Hole
    BYU Law Review Volume 2019 Issue 4 Article 6 Summer 8-21-2020 Copyright’s Memory Hole Eric Goldman Jessica Silbey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Eric Goldman and Jessica Silbey, Copyright’s Memory Hole, 2019 BYU L. Rev. 929 (2020). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2019/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 002.GOLDMAN_FIN.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 7/17/20 12:37 PM Copyright’s Memory Hole Eric Goldman,* Jessica Silbey** There is growing interest in using copyright to protect the privacy and reputation of people depicted in copyrighted works. This pressure is driven by heightened concerns about privacy and reputation on the Internet, plus copyright’s plaintiff-favorable attributes compared to traditional privacy and reputation torts. The Constitution authorizes copyright law because its exclusive rights benefit society by increasing our knowledge. But copyright law is being misdeployed by suppressing socially valuable works in a counterproductive attempt to advance privacy and reputation interests. This results in “memory holes” in society’s knowledge, analogous to those discussed in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. This Article identifies some limited circumstances where copyright’s goals are benefited by considering privacy and reputational interests. In other circumstances, treating copyright law as a general-purpose privacy and reputation tort harms us all.
    [Show full text]
  • Peering Down the Memory Hole: History, Censorship and the Digital Turn Glenn Tiffert1
    Peering down the memory hole: history, censorship and the digital turn Glenn Tiffert1 Economic, technological and political forces are fundamentally reshaping how knowledge is produced and consumed. Much as clay tablets and bone gave way to papyrus and parchment, paper is now yielding to bitstreams. In turn, libraries are rebalancing their collections away from physical volumes towards online resources, where a small number of remote providers dominate storage and delivery, and effectively govern the terms of access for all. For many, printed books and periodicals are fast becoming reminders of things past.2 This digital turn is seductive; it promises to deliver abundant knowledge with unprecedented convenience and immediacy. Yet, commentators have noted that it also concentrates power, exacerbates inequalities, and raises thorny theoretical, ethical, and methodological concerns.3 For instance, a handful of media conglomerates now control more than half of all academic publishing, which makes it highly vulnerable to rent-seeking, poor stewardship, or deliberate manipulation. The oligopolistic pricing power publishers enjoy, protected by copyright, delivers enviable profit margins while squeezing even the richest institutions.4 Though the questions are many, censorship has scarcely registered among them. Arguably, this reflects the privileged position of those who dominate the conversation: scholars who study and work in comparatively liberal societies, where one can reasonably assume that a publication accessible today will remain so
    [Show full text]
  • Held Captive by Nation-Building Myths About Jacques Cartier by Richard Sanders
    Canada’s Extraordinary Redactions: Held Captive by Nation-Building Myths about Jacques Cartier By Richard Sanders esides John Cabot, an- other towering figure in Bthe pantheon of Can- Je pense que ada’s national heroes, long said je suis un to have “discovered” this land, is Jacques Cartier. Both Cabot explorateur and Cartier were little more than conquérant Jacques criminel officially aggrandized criminals Cartier — well-armed pirates charting pirate with héros the way for European kings and redacted popes to seize control of what Letters became known as “Canada.” Patent While Cabot staked the from English monarchy’s fictive claim King to dominate North America, Car- Francis I tier is celebrated for three voy- ages, between 1534 and 1542, which set the colonial course of history for New France. As anthropologist Bruce collage: richard sanders Trigger noted in 1985, the era of I think therefore I am, an... explorer, conqueror, criminal, pirate, hero European explorations following Cabot and Cartier, until “the establishment from the ranks of Quebec’s middle-class in … history texts.”5 of royal government in New France in nationalist intellectuals,” says Gordon, its Gordon explains that by the 1930s, 1663 was long seen as a ‘Heroic Age.’” “broad embrace suggests that it resonated “government agencies, both federal and The brave heroes in question were with ordinary people.”2 provincial, were also drawn to adopt Car- French explorers, missionaries, and The post-colonial era was a time tier as a symbol of (often competing) na- settlers [who] performed noble deeds. when Cartier’s image has put to use by tional identities.” Then, during the 1960s, Cartier the ‘discoverer’ of the St.
    [Show full text]
  • The State, the Individual, and Marcel Proust
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 80 Issue 3 Article 2 Summer 2005 In Search of a Theory of Public Memory: The State, the Individual, and Marcel Proust Brian F. Havel DePaul University College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Evidence Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Havel, Brian F. (2005) "In Search of a Theory of Public Memory: The State, the Individual, and Marcel Proust," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 80 : Iss. 3 , Article 2. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol80/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. In Search of a Theory of Public Memory: The State, the Individual, and Marcel Proust BRIAN F. HAVEL* This Article posits the existence and pervasiveness of an official public (or State) memory that is primarily constructed using public law devices and statements of official policy. While official public memory serves the purposes of social control and stability, it also seeks to mask contestation and is, accordingly, neither complete nor authentic. Using philosophical, scientific, and literary sources, this Article demonstrates how the affective (emotional) memory that is unique to individuals creates a permanentpotential for contestation and authenticity and therefore sets a natural conceptual limit to the power of officially managed memory to contrive the past.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom of Speech and Bad Purposes Eugene Volokh E W VI RE AW Abstract
    W The Freedom of Speech E VI and Bad Purposes RE Eugene Volokh AW AW L ABSTRACT A Can otherwise constitutionally protected speech lose its protection because of the UCL speaker’s supposedly improper purpose? The Supreme Court has sometimes said “no”—but sometimes it has endorsed tests (such as the incitement test) that do turn on a speaker’s purpose. Some lower courts have likewise rejected purpose tests. But others hold that, for instance, a purpose to annoy or distress can turn otherwise protected speech into criminal “harassment,” or that a selfish purpose can strip protection from otherwise protected government employee speech. This Article analyzes purpose tests in First Amendment law, and concludes that such tests are on balance unsound; the protection of speech should not turn on what a factfinder concludes about the speaker’s purposes. AUTHOR Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law ([email protected]). Many thanks to Samuel Bray, Claire Hill, Leslie Kendrick, Steven Lubet, Herb Morris, and Seana Shiffrin for their comments. TABLE OF CONTENts Introduction...........................................................................................................1368 I. Knowledge vs. Purpose .................................................................................1371 A. Negligence, Recklessness, and Knowledge Requirements in Other Areas of First Amendment Law..............................................................1371 B. Purpose Requirements .............................................................................1373
    [Show full text]