Human Trafficking and Terrorism: Utilizing National Security Resources to Prevent Human Trafficking in the Islamic State

This is a report of a Master’s thesis done in behalf of the local network in Stockholm, under Fortum Distribution AB. The thesis was to conduct a review of a distribution station named Fs Myrängen located in Täby. A model was created for the 11 kV network linked to the secondary side of Fs Myrängen. Based on this model and using symmetrical components, theoretical fault currents (short circuit and ground fault) could be calculated. The results of these fault currents are used to investigate and develop new settings for relay protection and ground equipment in the station. The results of the calculated fault currents were also used to investigate unwanted voltages that occurs for grounded parts due to earth faults. The value of these unwanted voltages was then compared to heavy current regulations developed by the Electrical Safety Authority in Sweden. Another element of the work was to create a rehabilitation plan for the structure on the 11 kV side of Fs Myrängen, the main goal regarding the rehabilitation plan was to investigate the advantages and disadvantages that exist at a possible transition to numerical protection relays. This was done by making a market overview of the different types of numerical protection relays and compare these with the existing analog protective device in Fs Myrängen. The study showed that protective relay settings should be revised according to the recommendations in the report, ground equipment should be replaced with a self-regulating type, transformers should be replaced due to age and capacity limitations. Regarding a switch to numerical protection relays the type REF615 from ABB was recommended, in that case the control board in the station should be replaced to a station computer. Furthermore should current transformers be replaced to recive a desired sensitivity regarding detection of ground faults. The report also showed that Fs Myrängen meets the regulations of unwanted voltages over grounded parts in distribution stations due to earth faults.Detta är en rapport av ett examensarbete utfört i uppdrag av lokalnät Stockholm under Fortum Distribution AB. Examensarbetet gick ut på att göra en översyn av en fördelningsstation vid namn Fs Myrängen som är belägen i Täby. En modell skapades av 11 kV nätet kopplat till Fs Myrängen, utifrån denna modell samt med hjälp av symmetriska komponenter beräknades teoretiska felströmmar både för kortslutning och jordslutning. Resultaten av dessa felströmmar användes för att utreda och ta fram inställningar på reläskydd och nollpunktsutrustning i stationen. Resultaten på framräknade jordfelsströmmar användes även för att utreda vilken spänningssättning som uppstår vid jordfel, i de nätstationer som matas av Fs Myrängen. Spänningssättningen på nätstationerna jämfördes sedan med de starkströmsföreskrifter som är framtagna av elsäkerhetsverket. Ett annat moment i arbetet var att skapa en upprustningsplan för skyddsanordningen på 11 kV sidan i Fs Myrängen, huvudmålet för den biten var att utreda vilka fördelar och nackdelar som finns vid en eventuell övergång till numeriska skydd. Detta gjordes genom att göra en marknadsöversikt över olika typer av numeriska reläskydd, samt jämföra dessa med den befintliga skyddsanordningen i Myrängen som är av analog typ. Studien visade att reläskyddsinställningar bör ses över enligt rekommendationer i rapporten, nollpunktsutrustningen bör bytas ut till självreglerande typ, transformatorerna bör bytas ut p.g.a. ålder och kapacitetsbegränsning. Gällande skyddsanordningen rekommenderas en övergång till numeriska skydd av typen REF615, och i samband med detta byta ut den befintliga kontrolltavlan i stationen till en stationsdator. Vidare bör även strömtransformatorer för jordfelsskydden bytas ut för att uppnå önskad känslighet gällande detektering av jordfel. För spänningssättning av nätstationer vid jordfel, visar resultaten att stationen uppfyller kraven enligt starkströmsföreskrifterna från elsäkerhetsverket

How Impeachment Works

Presidential impeachments test nearly everyone. Whereas constitutional adjudication largely tests the limits and powers of governmental institutions, presidential impeachments do that and more. They test whether and how members of Congress may fulfill their oaths to do “impartial justice according to the laws and Constitution of the United States;” whether, or to what extent, presidents have abused their powers; how well the American public and media understand the stakes and issues involved in the impeachment process; and to what extent Article III courts refrain from reviewing any aspect of impeachment trials. A popular concern for most observers and commentators during the two impeachments of Donald Trump was that these institutions – particularly Congress, the President, and the media – failed the American people and the Constitution

Stopping the Circling Vultures: Restructuring a Solution to Sovereign Debt Profiteering

When a sovereign state becomes unable to repay its debts and enters into default, an ideal outcome involves a quick and mutually agreeable resolution with creditors, allowing the country to reenter the international markets and continue its recovery with limited impediments. However, the situation in Argentina, unfolding since 2001, has provided a stark example of why change is needed at the domestic and international level to address the growing problem of vulture funds\u27 presence in the sovereign debt markets. These aggressive hedge funds have demonstrated an uncanny ability to hijack the sovereign debt restructuring process. Vulture funds purchase discounted debt on the secondary market and pursue private litigation against sovereign states in an attempt to recover large profits off the sovereign default. The vulture funds\u27 actions pose significant threats to the sovereign debt restructuring process. These threats are poised to continue if steps are not taken to limit the funds\u27 power

Circumventing the Crime Victims\u27 Rights Act: A Critical Analysis of the Eleventh Circuit\u27s Decision Upholding Jeffrey Epstein\u27s Secret Non-Prosecution Agreement

Whether crime victims have rights before formal criminal charges are filed has recently come to the fore in one of the most publicized criminal cases in recent memory. For more than twelve years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking organization have attempted to invalidate a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) entered between Epstein and federal prosecutors. The victims have argued that because prosecutors deliberately concealed the NPA from them, the prosecutors violated the federal Crime Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA). On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit entered a surprising ruling, rejecting the victims’ argument. The panel refused to find a CVRA violation, reasoning that because the Government never filed federal charges, the CVRA was never triggered. On August 7, 2020, the full Eleventh Circuit vacated the earlier panel decision and agreed to rehear the case en banc. This article critiques the earlier panel decision and explains why the Eleventh Circuit en banc should proceed in the opposite direction. Under the now-vacated panel decision, “secret” justice was permitted, depriving crime victims in the Eleventh Circuit of any CVRA rights until the Government formally files charges. This would have created perverse incentives for the Government to negotiate secret agreements within the Eleventh Circuit rather than elsewhere, such as in the adjoining Fifth Circuit. This article concludes that the Eleventh Circuit en banc should recognize that the CVRA extends rights to crime victims even before charges are filed. The article also urges Congress to clarify and amend the CVRA to ensure that secret NPAs are not permitted in future federal criminal cases and, more broadly, to protect crime victims during federal criminal investigations

Rogue Trends in Sovereign Debt: Argentina, Vulture Funds, and Pari Passu Under New York Law

Coined the “trial of the century” in sovereign debt litigation, NML v. Argentina (NML) involves a radical departure from the traditional unenforceability of sovereign debt contracts in favor of the opposite extreme: enforcement through potent injunctive remedies applicable to third parties. Problems with the NML precedent could extend far beyond Argentina’s immediate situation. NML is the latest landmark in a trend that creates serious uncertainties for sovereign debt markets—a major concern for sovereigns, their creditors, and financial institutions around the world. This Article argues that NML creates “bad law” by overcompensating for unenforceability problems with an ambitious reading of the pari passu clause and supercharged injunctive remedies. As a practical matter, the milk is spilled; “rogue” precedent now exists. But until broader solutions for problems in sovereign debt are available, there are compelling grounds for other courts to apply the NML precedent as narrowly as possible. In addition to the extraordinary factual circumstances of NML, the Second Circuit provided a starting point for distinguishing NML from future cases

Punishing Poverty: \u3cem\u3eRobinson\u3c/em\u3e & the Criminal Cash Bond System

The current cash bail system works in a way that punishes poverty. In Robinson v. California, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to punish an individual for a status or condition. Poverty is a status. The cash bail system is unconstitutional under Robinson and the Eighth Amendment because it punishes the status of poverty. Similar to drug addiction, poverty “may be contracted innocently or involuntarily or it might even take hold from the moment of a person’s birth.” Kalief Browder had no control over his family’s financial position. Yet, this financial position kept him locked away for more than 1000 days. An affluent individual in Browder’s position would have been able to afford the $3000 cash bail, and thus, would have been released from pre-trial custody. Because of this reality, the current bail system functions in a way that punishes defendants on the basis of their economic status. This Note demonstrates that the current cash bail system criminalizes the economic status of poverty. Because of this, the criminal cash bail system violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Throughout this Note, the terms “bail” and “bond” are used interchangeably. Part I of this Note examines the Eighth Amendment, as well as the current structure and statistics surrounding the United States criminal bond system. Part II examines Robinson v. California, Powell v. Texas, and the effect of these two decisions on Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Finally, Part III analyzes the constitutionality of the criminal cash bail system under Robinson

Rogue Trends in Sovereign Debt: Argentina, Vulture Funds, and Pari Passu Under New York Law

Coined the “trial of the century” in sovereign debt litigation, NML v. Argentina (NML) involves a radical departure from the traditional unenforceability of sovereign debt contracts in favor of the opposite extreme: enforcement through potent injunctive remedies applicable to third parties. Problems with the NML precedent could extend far beyond Argentina’s immediate situation. NML is the latest landmark in a trend that creates serious uncertainties for sovereign debt markets—a major concern for sovereigns, their creditors, and financial institutions around the world. This Article argues that NML creates “bad law” by overcompensating for unenforceability problems with an ambitious reading of the pari passu clause and supercharged injunctive remedies. As a practical matter, the milk is spilled; “rogue” precedent now exists. But until broader solutions for problems in sovereign debt are available, there are compelling grounds for other courts to apply the NML precedent as narrowly as possible. In addition to the extraordinary factual circumstances of NML, the Second Circuit provided a starting point for distinguishing NML from future cases