|08/13/2008||Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 207(f) to Public Relations Activities Undertaken for a Foreign Corporation Controlled by a Foreign Government||
A foreign corporation is a “foreign entity” under 18 U.S.C. § 207(f) if it exercises sovereign authority or functions de jure or de facto.
A former official’s proposed activities are not prohibited by section 207(f)(1) if the former official does not provide those services on behalf of a “foreign entity,” regardless of whether the former official’s services incidentally benefit the foreign entity’s interests.
Where the former official does provide services on behalf of a “foreign entity,” the proposed public relations and media activities would fall within the scope of section 207(f)(1) if the former official acts with the requisite intent to influence a decision of an officer or employee of the United States government.
|07/24/2008||Scope of the Definition of “Variola Virus” Under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004||
The definition of “variola virus” in 18 U.S.C. § 175c does not include other naturally occurring orthopoxviruses, such as cowpox and vaccinia, but is rather limited to viruses that cause smallpox or are engineered, synthesized, or otherwise produced by human manipulation from the variola major virus or its components.
|07/15/2008||Assertion of Executive Privilege Concerning the Special Counsel’s Interviews of the Vice President and Senior White House Staff||
It is legally permissible for the President to assert executive privilege in response to a congressional subpoena for reports of Department of Justice interviews with the Vice President and senior White House staff taken during the Department’s investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency.
|06/19/2008||Assertion of Executive Privilege Over Communications Regarding EPA’s Ozone Air Quality Standards and California’s Greenhouse Gas Waiver Request||
The President may lawfully assert executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas seeking communications within the Executive Office of the President or between the Environmental Protection Agency and the EOP concerning EPA’s promulgation of a regulation revising national ambient air quality standards for ozone or EPA’s decision to deny a petition by California for a waiver from federal preemption to enable it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
|05/30/2008||Admissibility in Federal Court of Electronic Copies of Personnel Records||
Federal official personnel and civil service retirement records that have been converted from paper to electronic format should be admissible in evidence in federal court under the Business Records Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1732, and should also qualify as “public records” admissible under Rule 1005 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Electronic versions of particular personnel records that, pursuant to statute or regulation, must be notarized, certified, signed, or witnessed may be authenticated under Rules 901 and 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Converting such documents to electronic format should not affect their admissibility under hearsay rules.
|05/28/2008||Authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to Hold Employees Liable for Negligent Loss, Damage, or Destruction of Government Personal Property||
The Environmental Protection Agency may hold its employees liable for the negligent loss, damage, or destruction of government personal property or for the unauthorized personal use of agency-issued cell phones.
|05/23/2008||Validity of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008||
Where a title in the version of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 passed by both houses of Congress was inadvertently omitted from the enrolled bill that was presented to and vetoed by the President, the version of the bill presented to the President became law upon Congress’s successful override of the President’s veto.
|04/14/2008||Promotions of Judge Advocates General Under Section 543 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008||
Section 543 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 does not automatically advance incumbent Judge Advocates General to a three star general officer grade, but rather such promotion requires a separate appointment by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The incumbent Judge Advocates General may continue to serve out their full terms in their present two star grades, though the President may nominate them for promotion to the higher grade at any time, if he so chooses.
|02/29/2008||Whether the Department of Justice May Prosecute White House Officials for Contempt of Congress||
The Department of Justice may not bring before a grand jury criminal contempt of Congress citations, or take any other prosecutorial action, with respect to current or former White House officials who declined to provide documents or testimony, or who declined to appear to testify, in response to subpoenas from a congressional committee, based on the President’s assertion of executive privilege or the immunity of senior presidential advisers from compelled congressional testimony.
|02/29/2008||Office of Government Ethics Jurisdiction Over the Smithsonian Institution||
The authority of the Office of Government Ethics to administer the Executive Branch ethics program under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and other statutes does not extend to the Smithsonian Institution or its personnel.