Last month we wrote about the tragic and hugely problematic ruling in Canada that said a Canadian court could order global censorship of content it deems to be illegal. As lots of people pointed out, that is going to have dangerous consequences for speech around the world. If you accept that Canada can censor the global internet, what's to stop China, Iran or Russia from claiming the same rights?

And now we'll get to find out if the EU similarly believes in the ability of one country to demand global censorship online. In another case that we've been following, French data protection officials had been demanding Google censor content globally, and Google had been refusing. Now, the issue has been sent to the EU Court of Justice, the very same court who created this mess three years ago in saying that Google was subject to "right to be forgotten" claims. Google had reasonably interpreted the law to just apply in the EU (where the jurisdiction existed). But now the same court will decide if EU officials can censor globally.

One hopes that the sheer absurdity of the situation may lead the CJEU to start to recognize just how problematic its ruling was back in 2014, but somehow, that's unlikely. We'll certainly be paying attention to this case...

If you need any more proof the NYPD hates transparency, you need look no further than Keegan Stephan's victory in a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) lawsuit:

If you can't see the tweet, it says:

Big win! To settle my lawsuit, NYPD has agreed to comply with critical component of NY Freedom of Information law

This is what we measure success with when it comes to FOIL and the NYPD: a victory is the department AGREEING TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

Stephan has been seeking information on the department's use of a sound cannon for crowd control. The NYPD, of course, had no interest in releasing these records. Central to the settlement is the department agreeing to accept FOI requests by email, something it's supposed to have been doing for more than a decade.

The man, Keegan Stephan, said in the suit that the department failed to justify withholding the records he requested and that a “policy and practice” not to accept or respond to Freedom of Information requests by email violated a 2006 provision of New York State law. Mr. Stephan also argued that by not allowing email requests, the police had increased “the time, effort, and expense involved” in obtaining records.

The department's settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing -- something common to government lawsuit settlements. This means it will accept zero responsibility for a decade-long run of FOI statute violations.

The "new" email request system will aid more New Yorkers in having their requests ignored by the NYPD. The NYPD's future use of email for FOI responses will ensure requesters are informed of denials in a much speedier fashion. The portal the NYPD is setting up on its website will provide instructions for requesters, as well as information on how to challenge denials and non-responses. If nothing else, the NYPD will be forced to follow the letter of the law a bit more closely, but it will take far more than a steady stream of FOI lawsuits for it to approach the law's spirit.

The NYPD has made a opacity a cottage industry. It has been dubbed the least responsive government agency in the US, worse than the CIA, FBI and NSA. It has developed an in-house classification system that allows pretty much anyone to designate almost any document "top secret" for almost any reason, and reached its nadir when it refused to release a copy of its FOIL response guidelines to a FOIL requester.

But this is an ugly victory -- one that should subject the department to a steady stream of ridicule. It takes a lawsuit to make a law enforcement agency follow the law. That's just depressing.

A Massachusetts lawmaker is looking to give law enforcement another way to bust people and seize vehicles. Modify a vehicle you own in a certain way and you can expect to never see that vehicle again.

Blame it on the war on drugs and pressure from law enforcement lobbying. Stephan Hay, a Democrat state representative for Fitchburg, has introduced a bill that would criminalize operating a vehicle with a hidden compartment designed for the purpose of secretly transporting drugs and related contraband, equipment, currency, or weapons.

The bill, H.1266, separately criminalizes the process of altering a vehicle with the intent of creating such hidden compartments. In each case the bill calls for a two-year mandatory minimum sentence, five years for subsequent offenses. The bill also allows police to seize the modified vehicle.

Notably, the bill wouldn't limit "secret compartment" busts to those containing contraband. The presence of an aftermarket "concealed storage space" is enough to trigger an arrest and seizure. The state would have to prove there was intent to use the compartment to store contraband, but the wording in the bill [PDF] flips the burden of proof when it comes to the vehicle itself.

Proof that a conveyance contains a hidden compartment as defined in this section shall be prima facie evidence that the conveyance was used intended for use in and for the business of unlawfully manufacturing, dispensing, or distributing controlled substances.

As Reason's Scott Shackford points out, Massachusetts already has the worst forfeiture laws in the nation. This built-in presumption of guilt only makes this worse. Defendants will start out in the hole, asked to prove a negative simply to have a small shot at recovering their seized vehicle. Unknowingly purchase someone's drug-running vehicle? It's as good as gone if the police discover any secret compartments. Seeing as criminal charges would result in something more aligned with due process, it will come as zero surprise if the law is used to seize vehicles but leave prima facie "drug traffickers" otherwise unharmed.

If you're not familiar with Perfect 10 by now, it is a company that billed itself as a smutty porn magazine that was actually mostly in the far more immoral business of copyright trolling. Rather than peddling skin, Perfect 10 mostly peddled laughably frivolous copyright lawsuits against roughly everyone, managing in this process to suffer legal losses to Google, CCBill, Amazon, and Visa among others. One of those others was Usenet provider Giganews, which won big in its court battle with Perfect 10 to the tune of the latter being ordered to pay over $5 million in attorney's fees to the former. Perfect 10 immediately cried poor at that point, stating it didn't have the money to cover the award, leading the court to put its assets in receivership. At the time, Mike wrote:

In the most recent Perfect 10 case, we noted that Perfect 10 lost big time earlier this year. It had sued Usenet provider Giganews, but the court found that Perfect 10's legal arguments made no sense at all, and sided completely with Giganews. Most importantly, the court upheld the multimillion fee award that the court had dumped on Perfect 10 for filing such a bogus lawsuit. It turns out that Perfect 10 doesn't seem to have that kind of money, so all of its assets are now controlled by a court-appointed receiver.

Those assets were supposed to be sold off in order to pay the court ordered award to Giganews. According to a new lawsuit filed by Giganews against Perfect 10 not a single cent has been paid, with the porn company instead choosing to play a silly game of hide-the-assets in order to avoid having them sold off.

The claims center around an alleged conspiracy in which Perfect 10 transferred its funds and assets to Zada.

“As of now (over two years since the judgment), Perfect 10 has not voluntarily paid any amount of the judgment,” the complaint begins. “Instead, Perfect 10, through the unlawful acts of Zada and in conspiracy with him, has intentionally avoided satisfaction of the judgment through a series of fraudulent transfers of Perfect 10’s corporate assets to Zada’s personal possession.”

Norman Zada would be the owner of Perfect 10. The suit seeks $20 million for fraud and punitive damages, detailing how Zada made a habit since 2014, when the lawsuits including that against Giganews began to clearly go south for Perfect 10, of selling Perfect 10 physical assets for below-market sums of money and transferring company cash into his personal bank accounts. We're talking about millions of dollars in cash and assets moving around, as a court order to pay Giganews loomed over it all. This, to be as clear as possible, is not the sort of thing that the court looks favorably upon.

Giganews says that Perfect 10 transferred at least $1.75m in cash to Zada. Then, within weeks of the court ordering Perfect 10 to pay $5.6m in attorneys fees and costs, Giganews says that Zada “fraudulently transferred substantially all of Perfect 10’s physical assets” to himself for an amount that did not represent their true value. Those assets included a car, furniture, and computer servers.

Zada, for his part, has the following defense for himself on the record.

When Zada was questioned why the transfers took place, he admitted that “it would have been totally disruptive to have those [assets] seized” in satisfaction of the judgment. Indeed, the complaint alleges that the assets never moved physical location.

That's a fairly clear admission for defrauding the court with regard to its order to pay Giganews. Giganews is asking for the $1.75 million in cash that had been transferred and interest beginning from March of 2015. The fangs are clearly out, but one can hardly blame Giganews, which had to defend itself against what was clearly a frivolous lawsuit filed on behalf of a company that can't seem to figure out how to look anything other than shady in the extreme. To that end, Giganews is asking for another $20 million in punitive and exemplary damages. Here's hoping they get it.

A few weeks ago, we warned about a dangerous new German law that would fine social media companies if they didn't magically block "hate speech" on their platforms. As we pointed out, this would lead to widespread censorship, as the risk of liability for leaving up even borderline speech would be massive. And, equally important, this would embolden oppressive, dictatorial and autocratic regimes to press on with their own crackdowns on free speech by using laws like this one and claiming that they're doing the exact same thing as supposedly democratic nations like Germany.

We didn't have to wait long. Reporters Without Borders points us to the news that Russia has now rushed out a bill that is basically a cut and paste of the German law:

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns a Russian bill that would force social networks to remove “unlawful” content within 24 hours of notification. It is based very closely on a law that was adopted in Germany on 30 June.

The Russian bill shows that when leading democracies devise draconian legislation, they provide repressive regimes with ideas. Submitted to the Duma on 12 July by members of President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party, the bill’s references to the German law are explicit.

Just like the German bill, the Russian bill would allow anyone to claim certain content is "unlawful" and then the platforms would have 24 hours to remove the content or face massive fines. This will, inevitably, enable much greater control and censorship (already an issue in Russia). But it will be more difficult to argue that Russia is doing something "bad" here as the Russians will quickly point out that Germany has identical legislation. And I wouldn't be surprised to see other countries, such as Iran or China, put in place similar "laws" themselves.

Oh, James Woods. He has now "settled" the ridiculous lawsuit he filed against someone mocking him on Twitter... but is still fighting a fairly similar lawsuit that was filed against him -- complaining that it's an attack on his free speech rights.

If you don't recall, the rather opinionated actor sued a trollish Twitter user who went by the name Abe List, after Abe referred to Woods as a "cocaine addict" in a clearly hyperbolic tweet. As the case progressed, "Abe List" died unexpectedly, leading to Woods obnoxiously gloating on Twitter that List had "dropped" his anti-SLAPP appeal, and when people pointed out it was only because List had died, Woods demonstrated what kind of character he is by cheering on the fact that someone died.

Nice guy, huh?

And, of course, that leaves out that Woods had a history of tweeting similarly hyperbolic statements about others who he disagreed with:

So, Woods was already looking fairly hypocritical here, but as you'll see soon, that level of hypocrisy is becoming more pronounced.

Either way, after "List" died, you might think that Woods would just drop the case, but given his clear animosity (see tweet above) towards a guy making a silly statement on Twitter, he kept the case going in order to unmask the real identity of "List" and to potentially pursue the case against his estate. As first revealed by Eriq Gardner at THREsq, Woods has finally agreed to settle the case, but at least part of the terms of the settlement is that he got attorney Ken "Popehat" White (who you probably know if you're reading Techdirt, and who has represented us at times) to write a silly letter stating what basically everyone in the world already knew: specifically that when Abe List referred to Woods as a "cocaine addict" it wasn't meant to be taken literally:

From attorney Kenneth White, the letter states, "On behalf of my client — the defendant referred to as 'Abe List' in the lawsuit filed by James Woods — and my client's surviving family, I acknowledge that they are not aware of any facts to suggest that Mr. Woods has ever been a cocaine addict or used any other drugs."

Frankly, this feels more like an attempt to try to humiliate Ken (which, uh, generally isn't a good idea), but the end result just makes Woods look ridiculously and almost comically petty.

Oh, and back to the hypocrisy thing. Earlier this year, we also noted, with some amount of irony, that Woods was now on the receiving end of a very similar lawsuit. A woman, Portia Boulger, sued Woods for calling her a "Nazi" in a tweet that was actually a case of mistaken identity. As we pointed out, unlike some people, we can remain true to our principles, and we believe that Boulger's lawsuit against Woods is just as misguided and just as much as a SLAPP suit as Woods' lawsuit was against List.

Either way, in that case, Woods' lawyers filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings last month, which makes a bunch of statements that sound a little odd, considering they're on behalf of someone who was (at the time) still engaged in litigation against someone who jokingly called him a "cocaine addict" on Twitter.

This case is simply an unsuccessful attempt by Plaintiff to quell the free speech rights of Mr. Woods, a conservative actor. Indeed, Plaintiff's claims for defamation and false light/invasion of privacy both fail as a matter of law. First, Plaintiffs claim for defamation fails as a matter of law because Mr. Woods' allegedly defamatory question is not a statement of fact. Nor would a reasonable reader interpret Mr. Woods' question--seeking clarification--as inferring any factual content. Likewise, Plaintiff's false light/invasion of privacy claim fails as a matter of law because no misrepresentation regarding Plaintiff's character, history, activities or beliefs is present in Mr. Woods' tweets, much less a misrepresentation that would warrant a reasonable person, in Plaintiff's position, to take the serious offense required to succeed on a false light/invasion of privacy claim.

That's... an interesting way of saying what happened. As a reminder, here's how THResq described the tweet that Woods sent:

This all started in March 2016, after the Chicago Tribune posted a campaign rally photo of a woman who was wearing a Trump T-shirt and giving a Nazi salute — the well-known 'Heil Hitler' salute with her right hand raised straight up — and several Twitter users misidentified the woman in the picture as Boulger, according to the complaint. Woods tweeted the photo from his verified account and wrote, “So-called #Trump ‘Nazi’ is a #BernieSanders agitator/operative?”

So, yeah, his tweet was a "question" but a "reasonable person" would be unlikely to think that Woods was "seeking clarification." Rather most reasonable persons would likely believe that Woods was implying strongly that Boulger, a Bernie Sanders supporter, had gone to a Trump rally and pretended to be a Nazi supporter of Trump (which she had not).

But, really, it's the "reasonable person" line that's the kicker here. Because that same "reasonable person" looking at Abe List's tweets would similarly have been just as unlikely "to take serious offense" to that tweet. And, yes, there's something fairly ridiculous for Woods to be whining that someone is trying to "quell" his free speech (even if true) when he was doing something quite similar at the very same time.

Later in the motion, Woods' lawyers (properly) point out that "the general context of the statement" and the "broader context in which the statement appears" are a critical element in determining defamation -- which, again, seems silly given that same test, applied to the guy Woods' sued would likely have worked very much against Woods' defamation case.

Finally the truly amazing argument, given Woods' lawsuit against List. I'll just post the paragraph here:

Likewise, Mr. Woods' allegedly defamatory question appeared on his personal Twitter account, in the midst of a highly-contested and widely-covered presidential political campaign.... A personal social media account, such as an individual's Twitter account, cannot reasonably be interpreted as a forum for fact reporting.... Rather, such a context is akin to a forum or editorial section of a newspaper where a reader would expect to see statements of opinion.... Additionally, Twitter, a social media platform powered by individual user accounts, can be described even more so as a "well established genre of opinionated speech as it is commonly known the average Twitter user is not "normally engaged in the business of factual reporting or news dissemination."

What the actual fuck, James? I mean, I agree. That paragraph is 100% accurate. But it sure seems... massively hypocritical to make that argument while suing someone for their similarly silly tweet about you.

Either way, if you're going to go around suing people for trollish tweets, perhaps don't go around posting trollish tweets yourself. And, if you do and even continue to pursue them after their death, don't then argue in a different lawsuit a bunch of points that totally undermine your own lawsuit. I mean, unless you want to be called out as a raging hypocrite.

Project management is a booming field, but you may have heard that there isn't just one way to manage a project. There are a wide variety of disciplines and methodologies employed across different industries. The $59 IT Process and Project Management Super Bundle is packed with 11 courses covering different IT and project management methodologies including CompTIA Project+, PRINCE2, Six Sigma, Scrum, Agile and more. Each course also helps to prepare you to take various certification exams that are widely recognized in the field. Go through them all at your own pace over one year and gain a solid understanding of Process and Project Management.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

It's always been true: if you give a government agency increased powers for a limited purpose, the limitations and the purpose will soon be shrugged off. The ACLU of Massachusetts is trying to get some prosecutorial power reeled back in, thanks to administrative subpoena mission creep.

When prosecutors first pushed for the power to seize telephone and Internet records themselves, bypassing the need for a judge to approve a warrant, they argued the power was necessary to help them quickly track down missing children and sexual predators.

But records obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union show prosecutors have used that significant subpoena power hundreds of times a year in routine investigations related to larceny, check fraud, assault, and other common crimes.

[...]

In one case cited by the [ACLU], Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley issued a subpoena in 2011 to find the subscriber information for several Twitter handles and for anyone who used the hashtag #BostonPD after the police removed an Occupy Boston encampment in Dewey Square.

It is the same here as it is with everything else. Stingrays were supposed to be counterterrorism devices, what with them being repurposed war gear. But then it was homicides. Then drug dealers. Then pretty much anyone cops wanted to locate, even if all they'd done was steal $60 of fast food.

Likewise, National Security Letters. The clue is in the name. Maybe they're only being used for national security purposes, but if so, America is under constant threat from prolific terrorists. The FBI issues thousands of these a year. And we know very little about the underlying crimes, thanks to indefinite gag orders and loads of government court filings still under seal.

The subpoenas discussed here are also administrative. This means prosecutors write the paperwork themselves and run it past no one before serving it to internet service providers and phone companies. They also do this thousands of times a year.

Four other district attorneys disclosed a limited amount of data. But Healey and Middlesex District Attorney Marian T. Ryan turned over a large trove of information that revealed how frequently the subpoenas are used. Ryan’s office said it issued more than 2,400 over the last three years, while Healey’s office said it sent more than 1,200 during the period.

[...]

District Attorney Michael O’Keefe of the Cape and Islands, who issued 450 subpoenas over the last three years...

All for serious crimes, right?

Ryan’s office said the subpoenas were used to investigate crimes ranging from annoying calls and destruction of property to stabbing and rape of a child.

This isn't just irritating the ACLU. It's also irritating legislators who felt they were misled by prosecutors during the push for expanded power. Senator Cynthia Creem says prosecutors said it would be used to tackle crimes against children. Instead, the subpoenas are being used to handle almost any criminal activity. In response to this prosecutorial abuse of a legislated privilege, Creem is now attempting a claw-back.

Creem has filed a bill that would limit the use of administrative subpoenas to certain crimes against children and require prosecutors to report how many subpoenas they issue, the types of investigations involved, and whether they led to charges and convictions. The bill would also require prosecutors, at the close of an investigation, to inform the customers whose telephone and internet logs were seized.

Undoubtedly, this bill will face stiff resistance from prosecutors who've become accustomed to getting everything they want exactly when they want it. It's pretty difficult to convince investigators they don't need this, even though they apparently had no problem closing investigations prior to the law's passage in 2008.

When Ajit Pai was first appointed as the new head of the FCC, he promised to be a stickler for transparency at the agency. And in one way he followed through, by making it standard operating procedure to now publish FCC orders a month before they're voted on (even though former staffers and consumer advocates believe he only did so to give ISP lobbyists more time to construct counter-arguments and their legal and policy assaults). Elsewhere, this supposed dedication to transparency has been decidedly lacking however, especially in regards to his efforts to repeal net neutrality protections.

When he first proposed killing popular net neutrality protections (pdf), he insisted he would proceed "in a far more transparent way than the FCC did" when it first crafted the rules in 2015. But Pai has also long tried to argue that a lack of broadband competition (and the resulting symptom of this disease that is net neutrality violations) isn't a real problem, despite the obvious, repeated evidence to the contrary.

There's of course some very solid evidence that can clarify whether or not net neutrality is a "solution in need of a problem," and that's the 47,000 (give or take) complaints consumers have filed with the FCC since the rules were passed in 2015. Back in May, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request to obtain copies of these complaints, and urged the FCC to extend the public comment period on the net neutrality proceeding for sixty days, providing time to analyze the data.

The group has repeatedly argued these complaints are relevant in analyzing whether or not Pai's attempt to repeal the rules runs contrary to the public interest:

"The commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes overturning the net neutrality rules asks the public for comment on various issues. The NHMC points out that the document asks the public if there is "evidence of actual harm to consumers" or evidence that Internet access has improved since the net neutrality rules were approved. Those questions could be answered by releasing all the net neutrality complaints, the group says.

"These questions seek evidence that the Commission holds in its exclusive possession," the NHMC said in its motion for a delay.

Not too surprisingly, Pai's FCC is blocking the release of these complaints, insisting that providing public access to the complaints would be "unreasonably burdensome." The NHMC, also unsurprisingly, isn't particularly impressed with the agency's justification for withholding the complaints:

"The FCC's denial of our motion is shortsighted, denies the public critical information, and flies in the face of their acknowledgment that they have received over 47,000 open Internet complaints since the 2015 net neutrality rules were enacted. It should give the public pause that the agency with exclusive control over regulating Internet service providers refuses to share such information with the public. The information is within the FCC’s exclusive control and was completely ignored in the NPRM."

If you've been playing along at home, refusing to release valid user complaints outlining genuine net neutrality concerns runs in line with the agency's attempts to downplay public opposition to its proposal. That has also included turning a blind eye to fraud and abuse of the FCC's comment system, which is currently being filled with bot-crafted industry "support" for the FCC's tone-deaf plan. The goal, consistently, has been to downplay public support for net neutrality, while pushing the illusion that repealing the rules is anything more than a giant, shameless gift to AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.

And while Ajit Pai clearly thinks he can bulldoze his way through transparency and operational apathy concerns, these are all certain to come up again during the inevitable lawsuits against the agency -- all of which will highlight how Pai and friends blatantly ignored the public interest to the exclusive benefit of a handful of extremely-unpopular duopolists.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions isn't much interested in the "justice" side of the Department of Justice. Instead, it appears he'd like to throw on his letterman's jacket and head back to his glory days as a hard-nosed, 1980s-vintage drug warrior. Things were better when Sessions was a federal prosecutor in Alabama, ringing up drug convictions at a rate four times the national average.

The word "reactionary" is thrown around a lot when describing Trump and his cabinet. But in Sessions' case, the term fits. Violent crimes rates have fallen steadily since the mid-1990s. Meanwhile, drug prices have dropped and purity has increased, despite four decades of harsh enforcement and trillions of dollars being thrown at the problem. Devil weed -- gateway drug and longtime conspirator in the violation of American women by filthy non-whites -- is now a socially and medically-accepted drug, legal in several states.

But there are violent crime increases in a few major cities. He's not sure what's to blame for this potential historical blip, but he has several theories. It might be soft-on-drugs Obama-era policies embraced by his predecessor's DOJ. It might be a lack of respect for law enforcement, which Sessions feels is a failure of the American public, rather than the failures of those who serve them. It might be rambunctious legislators scaling back asset forfeiture all over the country. Whatever it is, the current course needs to be reversed and the policies that failed for multiple decades be allowed to fail again.

Where else would Sessions espouse his "brave new old world" plan than standing over the desiccated corpse of a federally-funded program that did fuck all to curb drug use by teens and tweens: the 30th D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) Training Conference.

We were in the beginning of this fight, in 1983, when DARE was founded in Los Angeles. I believe that DARE was instrumental to our success by educating children on the dangers of drug use. I firmly believe that you have saved lives. And I want to say thank you for that. Whenever I ask adults around age 30 about prevention, they always mention the DARE program. Your efforts work. Lives and futures are saved.

Sessions can believe anything he wants about the DARE program, but the fact is it had almost zero impact on reducing drug use by children. Multiple studies of the program suggest zero impact is the best possible outcome. At worst, the program was viewed as ridiculous by students and actually introduced them to substances they weren't previously aware of. It often inspired curiosity. It rarely inspired lifelong abstinence.

But Sessions wants a bigger, better drug war -- one not constrained by logic, compassion, or mountains of evidence showing the war has been a catastrophic failure. Sessions hints we need more violence from our law enforcers because drug dealers are violent.

We know drug trafficking is an inherently violent business. If you want to collect a drug debt, you can’t, and don’t, file a lawsuit in court. You collect it by the barrel of a gun. There is no doubt that violence tends to rise with increased drug dealing.

As Scott Greenfield pointed out, if drugs were legal, you could file a lawsuit to recover debts -- a process far less likely to result in dead bodies.

Stats are spun to fit the narrative:

Sentences for federal drug crimes dropped by 18 percent from 2009 to 2016. Violent crime—which had been decreasing for two decades—suddenly went up again. Two years after this policy change, the United States suffered the largest single-year increase in the overall violent crime rate since 1991.

And yet, the violent crime rate remains at historic lows. Sessions sees a spike as a trend even though the numbers don't agree with him. In another speech, he specifies which year he's referring to:

In 2015, we as a nation suffered the largest single-year increase in the violent crime rate since 1991, and the largest jump in the murder rate since 1968.

But even the FBI can't buttress the AG's dark narrative.

According to the report, there were an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes committed around the nation. While that was an increase from 2014 figures, the 2015 violent crime total was 0.7 percent lower than the 2011 level and 16.5 percent below the 2006 level.

The Sessions Drug War Wagon plows on, focused on preaching to the converted and riling up the most ignorant legislators and voters. At event after event, Sessions does everything but hand out laced Kool Aid and visions of a heavily-policed afterlife. Facts are out; verbal y-axis distortions are in.

The preliminary data for the first half of 2016 showed further increases, with large cities seeing an average increase in murders of nearly 22 percent compared with the same period the year before.

This spike in violent crime is not happening in every neighborhood or city. But the trend is real and should concern us all. It must not continue.

A spike is a trend in the eyes of AG Sessions, whose narrative conflicts with the FBI's findings. This is a spike -- compared year-to-year -- but one that can't even bring crime levels back to where they were a decade ago, much less the sky-high rates of the 80s and 90s when Sessions was prosecuting the hell out of Alabama.

Hence the return of asset forfeiture, presumably with enough force to overcome legislative resistance. From the same speech to the National District Attorneys Association:

In addition, we hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture—especially for drug traffickers. With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners.

Sessions mentions criminals, but criminal charges have never been an integral part of the forfeiture process. The government likes taking stuff, but has less of an interest in proving the property owner is actually a criminal.

A new era of punitive justice is upon us. One that prefers prosecutions to prevention and harsh sentences to deterrents less likely to permanently ruin someone's life.

I recently sent out my directive on charging and sentencing. It is sound law and policy. Assistant U.S. Attorneys will simply be expected to charge the most serious readily provable offense. If that would be unjust, prosecutors can seek a waiver approval from a designated supervisor without Washington.

In short, we have ended the policies that handcuffed our federal prosecutors.

There will apparently be enough handcuffs for everyone else.

This is a frustrating turn of events. The new DOJ will elevate law enforcement officers and prosecutors above the people they serve. Everything that didn't work for three decades straight will be making a comeback. And if that fails to turn things around, I'm guessing it will be blamed on the media, anti-police sentiment, or whatever convenient scapegoat happens to be on hand when the blowback begins.