{"id":4808,"date":"2011-01-03T10:59:17","date_gmt":"2011-01-03T15:59:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/?p=4808"},"modified":"2019-10-17T13:28:15","modified_gmt":"2019-10-17T17:28:15","slug":"analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/","title":{"rendered":"Detailed Analysis of The PROCEDURES FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHARITIES ACT (HR 6532)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"fusion-fullwidth fullwidth-box fusion-builder-row-1 nonhundred-percent-fullwidth non-hundred-percent-height-scrolling\" style=\"--awb-border-radius-top-left:0px;--awb-border-radius-top-right:0px;--awb-border-radius-bottom-right:0px;--awb-border-radius-bottom-left:0px;--awb-flex-wrap:wrap;\" ><div class=\"fusion-builder-row fusion-row\"><div class=\"fusion-layout-column fusion_builder_column fusion-builder-column-0 fusion_builder_column_1_1 1_1 fusion-one-full fusion-column-first fusion-column-last\" style=\"--awb-bg-size:cover;\"><div class=\"fusion-column-wrapper fusion-column-has-shadow fusion-flex-column-wrapper-legacy\"><div class=\"fusion-text fusion-text-1\"><p>A detailed analysis of the Procedures for Sanctions Against Charities Act\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/thomas.loc.gov\/cgi-bin\/query\/z?c111:H.R.6532:%22%3EH.R.%206532\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">(HR 6532)<\/a>. Introduced on Dec. 16, 2010, the bill would protect legitimate charities and their donors and beneficiaries, while preventing diversion of charitable resources to terrorist organizations.<\/p>\n<\/div><ul style=\"--awb-line-height:27.2px;--awb-icon-width:27.2px;--awb-icon-height:27.2px;--awb-icon-margin:11.2px;--awb-content-margin:38.4px;\" class=\"fusion-checklist fusion-checklist-1 fusion-checklist-default type-icons\"><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-double-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p><strong><a href=\"#Introduction\">Introduction<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-double-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p><strong><a href=\"#Background\">Background<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><\/ul><div class=\"fusion-text fusion-text-2\"><p><strong>Section by Section Explanation and Rationale of HR 6532:<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><ul style=\"--awb-line-height:27.2px;--awb-icon-width:27.2px;--awb-icon-height:27.2px;--awb-icon-margin:11.2px;--awb-content-margin:38.4px;\" class=\"fusion-checklist fusion-checklist-2 fusion-checklist-default type-icons\"><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p><strong><a href=\"#Proposed_Sec._208__a__Definitions\">Proposed Sec. 208 (a) Definitions<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p><strong><a href=\"#Proposed_Sec._208__b__Warrant_Requirement\">Proposed Sec. 208 (b) Warrant Requirement<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p><strong><a href=\"#Proposed_Sec._208__c__Procedures_Regarding_Charities\">Proposed Sec. 208 (c) Procedures Regarding Charities<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p><strong><a href=\"#Proposed_Sec._208__d__Periodic_Review\">Proposed Sec. 208 (d) Periodic Review<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p><strong><a href=\"#Proposed_Sec._208__e__Appeals\">Proposed Sec. 208 (e) Appeals<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p><strong><a href=\"#Proposed_Sec._208__f__Access_to_Classified_Information\">Proposed Sec. 208 (f) Access to Classified Information<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p><strong><a href=\"#Proposed_Sec._208__g__Confidentiality_and_Privacy\">Proposed Sec. 208 (g) Confidentiality and Privacy<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p><strong><a href=\"#_Procedures_for_U.S._Charities_Already_Shut_Down\">Procedures for U.S. Charities Already Shut Down<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><\/ul><div class=\"fusion-text fusion-text-3\"><p><b><a id=\"Introduction\" name=\"Introduction\"><\/a>Introduction<\/b><\/p>\n<p>The current listing and sanctions process used for charities accused of supporting terrorism is based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which was written to address embargoes against nation states and expanded by Executive Order to impose sanctions against bad actors. Its structure and procedures do not account for the unique position of U.S. charities as highly regulated entities that represent the goodwill of the American people.<\/p>\n<p>Current enforcement policies employ a one-sanction-fits-all approach for charities, maximizing collateral damage to innocent beneficiaries. The Department of Treasury&#8217;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) effectively functions as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.\u00a0Two federal courts have ruled this process to be unconstitutional, and one has called upon Congress to remedy the situation.<a id=\"_ftnref1\" title=\"\" href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>A separate set of procedures is necessary for charities because, unlike foreign nations or natural persons, listing and freezing the assets of a charity is the equivalent of a death sentence.\u00a0As Judge King said in\u00a0<i>KindHearts v. Geithner<\/i>, &#8220;Through its blocking order, OFAC effectively shut the organization down.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The procedures in HR 6532, sponsored by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), are specially designed to address the unique circumstances presented when national security laws are applied to the operations of charitable and philanthropic organizations.\u00a0Because the mission of such organizations serves the public interest and addresses fundamental human needs, enforcement policy in this context should both address national security issues and protect the ongoing operation of legitimate charitable work.<\/p>\n<p>Federal courts have ruled these procedures to be unconstitutional as applied to two U.S. charities:<\/p>\n<p><b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n<p><b><a id=\"Background\" name=\"Background\"><\/a>Background<\/b><\/p>\n<p>IEEPA developed from the Trading with the Enemy Act, passed in 1917.\u00a0It targeted specific foreign nations for embargos. Congress amended it in 1977 by passing IEEPA, which authorizes the President to declare an emergency relating to &#8220;any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or in part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.&#8221; In 1995 President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12947 which expanded IEEPA beyond sanctions against nation states to include &#8220;specially designated terrorists&#8221; that threaten to undermine the Middle East peace process. In 2001 President Bush issued EO 13224 based on IEEPA authority. It authorizes OFAC to designate a person or organization as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) or freeze assets &#8220;pending investigation.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Once a national emergency is declared under IEEPA, the President can &#8220;block&#8221; (freeze accounts and seize files and equipment) all the U.S. property of the listed entity.\u00a0\u00a0 IEEPA allows the President to &#8220;investigate, regulate, or prohibit&#8221; a host of financial transactions with &#8220;any foreign country or national thereof&#8221; by means of regulations, licenses, instructions or other means.<a id=\"_ftnref2\" title=\"\" href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a>\u00a0In addition, IEEPA allows for &#8220;investigation, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit&#8221; any transactions relating to property held by the designated foreign country or national.&#8221;<a id=\"_ftnref3\" title=\"\" href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>IEEPA and Executive Order (EO) 13224 bar anyone, including charities and foundations, from engaging in transactions with designated terrorist organizations.\u00a0This ban applies to humanitarian aid, peacebuilding programs, and other nonviolent activities.\u00a0In addition, providing material support to designated terrorist organizations is prohibited by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).\u00a0Material support laws only exempt religious materials and medicine.<\/p>\n<\/div><ul style=\"--awb-line-height:27.2px;--awb-icon-width:27.2px;--awb-icon-height:27.2px;--awb-icon-margin:11.2px;--awb-content-margin:38.4px;\" class=\"fusion-checklist fusion-checklist-3 fusion-checklist-default type-icons\"><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p>On Nov. 7, 2008 Judge Garr King of the United States District Court in Oregon ruled that Treasury&#8217;s action in shutting down Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. in 2004 violated basic due process rights.<a id=\"_ftnref4\" title=\"\" href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\">[4]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p>On Aug. 18, 2009, Judge James Carr of the Federal District Court for the Northern Division of Ohio ruled seizure of KindHearts for Humanitarian Charitable Development\u2019s assets without notice or means of appeal violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.<a id=\"_ftnref5\" title=\"\" href=\"#_ftn5\" name=\"_ftnref5\">[5]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><\/ul><div class=\"fusion-text fusion-text-4\"><p><b>Section by Section Explanation and Rationale of HR 6532<\/b><\/p>\n<p><b><a id=\"Proposed_Sec._208__a__Definitions\" name=\"Proposed_Sec._208__a__Definitions\"><\/a>Proposed Sec. 208 (a) Definitions<\/b><\/p>\n<p><i>Problems Created by Current Law<\/i><\/p>\n<p>IEEPA and current Treasury policy fail to distinguish between U.S. charities, which are highly regulated, and foreign charities that have been cited as supporters of terrorism.\u00a0In addition, the assets of U.S. charities come primarily from tax-deductible contributions from the U.S. and IRS rules require that these assets be used solely for charitable purposes if the organization is dissolved.<\/p>\n<p><i>Solution and Rationale<\/i><\/p>\n<p>The proposed definition of &#8216;charity&#8217; recognizes the transparency and accountability measures required to obtain recognition of tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It provides that organizations that meet these requirements are entitled to due process in sanctions enforcement proceedings under the IEEPA.\u00a0The 501(c)(3) category includes religious organizations, public charities, private foundations, and educational and scientific institutions.<\/p>\n<p><b><a id=\"Proposed_Sec._208__b__Warrant_Requirement\" name=\"Proposed_Sec._208__b__Warrant_Requirement\"><\/a>Proposed Sec. 208 (b) Warrant Requirement<\/b><\/p>\n<p><i>Problems Created by Current Law<\/i><\/p>\n<p>IEEPA and Executive Order 13224 allow Treasury to block and seize assets when there is danger the assets could be transferred outside of U.S. jurisdiction if a charity learns of an investigation, which would render enforcement ineffective.\u00a0In the\u00a0<i>KindHearts\u00a0<\/i>case the court said the government cannot automatically assume this danger exists in all cases.\u00a0Instead, the government must obtain a judicial warrant based on specific facts from a judge that finds probable cause to believe assets may be moved. In a May 10, 2010 ruling the\u00a0<i>KindHearts<\/i>\u00a0court said, \u201cI leave to Congress &#8216;the responsibility for considering and adopting the appropriate structure&#8217; for\u00a0pre-blocking warrant and probable cause standards that would comply with the Fourth Amendment&#8230;\u201d<\/p>\n<p><i>Solution and Rationale<\/i><\/p>\n<p>The bill proposes procedures based on the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act to comply with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. As a result, charitable assets are not seized and frozen without a court finding there is probable cause to believe the assets would be transferred outside U.S. jurisdiction if notice of the investigation is provided to a charity.\u00a0It has an emergency exception that allows the government to freeze assets for up to 48 hours prior to making a probable cause showing in court.<\/p>\n<p>When courts find probable cause the act allows for a variety of steps to be taken, including appointment of conservators, which may make it possible to &#8220;preserve the availability of the property that is subject to the warrant.&#8221; This may mean that assets would not need to be frozen if they can be protected another way.<\/p>\n<p><b><a id=\"Proposed_Sec._208__c__Procedures_Regarding_Charities\" name=\"Proposed_Sec._208__c__Procedures_Regarding_Charities\"><\/a>Proposed Sec. 208 (c) Procedures Regarding Charities<\/b><\/p>\n<p><i>Problems Created by Current Law<\/i><\/p>\n<p>The courts have held that the lack of notice and opportunity to defend in Treasury&#8217;s current enforcement process violate the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment. For example, there is no independent review, no requirement the charity even know why they are being investigated or designated, no timelines for Treasury to respond to requests for reconsideration, and inadequate opportunity to confront and present evidence.<\/p>\n<p>Treasury effectively functions as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.\u00a0Combined with a lack of transparency, this wide discretion opens the door to mistake and abuse. The lack of fundamental fairness also undermines public confidence in the Treasury&#8217;s enforcement efforts.<\/p>\n<p>Current enforcement policies employ a one-sanction-fits-all approach for charities, maximizing collateral damage to innocent beneficiaries. There is no requirement that the enforcement agency seek less drastic remedies than designation and asset blocking when violations may not be on a scale that requires shutting down an entire charity. Treasury has been inconsistent about its willingness to work with charities to encourage compliance and resolve problems. In addition, long delays, termed &#8220;inexplicable&#8221; by the court in the\u00a0<i>KindHearts<\/i>\u00a0case, have contributed to the unnecessary hardship sanctions proceedings cause for non-combatants that need aid.<\/p>\n<p><i>Solution and Rationale<\/i><i>\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n<p>The procedures in the bill address the constitutional deficiencies cited by courts in\u00a0<i>KindHearts<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0<i>Al Haramain<\/i>cases. These include:<\/p>\n<\/div><ul style=\"--awb-line-height:27.2px;--awb-icon-width:27.2px;--awb-icon-height:27.2px;--awb-icon-margin:11.2px;--awb-content-margin:38.4px;\" class=\"fusion-checklist fusion-checklist-4 fusion-checklist-default type-icons\"><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p>Notice: A straightforward requirement to let the charity know why sanctions against it are being considered, so that it can prepare a response.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p>Focus on compliance: Notice must set forth &#8220;the steps the charity may take to avoid imposition of the sanction.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><li class=\"fusion-li-item\" style=\"\"><span class=\"icon-wrapper circle-no\"><i class=\"fusion-li-icon fa-angle-right fas\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><div class=\"fusion-li-item-content\">\n<p>Opportunity to present response: The charity must be provided with a hearing on the record within 60 days after receiving the notice.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><\/ul><div class=\"fusion-text fusion-text-5\"><p><b><a id=\"Proposed_Sec._208__d__Periodic_Review\" name=\"Proposed_Sec._208__d__Periodic_Review\"><\/a>Proposed Sec. 208 (d) Periodic Review<\/b><\/p>\n<p><i>Problems Created by Current Law<\/i><\/p>\n<p>Unlike the requirement that the Secretary of State review Foreign Terrorist Organization designations every two years, IEEPA has no requirement for Treasury to update its designations of U.S. charities as supporters of terrorism. This has left millions of dollars of charitable assets in legal limbo.<\/p>\n<p><i>Solution and Rationale<\/i><\/p>\n<p>The bill would require the government to review orders to freeze charitable property every two years &#8220;to ensure that the basis for imposing the sanction remains valid&#8221; and provide the charity a hearing on the record during such a review.<\/p>\n<p><b><a id=\"Proposed_Sec._208__e__Appeals\" name=\"Proposed_Sec._208__e__Appeals\"><\/a>Proposed Sec. 208 (e) Appeals<\/b><\/p>\n<p><i>Problems Created by Current Law<\/i><\/p>\n<p>To impose sanctions under IEEPA the government only needs to have a &#8220;reasonable suspicion&#8221; that a charity is providing &#8220;financial, material, or technological support for, or financial services to&#8221; or &#8220;otherwise associate[ing]&#8221; with a designated terrorist organization.<a id=\"_ftnref6\" title=\"\" href=\"#_ftn6\" name=\"_ftnref6\">[6]<\/a>\u00a0Consequences of designation can include seizing and freezing all tangible and financial assets and significant civil and criminal penalties.<\/p>\n<p>On June 6, 2003 the Department of Treasury issued regulations at 31 CFR 501.807 that permits designated entities to seek administrative reconsideration after they have been designated and had their assets frozen and seized. This reconsideration does not include the most fundamental elements of due process: notice and opportunity to confront the evidence against it.<\/p>\n<p>Treasury has not made any changes in its procedures to comply with the\u00a0<i>KindHearts\u00a0<\/i>and\u00a0<i>Al Haramain<\/i>\u00a0rulings.<\/p>\n<p><i>Solution and Rationale<\/i><\/p>\n<p>The Act provides for an administrative appeal under the Administrative Procedures Act and appeal to the federal courts.\u00a0In appeals to the courts the entire case would be reviewed, and the court would not be limited to whether or not the government action was based on legal error. Instead, the burden would be on the government to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a charity should be subject to IEEPA sanctions, rather than imposing sanctions based only a reasonable suspicion.\u00a0This is appropriate because, unlike foreign nations or natural persons, the effect of designation and asset blocking on a charity is the equivalent of a death sentence.\u00a0As Judge King said the KindHearts case, &#8220;Through its blocking order, OFAC effectively shut the organization down.&#8221; [p. 7]<\/p>\n<p><b><a id=\"Proposed_Sec._208__f__Access_to_Classified_Information\" name=\"Proposed_Sec._208__f__Access_to_Classified_Information\"><\/a>Proposed Sec. 208 (f) Access to Classified Information<\/b><\/p>\n<p><i>Problems Created by Current Law<\/i><\/p>\n<p>To date Treasury has relied on classified information in shutting down U.S. charities. These groups and their attorneys have not been allowed to know what this information is, making it impossible to mount a meaningful defense.<\/p>\n<p><i>Solution and Rationale<\/i><\/p>\n<p>The act adopts the procedures in the Classified Information Procedures Act, a process that would require either an unclassified summary of the classified information, or allow the charities&#8217; legal representatives with security clearance to view classified evidence. This system has proven workable over time.<\/p>\n<p><b><a id=\"Proposed_Sec._208__g__Confidentiality_and_Privacy\" name=\"Proposed_Sec._208__g__Confidentiality_and_Privacy\"><\/a>Proposed Sec. 208 (g) Confidentiality and Privacy<\/b><\/p>\n<p><i>Problems Created by Current Law<\/i><\/p>\n<p>When the government seizes files of a U.S. charity, it gets their donor lists, personnel records and other information about people that normally would be considered private.\u00a0Extensive data sharing between government agencies can lead to this information being shared with agencies that have no role in the sanctions programs, and violate the privacy rights of innocent people.<\/p>\n<p><i>Solution and Rationale<\/i><\/p>\n<p>The act says seized information and other property of a charity may only be made available to &#8220;appropriate law enforcement agency pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;<b><a id=\"_Procedures_for_U.S._Charities_Already_Shut_Down\" name=\"_Procedures_for_U.S._Charities_Already_Shut_Down\"><\/a>Procedures for U.S. Charities Already Shut Down<\/b><\/p>\n<p>The act would require the government to give U.S. charities that have already been shut down notice &#8220;of the facts, events, persons and other relevant information that served as the basis for imposing the sanction&#8221; within 45 days of passage of the act&#8221; and an opportunity to appeal.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"fusion-text fusion-text-6\"><p><a id=\"_ftn1\" title=\"\" href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a>\u00a0<i>Al Haramain v. Paulson et. al.<\/i>, United States District Court, Oregon, Case no. 07-1155-K1and\u00a0<i>KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development v. Geithner, et. al<\/i>\u00a0United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division Case No. 3:08CV2400<\/p>\n<p><a id=\"_ftn2\" title=\"\" href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a>Section 1702(a)<\/p>\n<p><a id=\"_ftn3\" title=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/www.charityandsecurity.org\/legislation\/Analysis_of_The_PROCEDURES_FOR_SANCTIONS_AGAINST_CHARITIES_ACT_%28HR%206532%29#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]<\/a>Section 1702(b)<\/p>\n<p><a id=\"_ftn4\" title=\"\" href=\"#_ftnref4\" name=\"_ftn4\">[4]<\/a><a href=\"http:\/\/www.bernabeipllc.com\/pdfs\/Opinion.pdf\">http:\/\/www.bernabeipllc.com\/pdfs\/Opinion.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a id=\"_ftn5\" title=\"\" href=\"#_ftnref5\" name=\"_ftn5\">[5]<\/a><i>KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development v. Geithner, et. al<\/i>\u00a0United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division Case No. 3:08CV2400\u00a0<a href=\"\/sites\/default\/files\/KindHearts%20order%208.18.09_0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">http:\/\/www.charityandsecurity.org\/sites\/default\/files\/KindHearts%20order%208.18.09_0.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a id=\"_ftn6\" title=\"\" href=\"#_ftnref6\" name=\"_ftn6\">[6]<\/a>Executive Order 13224<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"fusion-clearfix\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[68],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v22.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Detailed Analysis of The PROCEDURES FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHARITIES ACT (HR 6532) - Charity &amp; Security Network<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Detailed Analysis of The PROCEDURES FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHARITIES ACT (HR 6532) - Charity &amp; Security Network\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Charity &amp; Security Network\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-03T15:59:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-10-17T17:28:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Charity-and-Security\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Charity-and-Security\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/\",\"name\":\"Detailed Analysis of The PROCEDURES FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHARITIES ACT (HR 6532) - Charity &amp; Security Network\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-03T15:59:17+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-10-17T17:28:15+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/person\/f65e45656d792d5ad09e802f05c0f881\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Detailed Analysis of The PROCEDURES FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHARITIES ACT (HR 6532)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/\",\"name\":\"Charity &amp; Security Network\",\"description\":\"Just another WordPress site\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/person\/f65e45656d792d5ad09e802f05c0f881\",\"name\":\"Charity-and-Security\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bcd0bb7c03e07ce207a7a6553d14be04?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bcd0bb7c03e07ce207a7a6553d14be04?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Charity-and-Security\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/author\/charity-and-security\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Detailed Analysis of The PROCEDURES FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHARITIES ACT (HR 6532) - Charity &amp; Security Network","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Detailed Analysis of The PROCEDURES FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHARITIES ACT (HR 6532) - Charity &amp; Security Network","og_url":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/","og_site_name":"Charity &amp; Security Network","article_published_time":"2011-01-03T15:59:17+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-10-17T17:28:15+00:00","author":"Charity-and-Security","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Charity-and-Security","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/","url":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/","name":"Detailed Analysis of The PROCEDURES FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHARITIES ACT (HR 6532) - Charity &amp; Security Network","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-03T15:59:17+00:00","dateModified":"2019-10-17T17:28:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/person\/f65e45656d792d5ad09e802f05c0f881"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/archive\/analysis_of_the_procedures_for_sanctions_against_charities_act_hr-6532\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Detailed Analysis of The PROCEDURES FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CHARITIES ACT (HR 6532)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/","name":"Charity &amp; Security Network","description":"Just another WordPress site","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/person\/f65e45656d792d5ad09e802f05c0f881","name":"Charity-and-Security","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bcd0bb7c03e07ce207a7a6553d14be04?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bcd0bb7c03e07ce207a7a6553d14be04?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Charity-and-Security"},"url":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/author\/charity-and-security\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4808"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4808"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4808\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4808"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4808"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4808"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}