Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Gary Hunt ~ Outpost of Freedom ~ "Qualified Press Privilege"
« Freedom of the Press #7 – “Judicial Discretion” and Tyranny
Freedom of the Press #8 – “Qualified Press Privilege”
February 21, 2017, 9:01 am
Freedom of the Press #8
“Qualified Press Privilege”
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 21, 2017
In Freedom of the Press #6 – “Tilting at Windmills” – Redux, I address the jurisdictional issue that the government addressed in their Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Government’s Motion For an Order to Show Cause, of February 7, 2017. Due to the length of the Supplement, and the length of #6, I chose to address two remaining issues in a subsequent post. Those two issues, Prior Restraint and Qualified Press, will be addressed in that order.
From the Supplemental Memorandum:IV.
There Is No Prior Restraint Issue or Qualified Press Privilege
A. There Is No Prior Restraint Issue Presented Here
This Court has the authority to issue protective orders protecting criminal discovery and, specifically, confidential source information. The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957). This substantial government interest is unrelated to any suppression of expression and outweighs Hunt’s First Amendment rights. No one has challenged the legitimacy of the Court’s Protective Order, and to permit a party to end run the order by passing the information to a blogger threatens to undermine criminal discovery and the interests identified in Roviaro—i.e., if we cannot protect the confidentiality of our law enforcement informants, we cannot expect their cooperation in future investigations.
We are not asking this Court to restrain Hunt’s ability generally to write about the case— or even the informants—we only want him to observe this Court’s Order, which means that he cannot publish the discovery material subject to the Court’s Order. This discovery material was not in the public domain in any form. This Court should be able to enforce its Protective Order and prohibit wide dissemination of discovery which includes confidential FBI reports. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (an order prohibiting dissemination of discovered information before trial is not the kind of classic prior restraint that requires exacting First Amendment scrutiny). Besides Seattle Times Co. there are no cases that discuss the prior restraint issue in the context of sealed and protected discovery information in the context of a criminal trial. In United States v. Noriega, 917 F.2d 1543 (1990), the issue was the balance between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to a fair trial and the First Amendment interests asserted by CNN. The Noriega Court held that CNN should not be able to violate a court order and litigate at the same time. Hunt has waived any First Amendment defense by defying the Court’s Orders.
Let’s address these underlined items, one at a time. First, we will look at Roviaro. Although I have addressed Roviaro, before, it is worth revisiting, since the government seems to rely heavily upon that decision. Here is what they said:
This Court has the authority to issue protective orders protecting criminal discovery and, specifically, confidential source information. The substantial government interest in protecting confidential sources is long established. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957)
The government asserts that they have a right to protect the identity of informants with a protective order. They have made this assertion, before, though they appear to have not yet read the decision nor understand the ramifications..
Albert Roviaro was indicted on two counts of trafficking narcotics. When he was arrested, a John Doe was present and was closest in proximity to the transaction, which led to Roviaro’s arrest. In requesting a Bill of Particulars, including the identification of the informant, he was denied that information. He was subsequently convicted in a bench trail. The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard the case. Justice Burton wrote the decision.
Though they recognized the informants privilege, they held that the right of the accused, if the informant would provide possible exculpatory testimony, exceeded that of the privilege. The following are from that decision:
Before trial, petitioner moved for a bill of particulars requesting, among other things, the name, address and occupation of “John Doe.” The Government objected on the ground that John Doe was an informer and that his identity was privileged. The motion was denied.
The protection of the informant was held by the District Court and upheld at appeal. However, in their decision, the Supreme Court stated:
The scope of the privilege is limited by its underlying purpose. Thus, where the disclosure of the contents of a communication will not tend to reveal the identity of an informer, the contents are not privileged. Likewise, once the identity of the informer has been disclosed to those who would have cause to resent the communication, the privilege is no longer applicable.
Once the informant is identified, the privilege is removed, as explained, “where the disclosure of the contents of a communication will not tend to reveal the identity of an informer, the contents are not privileged.” That was the circumstance with the Discovery information in question. However, once “the identity of the informant has been disclosed… the privilege is no longer applicable.” They don’t suggest by what means that disclosure might be achieved, however, the public should, by right, have any knowledge that can be obtained by such disclosure. So, while the government contends that such disclosure by Hunt is a violation of the Protective Order, once that disclosure is made, the informants privilege ceases to exist.
A further limitation on the applicability of the privilege arises from the fundamental requirements of fairness. Where the disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way. In these situations the trial court may require disclosure and, if the Government withholds the information, dismiss the action.
So, was it judicial discretion, on the part of Judge Brown, that favored, at least selectively, the protection of the identity of the informants? There was no objection when the government exposed Mark McConnell. There was no objection when Terri Linnell exposed her role as an informant. There was no objection when the diligence of the defense exposed Fabio Minoggio. For, at that instant in time, as each was exposed, the informants privilege ceased to exist.
Once the privilege, intended to protect the identity of the informant, ceases to exist, so, too, does the need for protection under the Protective Order.
The government goes on to say that the “substantial government interest is unrelated to any suppression of expression and outweighs Hunt’s First Amendment rights.” Now, it seems that the government, in the use of the term “expression”, is speaking of my right to freedom of speech. I have never contended such, and I am sure that both Facebook hearsay and recorded statements made by me make clear that it is the right of the people to the Freedom of the Press, the right to know what their government is doing, is at stake here.
Then, they state that “[n]o one has challenged the legitimacy of the Court’s Protective Order, and to permit a party to end run the order by passing the information to a blogger[sic] threatens to undermine criminal discovery.” I must admit that they are correct in that. I have not challenged the legitimacy of the Protective Order. I have no doubt that it applies to those so identified within the Protective Order of March 2016. I have clearly stated that I am not among those so identified.They go on to state that “if we cannot protect the confidentiality of our law enforcement informants, we cannot expect their cooperation in future investigations.” I have no qualm with what they are asserting, however, as was decided in Roviaro, once the identity is known, then the informants privilege no longer exists. It does not matter whether the government, the informant, the defense, or any other party exposes the identity. That was not a consideration then, nor should it be now.
They then state:
if we cannot protect the confidentiality of our law enforcement informants, we cannot expect their cooperation in future investigations.
Well, that is correct. However, that protection is not a right of the government, it is simply what they endeavor to do, and it does not preclude such exposure by the government, the informant, or any other party. The government should do their best. However, if they cannot achieve the desired result, they have no right to blame such failure on anybody else.
Next, we have:
This Court should be able to enforce its Protective Order and prohibit wide dissemination of discovery which includes confidential FBI reports. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
Before we get to Seattle Times Co., let’s look at what they said. They don’t want “wide dissemination of discovery“. The discovery was not widely disseminated. It is only when the informants privilege ceased to exist that those portions of discovery that no longer came under the privilege were excerpted and made public, via the press.
Now, on to Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart. This case was civil, not criminal. As such, many standards are different. Even the federal judiciary recognizes this, as they have Rules for both Criminal and Civil Procedures. However, Rhinehart was the spiritual leader of a religious group, the Aquarian Foundation. The discovery that the Seattle Times wanted to publish had to do with the names of the member’s and financial contributors to Foundation. If we compare the private names and contributions of a religious order to the actions of government, we need to make a distinction. The former is a private entity, as are its members and contributors. As such, they are afforded the protection of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The latter, however, is the servant of the people and are afforded only those powers and authorities provided for in the Constitution. Informants are nothing more than contract employees of government, paid under the table (no IRS form 1099 provided), and as such are subject to the scrutiny of the citizenry as much as any other government employee. In addition, by the way, the Seattle Times Co. discovery had nothing, at all, to do with “confidential FBI reports”. In fact, the Discovery in this (Ammon Bundy, et al) case are “Unclassified”.
Then, we have:
In United States v. Noriega, 917 F.2d 1543 (1990), the issue was the balance between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to a fair trial and the First Amendment interests asserted by CNN.
The Noriega case is so far off point that it is a surprise that the government would even bring it up. CNN obtained recordings made by the government of privileged attorney client communications while Noriega was in jail in Miami, Florida. To compare disclosure of attorney-client privileged information, most likely made available by a government employee of the jail, to the identification of informants is, well, beyond absurd.
Then the government asserts that, Hunt has waived any First Amendment defense by defying the Court’s Orders.
First, Hunt has not defied “the Court’s Order”, as Hunt was not among those to whom the Order was addressed. Second, it is not Hunt’s right that the Court is trying to suppress; it is the right of the press to inform the public of the doings and misdeeds of that government.
Now, that second issue:
B. No Qualified Press Privilege Is Implicated HereAlthough the Ninth Circuit has recognized a qualified press privilege in Shoen v Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), the doctrine simply doesn’t apply to the Motion before this Court. The government is not seeking the testimony of third-party Gary Hunt to identify the source or sources of the protected discovery information. The government intends to investigate that on its own. The government is merely seeking the removal of protected discovery material that this Court has ordered protected. Nothing about Gary Hunt’s blogging activities is implicated by the Motion to Show Cause. Third-party Gary Hunt is continuing to disseminate protected discovery material in the face of three Court Orders. No privilege is implicated.
Finally, even if this case were subject to a balancing test, the government’s interests far outweigh any First Amendment interest Hunt may assert. First, we need to protect our confidential sources for all of the valid reasons identified in Roviaro. Second, the Court has a significant interest in enforcing the terms of its own Protective Order. Without enforcement, Hunt’s defiance threatens to undermine our ability to exchange discovery in future criminal cases.
First, we have:
Although the Ninth Circuit has recognized a qualified press privilege in Shoen v Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), the doctrine simply doesn’t apply to the Motion before this Court.
Regarding Shoen, I agree with the government. The government has not sought to have me divulge the source of my information. Maybe their investigation has gone far enough that they really do not want that source known. However, they did choose to include it in their Supplemental Memorandum, so now it has been addressed. It does not, however, reach the point of excluding any “qualified press privilege”, if that is what they are trying to get at.
Then, they say, “The government is merely seeking the removal of protected discovery material that this Court has ordered protected.” Darn, the informants privilege ceased to exist, once the identities were exposed.
“[T]he Court has a significant interest in enforcing the terms of its own Protective Order.” Well, that is quite understandable. So, enforce away. Find the person subject to the Protective Order and go after them. Far be it for me to discourage you from doing so. Moreover, your repetition of the same arguments will not make them any more irrelevant than they already are.
Then, they endeavor to make me “defiant”, when they state:
Hunt’s defiance threatens to undermine our ability to exchange discovery in future criminal cases.
If the Protective Order included me within its reach, that might be true. I am not being defiant, I am simply asserting my rights as press and challenging their misguided presumptions of my culpability.
However, to suggest that the government would no longer be able “to exchange discovery in future criminal cases” suggests that they would ignore standing Rules and law regarding discovery. I am not quite sure that this is what they were suggesting, however, I think that they should consider just how they word things, in the future. This is almost an admission to future illegal activity on the part of the government.
Note that they only had one citation to suggest that I have no “Qualified Press Privilege”, as if with the sweep of their magic pen, they can simple say it, and make it so. They have, at least, in that stroke, dispelled their assertion of my right of expression (speech).Now, it is my turn. Let’s start with just who is violating clearly stated rules. The applicable Rule, from Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (1215), is, Rule 49.1. Privacy Protection For Filings Made with the Court(a) Redacted Filings. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains an individual’s social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual known to be a minor, a financial-account number, or the home address of an individual, a party or nonparty making the filing may include only;
(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-identification number;
(2) the year of the individual’s birth;
(3) the minor’s initials;
(4) the last four digits of the financial-account number; and
(5) the city and state of the home address.
However, on January 6, 2017, the government filed “Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker in Support of Motion to Enforce Protective Order (Expedited Consideration Requested)”. That document contained my home address, twice. Not just “city and state”, but the street name and number, as well. I suppose that they simply assume that they are above the law.
Now, unlike the specific wording of the Protective Order, as to who is subject to the Order, in this instance, there is specific wording on what must be redacted. But, heck, since the government can do no wrong, and those on the other side of the bar can do no right, this double standard is not surprising. Let me guess that no sanctions or other action will be taken against FBI SA Ronnie Walker, who prepared the Affidavit for filing, or Pamala Holsinger, whose electronic signature is on the filing of the Motion to which the Affidavit is attached.
I would not want to suggest that the government would not enforce Rules and laws violated by the government. So, well, I won’t. However, they will twist the wording to suit their needs, even when one is acting within the Rules and law.As much as we pay these people, don’t you think that they might be able to do a better job?
Share this:
Like this:
Tags: Ammon Bundy, Anna Brown, Burns Oregon, courts, demonization, FBI, government, Harney County, Honor, informants, Judge, law, press, Shyster, US Attorney
Category: Articles | Comment (RSS) | Trackback
One Comment
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
John Lamb reporting on opening arguments for the Malheur Protest trial #2
http://youtu.be/A8H7l1q62IE
https://youtu.be/A8H7l1q62IE
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
I was listening to this video and it would be a good one for a Lavoy Finicum tribute. He found the cost of freedom when he spoke out and now he's buried in the ground.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Today (2/21/2017) they (prosecution) showed this video to the jury. . . . it may have backfired . .
https://m.facebook.com/groups/155324...tn__=%2As[
Citizens for Constitutional Freedom Support Rally
Lee Gayer Robbins shared a link to the group: .
LaVoy Finicum "I'm doing this for my kids and my Grand kids. Iv'e got 20 Grand kids and Daughters and Sons and I want them to be Free. I want our Constitution to be upheld in its original intent, and Freedom to be restored to our Country. So I'll Stand here with my friends."
Today during the Opening Statements for the Prosecution, they showed this video of the Malheur Patriots making a Plea for Americans to come take a Stand. It had quite an emotional effect on many of the jurors, and I think it may have backfired on the Prosecution to show this video. I thought a few of the jurors were about to cry, I know I was. #STAND #LOVEYOURNEIGHBOR#ITMATTERSHOWYOUSTAND #MOTHERSDAUGHTERS
http://youtu.be/LYMiOTR8B0w
https://youtu.be/LYMiOTR8B0w
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Shari Dovale says prosecution hasn't learned ~ Redoubt News ~ Malheur trial #2
http://redoubtnews.com/2017/02/21/ma...ning-mistakes/
Malheur II – (Not) Learning From Past Mistakes
I HAVE TO ASK AGAIN, ARE THEY JUST TOO CONFIDENT IN JUDGE ANNA'S BENCH TRIAL?
February 21, 2017 BLM, Constitution, FBI, Featured, Oregon 1
http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg
https://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=641%2C495
Malheur II – (Not) Learning From Past Mistakes
by Shari Dovale
The opening statements for the second Malheur Protest Trial were very interesting. Beginning with Judge Anna Brown reading the jury instructions, I heard more bias from her when I was sure that I heard the phrase “the evidence will show.” Since she is who will decide the defendants fate on half of the charges, this seems to tell me they are already decided.
The prosecution looked to have stepped up their game when Geoff Barrow delivered the opening statement. He certainly connected better with the jury this go around than Ethan Knight did during the last trial.
However, Barrow made a very interesting observation during his opening. He told the jury that there was no factual evidence to convict these defendants. The prosecution is admitting their case is grasping at straws? Or, could they not be worried because they know it is already in the bag with Judge Brown?
Barrow also explained some of their witnesses, including Butch Eaton, expected to testify tomorrow. During the last trial, Eaton threw the prosecution a curve ball and stated on the stand that he still supported the Bundy brothers and their cause. This stunned the prosecution to the point of turning on him and treating him as a hostile witness. I wonder how they will treat him this time, especially since they warned the jury that he still supports the defendants.
The defense attorneys for the four accused jumped a few more notches in my book today. They made outstanding opening statements. Each one was on their game and you can tell that at least a couple of them connected with the jury.
The big surprise today was the first prosecution witness, former FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing. Bretzing was in charge of the entire District of Oregon during the Malheur Protest. He authorized every move, and all aspects of the case. As he testified, he was in Burns during the entire 41 days, with minor exceptions. He signed off on each Informant, or Confidential Human Source (CHS). There was nothing he was not made aware of.
He explained that he was aware that Ammon Bundy had been in Oregon, but said there had been no surveillance, electronic or otherwise, placed on him. He became concerned about the Bundy brothers because he knew them from Bunkerville.
Contrary to the theory of the last trial, Bretzing did not name Ammon as “The Leader” of this protest. He told the court that there was a “group of 7 or 8” leaders, with Ammon among them.
Bretzing also explained that he used CHS informants because they volunteered and it kept his agents out of harms way.
Yet, when Andrew Kohlmets, Jason Patrick’s stand-by counsel, began his cross examination, all of a sudden, Mr. Bretzing developed a serious case of the “I don’t remember”s. He had trouble with nearly all details he was questioned on, including those of the CHS informants.
Bretzing was questioned on whether he knew that one of his CHS informants, Fabio Minoggio, also known as John Killman, may have “aided and abetted” the protesters. Kohlmets also wanted to know if Bretzing knew that Minoggio had engaged in unlawful conduct by providing training on guns and hand-to-hand combat. It seemed that Bretzing was having serious memory issues on all questions.
He could not remember who anyone was, or what they were doing at the refuge. He knew some guy named “Mark” had been an informant, but it took Kohlmets reminding him of the last name “McConnell” before it triggered a bit of a memory from Bretzing.
The judge would not allow the defense to pursue their entire line of questioning, as it was not discussed on direct examination. I certainly hope they call this man back to the stand when they present their case.
I have trouble believing that the prosecution would allow Bretzing to play these games on the stand. It not only makes him look incompetent, but it drags them down from the get go. It is almost as if they do not care if they win or lose. I have to ask again, are they just too confident in Judge Anna’s Bench Trial?
Mr. Bretzing will finish his testimony tomorrow, after which Butch Eaton is expected to testify.
Share this:
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
In the case of a bench trial before a bias judge can the persons pronounced guilty appeal?
Comment from Redoubt News:
- http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c45071b...identicon&r=pg Fred Marsico FEBRUARY 21, 2017 AT 9:43 PM
- If anyone is a legal expert, I would like to know how a judge can waive a defendants right to a jury trial. It seems as if the current trial by jury and the misdemeanor charges added is a violation of federal court procedures in and of itself. Been researching it and cannot find one instance in which a judge refused to allow a trial by jury and presided over a bench trial.
And if both cases are being tried at once, why wouldn’t the jurors be suspicious of fact that the judge is going to be the jury? And yes, the phrase “the evidence will show.” seems to indicate that she also has assumed the roles of prosecutor as well as judge and jury.
Isn’t this noticed by the majority of people?
Oh! One more thing: Adverse possession claim demands proof of ownership, not arrests and murder. All the government needed to do was show proof by title that they did in fact have jurisdiction on the land and the occupiers would have been forced to leaved without a fight. I think Ammon and the other ranchers knew the government could not provide the proof, and that is why it turned arrests and assassination.
From Whitehouse website:
https://s19.postimg.org/6u193m78j/IMG_1509.png
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Maxime Bernstein's report on the first day od the Malhuer Protest Trial #2
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...fbi_agent.html
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
John Lamb 40 minute video of Feb. 21 Malhuer Protest Trial, includes video I previously posted of morning session
http://youtu.be/ph4zaykwNrc
https://youtu.be/ph4zaykwNrc
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Criminal trial by jury can only be waived by consent. There is no other avenue. The judge is running an administrative tribunal and trial by jury at the same time. They will need to take the matter to a higher court for Judicial review/appeal, Habeus Corpus... which I think they have already done?
They certainly should already be demanding a different venue with the opening statements. Every time the lawyer or defendant gets to speak they should be questioning the jurisdiction of this court.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Glass
Criminal trial by jury can only be waived by consent. There is no other avenue. The judge is running an administrative tribunal and trial by jury at the same time. They will need to take the matter to a higher court for Judicial review/appeal, Habeus Corpus... which I think they have already done?
They certainly should already be demanding a different venue with the opening statements. Every time the lawyer or defendant gets to speak they should be questioning the jurisdiction of this court.
Ammon Bundy did file a motion for lack of jurisdiction. I don't know if these defendants have.
State constitutions and state laws all reserve criminal jurisdiction to the state except when ceded to and accepted by the US, with concent of the state legislature. The Malhuer headquarters are neither public lands or an enclave. They are proprietary property with the same rights as any other property owner.
Congress has passed some acts that are probably unconstitutional regarding public lands, begining with the national grazing service and Taylor Grazing Act. In 1989 Ronald Reagan mad a proclamation which the Comgress has used to tie Title 18 (federal crimes) to Title 43 (public lands). I think this may be what Judge Brown is using to claim jurisdiction.
If you are able to follow what I have copy/pasted here:
Usurping criminal jurisdiction using presidential proclamation 5928
18 U.S. Code § 7 - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7 (this is under the "Notes Tab")
Territorial Sea Extending to Twelve Miles Included in Special Maritime and Territorial JurisdictionPub. L. 104–132, title IX, § 901(a), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1317, provided that:
“The Congress declares that all the territorial sea of the United States, as defined by Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988 [set out as a note under section 1331 of Title 43, Public Lands], for purposes of Federal criminal jurisdiction is part of the United States, subject to its sovereignty, and is within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of title 18, United States Code.”
43 U.S. Code § 1331 - Definitions
(q)The term “minerals” includes oil, gas, sulphur, geopressured-geothermal and associated resources, and all other minerals which are authorized by an Act of Congress to be produced from “public lands” as defined in section 1702 of this title.
43 U.S. Code § 1702 - Definitions
(n)The term “Bureau [2] means the Bureau of Land Management.
(o)The term “eleven contiguous Western States” means the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
(p)The term “grazing permit and lease” means any document authorizing use of public lands or lands in National Forests in the eleven contiguous western States for the purpose of grazing domestic livestock.
The text of the proclamation:
Proclamation 5928 -- Territorial Sea of the United States
December 27, 1988
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
International law recognizes that coastal nations may exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over their territorial seas.
The territorial sea of the United States is a maritime zone extending beyond the land territory and internal waters of the United States over which the United States exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction, a sovereignty and jurisdiction that extend to the airspace over the territorial sea, as well as to its bed and subsoil.
Extension of the territorial sea by the United States to the limits permitted by international law will advance the national security and other significant interests of the United States.
Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution of the United States of America, and in accordance with international law, do hereby proclaim the extension of the territorial sea of the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession over which the United States exercises sovereignty.
The territorial sea of the United States henceforth extends to 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law.
In accordance with international law, as reflected in the applicable provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, within the territorial sea of the United States, the ships of all countries enjoy the right of innocent passage and the ships and aircraft of all countries enjoy the right of transit passage through international straits.
Nothing in this Proclamation:
(a) extends or otherwise alters existing Federal or State law or any jurisdiction, rights, legal interests, or obligations derived therefrom; or
(b) impairs the determination, in accordance with international law, of any maritime boundary of the United States with a foreign jurisdiction.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-seventh day of December, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirteenth.
Ronald Reagan
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 10:32 a.m., January 6, 1989]
Note: The proclamation was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on December 28.
