SOCIALIZATION OF STATE PROSECUTORS IN SOLVING CIVIL CASES OUTSIDE THE COURT IN THE WORKING AREA OF THE STATE PROSECUTORS OF CENTRAL ACEH

The socialization activity for the duties of the state attorney general in the Takengon area. It is base on observations and interviews conducted with the public and government institutions, which show a common understanding of the prosecutor's duties in representing the state regarding the settlement of cases outside the court in the civil sector. Considering the large number of civil cases currently going to court and requiring a long time to wait for a decision, the non-litigation method of resolving cases is a very efficient and effective alternative when viewed from the benefits obtained. The purpose of restoring state finances can realize. The solution offered by the Datun team in overcoming these problems is to carry out socialization activities on the duties and functions of state attorneys in the non-litigation settlement mechanism to the public and government institutions.

Trump claims of executive privilege expected to fail

Significance Efforts to investigate the former president’s tax returns, together with a separate congressional investigation into the events of January 6, are raising questions over the extent to which documentation and personal testimony can be withheld from Congress under the principle of executive privilege. Impacts Congress will seek testimony from Trump administration officials about alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election result. State prosecutors are seeking access to Trump’s tax records as they examine possible conflicts of interest while in office. A Biden refusal to endorse Trump claims of executive privilege risks further partisan division over the January 6 investigation.

Prosecutors and the Immigration Enforcement System in the United States

The interdependence of criminal enforcement and immigration enforcement systems in the United States now takes several different forms, each with implications for criminal prosecutors. Over time, federal officials have increased the number of immigration prosecutions they pursue in a given year. The immigration consequences of criminal convictions have expanded and intensified. Some state criminal prosecutors have used their charging authority to supplement the immigration enforcement efforts of the federal government, while others have applied the criminal law of the state in ways that mitigate the immigration effects of a criminal conviction. Finally, federal immigration law gives state prosecutors the authority to designate non-citizen victims of certain crimes for specialized visas that protect them from removal. These different types of interactions between criminal enforcement and immigration enforcement make state prosecutors important players in federal immigration policy and practice.

Behind Bartkus

A young defense attorney earns his client, charged in federal court with bank robbery, a jury acquittal. (It’s the attorney’s first.) One would expect the impartial judge to thank the jury for its service. Instead, this one harangues both jury and defense attorney (“entailing changes in his complexion from red to purple to dead white”), publicly rails against the verdict, attempts to bar the jurors from future service, refuses to release the defendant, and successfully prods prosecutors to bring a duplicative state prosecution that would end in conviction for the same crime. To anyone who respects the rule of law—or at the very least to anyone who respects the American jury—this should be deeply troubling. Yet when it took place in a Chicago federal courtroom in December 1953, state prosecutors leapt at the federal judge’s call. And when the appeal of the duplicative state prosecution reached the United States Supreme Court, the defendant lost 5-4. Criminal practitioners know that result as Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959), a rule of double-jeopardy “dual sovereignty” that the Court reaffirmed in 2019. But next to nobody appreciates how it began in that Chicago federal courtroom. That history comes to life in the unpublished notes of the remarkable defense lawyer. It is a story that underscores just how wrongheaded is the legal rule, and that makes vivid the abuse of judicial power.

Is “Public Interest” a Conceptual Category of Contemporary Polish Procedural Criminal Law?

This study aims at presenting conceptual category named “public interest” under the Polish procedural criminal law. The concept of “public interest”, which is the subject of this analysis, is treated as an indefinite term, functioning as a general clause, whose the task of which is to render a legal text more “flexible” by referring to a set of values outside of the system. The term “public interest” is no longer used in the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The legislator still uses many other general clauses, including the “social interest” clause. The analysis of cases in which this clause is used shows that, in fact, these two conceptual categories may not be equated, should not be used interchangeably, and are not synonymous. Although the term “public interest” is no longer a statutory term under the Code of Criminal Procedure, given the fact that it expresses values such as respect for the law and the rule of law, it should be assumed that by proper shaping of the criminal trial model and ensuring that entities performing the role of public interest advocates participate in it, these values are – at least potentially – protected. State prosecutors, in their capacity of public interest advocates and in order to properly discharge their duty to uphold the rule of law, should maintain organizational independence and procedural impartiality.

“A Hidden War”

This chapter examines the rise of financial sanctions as a tool of U.S. foreign policy and the role of U.S. prosecutors in enforcing sanctions against global banks. It describes how the United States developed its financial sanctions capabilities against terrorist groups, then turned them against state actors such as North Korea, culminating with elaborate sanctions programs against Iran and Russia. It shows how U.S. federal and state prosecutors uncovered large-scale sanctions evasion efforts at numerous global banks that processed U.S. dollar payments. This enforcement campaign led to some of the largest criminal fines ever levied, and global banks such as HSBC and BNP Paribas agreed to implement U.S. sanctions and anti-money laundering controls in their worldwide operations, thus broadening the reach of U.S. policy. Although U.S. enforcement actions faced strong criticism by U.S. allies, banks facing large fines, negative publicity, and potential loss of access to essential U.S. dollar payment infrastructure complied with U.S. demands. Unlike other cases, U.S. sanctions did not lead to multilateral reforms, instead triggering efforts by sanctioned states and bystanders to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar and U.S. payment systems.

Narod protiv Olivera Frljića ili Poljska poslije Kletve

The people against Oliver Frljić, or Poland after The CurseIn the spring of 2017, the play entitled The Curse, directed by Oliver Frljić premiered at one of Warsaw theatres. It was not the first attempt to perform in Poland on the part of the Croatian director, well known as a controversial artist whose plays discuss social and political issues. His previous appearances on Polish stages usually evoked an air of scandal. The content of The Curse, too, had its producers investigated by the state prosecutors soon after its premiere; and blasphemy and incitement to crime in the theatre were discussed in the public sphere. The Curse is a loose adaptation of Stanisław Wyspiański’s drama, originally written in 1899. It deals provocatively with questions about modern religiousness and non-religiousness, touching upon relations between the Polish Catholic Church and the state, and upon national identity in contemporary Poland.This paper is focused on reactions to Frljić’s play, especially on different ways of expressing public anger as the most frequent reaction; it shows how politicians, members of religious and nationalist groups and other protesters became part of the performance. It aims to explain the success of one of the most scandalous theatrical ventures in Poland, describes the peculiarity of the Polish context, the dynamics of reaction of opponents and students of Frljić’s activities, and shows the lasting consequences as well as the performative potential of the Croatian director’s presence in the Polish public sphere. A very important circumstance in researching The Curse is that – as emphasized both in the performance itself and in the public debate – Polish national values were criticized by an outsider, in other words, by the Other.The article pays particular attention to two contexts: one is engaged theatre’s potential to transcend its own boundaries and influence the social and political reality; the other is the author’s personal participation in Frljić’s performance. Naród przeciwko Frljiciowi albo Polska po KlątwieWiosną 2017 roku w jednym z warszawskich teatrów premierę miał spektakl Klątwa w reżyserii Olivera Frljicia. To nie był debiut reżysera w Polsce, jego poprzednim działaniom na polskich scenach towarzyszyła atmosfera skandalu. Frljić jest znany jako kontrowersyjny artysta, którego sztuka dotyka sprawa społecznych i politycznych. Wkrótce po premierze prokuratura wszczęła postępowanie przeciwko realizatorom spektaklu, w związku z jego treścią; namawianie do zbrodni i bluźnierstwo w teatrze zdominowały dyskusje w sferze publicznej. Klątwa to luźna adaptacja dramatu Wyspiańskiego, napisana w 1899 roku. Prowokuje pytaniami o współczesną religijność i niereligijność, dotyka relacji między Kościołem katolickim a państwem, porusza także kwestie związane z tożsamością narodową we współczesnej Polsce.Artykuł koncentruje się na reakcjach na spektakl Olivera Frljicia, zwłaszcza na temat różnych sposobów wyrażania publicznego gniewu; pokazuje, jak politycy, członkowie grup religijnych i ugrupowań nacjonalistycznych oraz inni protestujący, stali się częścią przedstawienia. Tekst ma na celu wyjaśnienie sukcesu jednego z najbardziej skandalicznych przedsięwzięć teatralnych w Polsce, opisuje specyfikę polskiego kontekstu, dynamikę reakcji przeciwników i badaczy działań Frljicia, ale pokazuje także trwałe konsekwencje oraz performatywny potencjał obecności chorwackiego reżysera w polskiej sferze publicznej. Istotnym dla badań czynnikiem jest eksponowany i w spektaklu, i w debacie publicznej fakt, że polskie wartości narodowe zostały skrytykowane przez Innego/Obcego.Rozważania zostały przedstawione w kontekście oczywistego dla teatru zaangażowanego potencjału do przekraczania własnych granic, ingerowania w sprawy społeczne i polityczne, ale także w kontekście osobistego udziału autorki artykułu w spektaklu Frljića.

Lessons from the Terror: Soviet Prosecutors and Police Violence in Molotov Province, 1942 to 1949

This paper examines the role of state prosecutors in the Stalinist dictatorship by analyzing the conflict between the Procuracy and the police in the Molotov region in the 1940s. This regional case study exemplifies how a Soviet prosecutor, by professional conviction and motivated by personal experience from the Great Terror, engaged in a daily struggle against arbitrariness, imprecise legal work, and police brutality, pressuring police authorities to prosecute their own officials. The paper demonstrates how since 1938 the procuracy articulated and defended (sometimes successfully) the principle of a justice system based on rules, even though these rules were used for the purpose of repression. This eventually enabled post-Stalinist transformation.

Laura Jockusch and Gabriel N. Finder (eds.), Jewish Honor Courts: Revenge, Retribution, and Reconciliation in Europe and Israel after the Holocaust. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2015. 387 pp.

This chapter reviews the book Jewish Honor Courts: Revenge, Retribution, and Reconciliation in Europe and Israel after the Holocaust (2015), edited by Laura Jockusch and Gabriel N. Finder. Jewish Honor Courts is a collection of essays that examines Jewish honor courts within the wider context of retribution and punishment of collaborators with the enemy across postwar Europe. Established by Jewish communities in various European locales, Jewish honor courts were intended to try and sentence Jewish collaborators with the Nazis in a court of their Jewish peers. The book also covers the Israeli trials, known as “kapo trials,” and describes the cooperation between Jews and state prosecutors in bringing Jewish collaborators before the bar of justice. The trials of three individuals are discussed: Stella Goldschlag, Alfred Merbaum, and Hirsch Barenblat.