Was Ramos protected by more than San Francisco’s crime-friendly sanctuary policy — was he also a federal informant? Or were he and other gangsters allowed to continue their criminal activities until they were arrested in a dramatic sweep that would make federal authorities look effective? (There was a lengthy federal trial of numerous MS-13 thugs in San Francisco last year that might have indicated the master schedule.)
The exact backstory is unclear. But it appears that moral guilt for the deaths of the Bolognas extends beyond liberal San Francisco.
An informant told the FBI in 2006 that Edwin Ramos had killed a gang rival in the Mission District, records show, raising questions about why Ramos wasn’t taken off the streets before his infamous slaying of a man and his two sons in San Francisco in 2008.
Documents filed in a separate San Francisco murder case say Jaime Martinez, a leader of the MS-13 gang who became a paid government informant – and whose niece was once married to Ramos – met with FBI agents in April 2006.
Martinez told the agents that Ramos, also an MS-13 member, had killed a rival Norteño nicknamed “Chino,” using a disguise to sneak up on him and shoot him at 25th and Capp streets, according to the legal filing last week by attorney Dennis Riordan.
Riordan said the information is in an FBI report summarizing an interview by an agent, filed April 11, 2006.
Two weeks before the FBI interview, Rolando “Chino” Valladares, 21, had been gunned down at the Mission District intersection. No one has ever been arrested in the killing, and a police spokesman declined to discuss it, citing the “open investigation.”
Ramos’ attorney did not return calls seeking comment.
Valladares’ father, Jose Marquez Jr., said the warehouse worker at Macy’s had been shot while walking with his wife, who saw an SUV drive away but little more. Valladares was a Norteño in his youth, his father said, but left the gang after the birth of his two sons, who are now 5 and 6.
Marquez said police had never told the family anything about the investigation.
“It brings hope,” he said of the information about Ramos, “that somebody might know something that we haven’t known for years.”
Mistaken identity A jury convicted Ramos in May of murdering San Francisco residents Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, on an Excelsior neighborhood street after mistaking at least one of the sons for a gang rival. Ramos, 25, was sentenced last month to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The killings on June 22, 2008, gained national attention after The Chronicle reported that city juvenile-justice officials, relying on San Francisco’s sanctuary-city policy, had twice shielded Ramos, a suspected illegal immigrant from El Salvador, from possible deportation after he committed a gang-related assault and an attempted robbery as a minor.
Since then, questions have also been raised about what federal authorities knew about Ramos as they built a racketeering case against MS-13 – and why they did not either arrest or deport Ramos before the Bologna killings.
Family frustrated Marti McKee, a Bologna family friend and spokeswoman, said the family had never been told that Ramos was fingered by a government informant for the killing of Valladares in 2006.
“It’s been very frustrating for the family to know that Ramos may have committed other crimes, and had been the subject of a federal investigation prior to the (Bologna) murders, and yet he was left on the streets,” McKee said. “There’s no question that’s been very upsetting news for them to hear.” Continue reading this article
U.S. states with immigration laws modeled after Arizona say they hope to implement their own legislation soon after a mixed Supreme Court ruling let stand the most controversial element of Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants.
Five states followed Arizona’s example in crafting laws requiring police to notify federal authorities when they have reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally, and sometimes imposed other strictures as well.
Those states – Alabama, Georgia, Utah, Indiana and South Carolina – have found themselves in federal court just like Arizona, facing lawsuits, either from immigrant rights groups, the Department of Justice, or both.
Now that the Supreme Court has weighed in on Arizona’s law, upholding police checks on immigration status while throwing out three other provisions, lawsuits that hinged on that ruling are moving forward, with no sign from the states that they will soften parts of their laws.
In South Carolina, state officials are moving full steam ahead with preparations to implement their law, which provides for a special Immigration Enforcement Unit of the state police, complete with special uniforms and marked cars.
The state police began hiring and training officers for the unit in January, and will be ready to start enforcing the “legal stop” provision in mid-July if an injunction is lifted, Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Sherri Iocabelli said. Continue reading this article
Four-year-old Christopher “Buddy” Rowe was killed last August as he walked with his mom and two sisters on the way to soccer practice. He lagged a bit behind the others and was struck in the marked crosswalk and flew 80 feet when hit by illegal alien Marcos Lopez Garcia.
The illegal then sped off and switched cars to evade authorities, but was seen by a concerned citizen, Leroy Flach, who contacted police. Otherwise the killer might have successfully reached Mexico, as he was planning, and thereby escaped justice entirely. Garcia was arrested later on the day of the crash.
The AP story below about Friday’s sentencing as well as the local Santa Rosa Democrat both soft-pedaled the harsh illegal alien aspect of the crime, namely that it might have been prevented with proper law enforcement strategies. Neither mentioned that Garcia had been arrested twice before for unlicensed driving but was released rather than deported. As the San Francisco Chronicle noted (Boy, 4, killed in Santa Rosa hit-run; suspect held, August 19, 2011):
Garcia does not have a driver’s license and has two previous arrests for driving without a license. The most recent incident happened just five days before the crash, when he was told not to drive until a court appearance in October, Celli said.
Below, illegal alien Marcos Lopez Garcia awaits his sentence for killing a little boy in Santa Rosa, California.
Four years seems a terribly short sentence for killing a little boy, particularly when the perp is an illegal alien.
SANTA ROSA — At an emotional hearing, a Sonoma County Superior Court judge sentenced a Santa Rosa man this morning to four years in prison for the felony hit-and-run death of a 4-year-old boy in a crosswalk last August.
Marcos Lopez-Garcia, 23, was also sentenced by Judge Kenneth Gnoss to one year for misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence and six months for misdemeanor driving without a license, but will serve those sentences concurrent to the four-year term.
Garcia pleaded guilty to all three charges in May after striking Christopher “Buddy” Rowe in the crosswalk of West Ninth Street and Rockwell Place in Santa Rosa on Aug. 18, 2011, and then fleeing the scene. Rowe died 13 hours later at Children’s Hospital and Research Center in Oakland.
Garcia was in the country illegally and will be deported after he serves his term, his attorney Walter Rubenstein said.
Rowe’s bereaved parents, Jim and Michelle Rowe, asked the judge to impose the maximum term of five and a half years that Garcia faced.
Gnoss acknowledged that as a parent, he would like the stiffer term, but said he already imposed the maximum term for the hit-and-run charge and was bound by rules of the court to impose the concurrent terms. Continue reading this article
Sadly, the murder of 73-year-old Lois Decker (pictured) was entirely preventable. Her killer, Shafiqul Islam of Bangladesh, had been convicted of child sex abuse in 2008 and was supposed to be deported, but was eventually released instead:
[. . .] Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are said to have detained Islam for one year after he was convicted in 2008 of promoting a sexual performance by a child. An immigration judge in December 2008 ordered that Islam be deported to Bangladesh, but he was allowed to stay in the country and was released after a year of detainment.
“I can’t explain” why ICE officials released Islam and did not deport him, Nichols said. The judge added that the agency should look at this case and at least consider reforming the way it deports dangerous individuals from the U.S.
District Attorney Paul Czajka said after Tuesday’s sentencing that immigration officials excuse their conduct in releasing Islam due to the slow response in paperwork coming from the Bangladeshi side of the deportation transaction.
“It’s an excuse that doesn’t hold water,” Czajka said. [. . .]
If America can’t deport a convicted child sex abuser, then something is seriously wrong with the criminal justice system. A clearly dangerous foreign criminal was turned loose on the streets, and a beloved grandmother, Sunday school teacher and member of her community was cruelly murdered as a result.
HUDSON — The daughter of a retired school cook and Elvis fan who was strangled and robbed last winter in her Columbia County home said there will be no forgiveness for the killer in this life or the next.
She was one of the relatives of Lois Decker, 73, who read victim impact statements before Shafiqul Islam, 22, was sentenced Tuesday to 20 years to life in prison.
Islam, a level 2 sex offender from a previous conviction, was sentenced by Columbia County Judge Jonathan Nichols for the Nov. 20 murder of Decker, who was called Foofie by her family.
“Murdering my innocent and kind mother is unforgivable,” said Diane Demarest of Oregon. “There is a black mark on his soul that will follow him all of his days in this life and beyond. My mother’s light cannot be extinguished by her death, not even the senseless death caused by this coward.” Continue reading this article
In less than two hours on Wednesday, an Amarillo jury found a Middle Eastern man guilty of trying to build a weapon of mass destruction. Saudi national Khalid Aldawsari (pictured) came to the United States as a student to study chemical engineering at Texas Tech, but his interests turned to jihad instead of science.
AMARILLO, Texas (AP) — In the months before his arrest, authorities said, Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari collected bomb-making supplies and instructional videos and made a list of targets, from nuclear power plants to the home of a former president. His goal, they said, was to carry out jihad.
Despite his attorney’s protestations that he was a harmless “failure,” Aldawsari was convicted Wednesday of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. He faces up to life in prison and is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 9.
Aldawsari, a 22-year-old former Texas Tech University student, closed his eyes as the verdict was read. It took the jury fewer than two hours to convict him.
Aldawsari was arrested in February 2011 after federal agents secretly searched his West Texas apartment and found bomb-making chemicals, wiring, a hazmat suit and clocks. He also researched possible targets: nuclear power plants, the homes of three former soldiers that were stationed at Abu Ghraib prison and the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush.
Videos found in his apartment showed how to prepare TNP, a chemical explosive. FBI bomb experts have said the amounts in this case would have yielded almost 15 pounds of explosive — about the same amount used per bomb in the 2005 London subway attacks. He also tried to order phenol, a chemical that can be used to make explosives. Continue reading this article
Islamic diversity has not worked out well for the US military, as illustrated most tragically by the preventable jihadist mass murder at Fort Hood in which 13 soldiers and personnel (shown below) were killed by Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan as he shouted, “Allah ackbar.” Dozens more were wounded.
The FBI has conducted more than 100 investigations into suspected Islamic extremists within the military, NPR has learned. About a dozen of those cases are considered serious.
Officials define that as a case requiring a formal investigation to gather information against suspects who appear to have demonstrated a strong intent to attack military targets. This is the first time the figures have been publicly disclosed.
The FBI and Department of Defense call these cases “insider threats.” They include not just active and reserve military personnel but also individuals who have access to military facilities such as contractors and close family members with dependent ID cards.
Officials would not provide details about the cases and the FBI would not confirm the numbers, but they did say that cases seen as serious could include, among others things, suspects who seem to be planning an attack or were in touch with “dangerous individuals” who were goading them to attack.
Details Revealed At Closed Congressional Hearing
The FBI and the Department of Defense declined to discuss the figures on the record, but three sources with direct knowledge confirmed that the numbers were revealed in a closed session of a House-Senate committee hearing in December. The FBI also declined to say whether it has compiled more up-to-date figures since that time.
“I was surprised and struck by the numbers; they were larger than I expected,” Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, told NPR. He stopped short of confirming the numbers.
“I know one can say that as a percentage of the millions of people in active military service or working with contractors, the numbers you talk about are a small percentage of the total, but the reality is it only took one man, Nidal Hasan, to kill 13 people at Fort Hood and injure a lot more,” Lieberman said.
Hasan was an Army major at Fort Hood in Texas who is charged with opening fire on soldiers in the base’s processing center in November 2009. The rampage is considered the most serious terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the Sept. 11 attacks. Continue reading this article
Monday’s events are a dreary testament to the friends of sovereignty about the weakened strength of a nation of laws. The Supreme Court told Arizona police they could ask about immigration status during lawful encounters, but the DHS quickly announced that it would no longer pick up those illegal aliens to be deported unless they are dangerous felons already on the books.
So Arizona authorities get to identify illegal alien infiltrators, but have no way to get rid of them. It’s a demonstration of power to show who’s boss.
Once again, the feds show that public safety is simply not an important issue when compared with coddling foreign lawbreakers. Highly questionable complaints about ethnic profiling are given higher value than actual crimes by aliens against citizens (e.g. murders of rancher Rob Krentz and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry) near the border and beyond. Catch and release is now the operative law of the land.
Arizonans who live in the vicinity of the border must feel hung out to dry. Obama’s declaration of open borders and no deportations puts citizens in even more danger than they were before — or at least it seems so from here.
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.
“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.
That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.
Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person. Continue reading this article
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach appeared on Lou Dobb’s Fox Business show last week, where he explained that President Obama’s amnesty for DREAM kids is not only a wrongful step into the powers of the legislature, but is also a violation of existing federal law. Title 8 Section 1225 disallows so-called discretion for broad groups of illegal aliens.
Dobbs also quizzed Kobach about why the Republicans seem to suffer from “a paralysis in the party.” Kobach responded that the framers did not imagine a President who would act outside the law to such a degree, so there aren’t a whole lot of tools, although Congress could cut funds to the implementation activities.
A week ago, President Obama stunned the nation when he announced that he would be implementing the chief provisions of the “DREAM Act” through executive fiat: He has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to refuse to deport illegal aliens under the age of 30 who claim to have entered the country before the age of 16 and who’ve graduated from high school or are in school. Some 1.4 million illegal aliens are likely to qualify for this amnesty.
Most criticism has centered on the fact that the president is enacting a policy that he himself had said could only be achieved by changes in the law. But a bigger problem with Obama’s move has been overlooked: He’s actually ordering federal immigration agents to break the law.
The White House claims that it’s telling Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in not removing illegal aliens. But there is no such discretion.
In 1996, Congress inserted several interlocking provisions into the law that require deportation when Executive Branch officials become aware of illegal aliens.
Congress enacted these provisions explicitly to force the executive branch to place into removal proceedings virtually every illegal alien encountered by federal immigration agents. The exceptions allowed by the 1996 act are very narrow, to be applied only in extraordinary circumstances (such as aliens seeking political asylum).
In other words, the “prosecutorial discretion” that Obama claims he is ordering ICE agents to exercise no longer exists, because Congress eliminated it in 1996. Continue reading this article
It was 2006 when 14-year-old Cheryl Green (pictured) was shot and killed while hanging out with her friends in the Harbor Gateway neighborhood of Los Angeles.
Now, six years later, the final sentencing of the last gangster has come down. So much for the right to a “speedy trial” as guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment. How cruel for the family that the legal process has taken six years following the death of a loved one at the hands of criminal gangsters.
Prosecutors say Ernesto Alcarez, the last defendant in the killing of Cheryl Green, was the lookout for the gunman. The murder cast light on violence by Latino street gangs against blacks in the city.
The last defendant in the hate-crime killing of 14-year-old Cheryl Green was sentenced Wednesday to 238 years to life in prison.
Ernesto Alcarez was found guilty of murder, attempted murder and a hate crime last month in the killing of Green, a black girl who was gunned down while standing with friends on a street in the Harbor Gateway neighborhood of Los Angeles.
Alcarez’s sentence was imposed by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephen Marcus.
Prosecutors said Alcarez acted as a lookout for the shooter, 204th Street gang member Jonathan Fajardo.
On Dec. 15, 2006, Fajardo faced off with a black motorist in the neighborhood. He went to a stash house for a gun and then walked back to the neighborhood with Alcarez looking for the motorist, according to testimony in previous court hearings.
The pair came upon Green and several other African Americans. In broad daylight, Fajardo opened fire without a word, hitting the girl in the stomach, and wounding several of her friends. Green’s friends rushed her to a hospital, where she died.
The crime cast light on long-standing violence by Latino street gangs against blacks in many neighborhoods of the city. The Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations said Latino street gangs were the most violent perpetrators of hate crimes in the region, mostly against blacks. Continue reading this article
Plea deals diminish distasteful details about how Muslim immigrants and aliens routinely plot to mass-murder Americans. The media and government don’t want to disillusion the public about the reality of diversity, namely how the infatuation with the ideology has endangered national security and public safety.
In this case, El Khalifi entered the US on a visitor’s visa at age 16 with his parents and never left, making him an illegal alien after some period. CBS reported (2/17/12) “occasional minor scrapes with the law, including a marijuana charge and traffic infractions” but there was no deportation, obviously.
El Khalifi was arrested last February in a sting operation where he thought he was working with al Qaeda jihadists to blow up the capitol, but they were actually fellows affiliated with the FBI.
Note the characterization from the Associated Press of the jihadist as a “Virginia man” even though his citizenship is Moroccan. Furthermore he is described as a “home-grown” terrorist, even though his personality and belief system were certainly well formed by age 16 when he arrived. Presumably the idea is to blame America for the bad behavior rather that point an accusing finger at permissive, unwise immigration.
A Virginia man will spend at least 25 years in prison after admitting he tried to conduct a suicide bomb attack against the U.S. Capitol.
Amine El Khalifi, 29, an illegal immigrant from Morocco living in Alexandria, pleaded guilty Friday in U.S. District Court, admitting that he plotted with men he thought were Al Qaeda operatives to attack the Capitol. In reality, El Khalifi was the target of an undercover FBI operation.
He was arrested in February in a parking garage near the Capitol, wearing what he thought was an explosive-laden suicide vest. The vest, provided by undercover operatives, was actually inert. A gun he planned to use to shoot his way past security in the building was also inoperable.
Friday’s plea deal requires the judge to sentence El Khalifi to a term of between 25 and 30 years when the sentencing is held Sept. 14. In the plea deal, prosecutors state they will ask for a 30-year sentence.
Prosecutors said El Khalifi had revealed his intention to kill Americans to an undercover FBI operative he thought was a member of the Al Qaeda terrorist group. He spoke of wanting to attack a synagogue and kill Army generals, prosecutors said, before settling on a plot to blow himself up inside the U.S. Capitol as an act of martyrdom. Officials have said the public was never in danger.
El Khalifi admitted in Friday’s hearing that, in preparation for the planned attack, he detonated a test bomb at a quarry in West Virginia and told the undercover operatives that he was hoping for an even larger explosion when he attacked the Capitol. He told the operatives he would be happy if he could kill 30 people. He also asked his handlers to remotely detonate the suicide bomb at the Capitol if he were incapacitated. Continue reading this article
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo has turned up an example of an illegal alien who would have been eligible for Obama’s DREAM Lite, but Texas executed the alien for the rape and murder of a teenager before he got to apply.
Last year, the Obama administration tried to block the execution of Humberto Leal Garcia. In 1994, at age 21, Leal kidnapped, murdered and raped a 16-year-old girl named Adria Sauceda. There was never much doubt as to Leal’s guilt, and the administration did not oppose the execution on the grounds that Leal was innocent or even that he did not receive a fair trial. Rather, administration officials were worried that executing him would “seriously jeopardize” relations with Mexico. According to the administration’s brief, since Leal was a “Mexican national,” he should have been offered assistance from the Mexican consulate when first arrested. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, and Leal met his maker on July 7, 2011.
Leal’s execution immediately came to my mind when I heard Obama’s speech justifying his unconstitutional DREAM Act executive order, which will grant work permits and deportation stays to illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents at a young age (though you can be sure there will be plenty of loopholes).
According to Obama, these “DREAMers” are really just Americans who lack paperwork:
They pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents — sometimes even as infants — and often have no idea that they’re undocumented until they apply for a job or a driver’s license, or a college scholarship.
What does this have to do with Humberto Leal Garcia? Like these “DREAMers,” Leal was brought to this country as an infant by his parents. Obama’s amnesty will grant legal status to illegal immigrants who have been convicted of two misdemeanors. Leal had graduated from an American high school and, although another girl came forward to say that Leal had raped her after he was arrested for Adria Sauceda’s murder, he had never been in any prior legal trouble.
But Matt O’Brien’s questionable attempt at “fair and balanced” was neither. The piece starts out with emotional stories from several young illegals and their dreams for the future. One version in the San Jose Mercury posted a sympathetic photo of one, Fiona Cruz.
For the other side, the reporter interviewed CIS’s excellent researcher Steve Camarota, and cited a couple relevant quotes. But O’Brien followed Camarota’s reasonable analysis with an immediate refutation beginning: “Those are assumptions many economists don’t hold. . .”
However, the most egregious element was the omission of young citizens who already struggle to find jobs. Why are their dreams for the future not considered worthy? How hard would it have been for the reporter to go to a local campus or unemployment office to find Americans who cannot find work?
The media constantly barrages the public with tearful stories of illegal aliens, as in this case. But young Americans, whose parents have obeyed the law and paid the taxes, are not even an afterthought to liberal journalists.
As thousands of young illegal immigrants consider openly applying for work permits under a new Obama administration directive, they dream of jobs they could never find in the shadows.
Eduardo Ruiz, of San Jose, has worked in a South Bay market since he was a teenager, but the trained artist wants to animate 3-D movies and open his own studio. Fiona Cruz, of Daly City, earned a biotechnology degree at UC Davis but is blocked from working in a science lab. Alameda’s Ju Hong bussed tables at a sushi restaurant to pay his UC Berkeley bills but would rather be drafting better government policies.
An estimated 350,000 children and young adult immigrants in California and more than 1 million nationwide could qualify for protection from deportation and temporary work permits through the new federal relief initiative announced Friday, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
How their arrival into the formal job market will affect California’s economy and employment is a mystery to many economists because nothing quite like this has ever happened before.
Many of those eligible are already working, but only because their employers don’t know or care that they are here illegally.
Giving them legal work permits — renewable every two years — will open up previously unattainable careers to people like Ruiz, Cruz and Hong.
“My dream is to start my own studio. I’ll have to hire people. That’s job creation, an investment,” said Ruiz, a 29-year-old about to graduate from San Jose State. “There will be a lot of young people graduating, starting businesses, and that will create jobs,” he said.
Not everyone is as optimistic.
The relief measure could also flood the California job market with newly legal workers competing for scarce jobs with other workers, especially native-born Americans who never went to college, said Steven Camarota, research director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., which seeks to reduce immigration.
“The benefit to the illegal immigrant himself might be significant,” Camarota said. “But that raises other concerns. Unemployment is so bad at the bottom end of the labor market.”
Well-paying fields that weeded out illegal workers because of strict background checks — such as in security or parcel services — could suddenly get more competitive, he said.
Statewide unemployment was 10.8 percent in May. More workers “could mean higher unemployment, longer bouts of unemployment, lower wages, lower benefits,” Camarota said.
Those are assumptions many economists don’t hold since most studies show illegal immigrants have a trivial effect on other workers, said UC Berkeley economist David Card. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.