Andreessen Horowitz Launches $300M “Long-Term” Cryptocurrency Fund

At a time when regulators in the US and elsewhere are finally cracking down on ICOs – though the industry as a whole has largely failed to shed its patina of shadiness – there’s still at least one Silicon Valley VC firm that thinks launching a “long-term” ICO-focused VC fund is a smart idea.

Andreessen

Marc Andreessen

As the Financial Times reports, Andreessen Horowitz is launching a $300 million hedge-fund style “venture capital” fund to invest in ICOs with a “typical venture-capital timeframe” of 10 years, or longer. The company has already named a former DOJ prosecutor as its first female partner – which is probably a smart move for a fund where sniffing out criminality and fraud should be a top-level skill.

The Silicon Valley investment firm announced it had raised $300m to back new cryptocurrency-related ideas, including investing directly in the currencies themselves, which have become the focus of massive financial speculation.

Andreessen also named Katie Haun, a former prosecutor at the Department of Justice, to help manage the fund, making her the firm’s first female general partner. Ms Haun led some of the most prominent enforcement actions in the area, including the DoJ’s investigation of Mt Gox, a bitcoin exchange that collapsed after a massive theft.

The timing of AH’s decision is interesting, given that Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures argued in a blog post published last week that “the venture capital fund model is not optimized for investing in the blockchain/crypto sector.” In fact, it’s difficult to imagine any investing model where an ICO-focused strategy makes sense. Price movements among ICO tokens typically correspondent to two qualities: hype, and manipulation.

Crypto

But amazingly, the ICO market still looks attractive to some professional investors. As one Andreessen partner put it: “You squint one way and it’s a whole new asset class – you squint another way it looks a lot like the venture capital world,” said Chris Dixon, an Andreessen partner.

And if you really look carefully, it looks like a scam. Andreessen said it has already made “a number” of investments in blockchain companies from its main fund, and the firm hopes the new dedicated fund will allow for more “flexibility” in their investments. This is a curious bit of hedging, which suggests that the firm is aware of the immense risk it is taking, and begs the question: why continue?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KqYhmD Tyler Durden

Where Do You Draw The Line In Today’s Crazed Political Environment?

Authored by Michael Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

If you vote for Trump, then you the voter, you, not Donald Trump, are standing at the border like Nazis going ‘you here, you here’.

– Donny Deutsch on MSNBC last week

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

– Friedrich Nietzsche

With each passing day, Trump’s hardcore supporters and detractors become more deeply entrenched in their respective corners and grow more hysterical. With every turn of the news cycle, we see two groups increasingly and equally convinced that only they and their allies can save the nation from total ruin. As someone who isn’t a cheerleader for any politician or political party, it’s fascinating to watch. It’s also made me consider where to draw the line when it comes to political action or commentary.

First off, we need to understand that an increasingly centralized, corrupt and unaccountable government making decisions for 325 million people will be inherently and systemically abusive toward the citizenry. To confront this reality we need resistance, but it can’t be the superficial, purely partisan kind.

Superficial resistance is what you see from establishment Democrats and MSNBC, peddling the fairytale that Trump the person is the problem, not the system itself. In contrast, genuine resistance is admitting and confronting our root problems which are deeply engrained and systemic. It means coming to terms with the fact we’re largely living in an imperial, executive-driven government structure as opposed to a Constitutional Republic. Congress doesn’t even bother to seriously weigh in on war and military operations anymore, essentially outsourcing its most awesome responsibility to whoever happens to be president. Trump the man isn’t our huge problem; excessive, secret and unaccountable government power is.

We need to admit that whoever happens to be elevated to the presidency will invariably abuse such misplaced power. Obama’s terrible policies were deserving of intense criticism as are Trump’s, but thinking that merely switching out the  president is going to magically fix our problems is deranged. This is why I have no patience for “the resistance” to-date, which focuses all its energy and passion on Trump the man, versus they  imperial leviathan he happens to be in charge of at this moment in time.

Obsessing about Trump the man has caused many of his high profile detractors to become overly hysterical, myopic and downright foolish. A perfect example of this occurred last Friday when Donny Deutsch, an advertising guy and pundit, explicitly instructed people to consider Trump voters Nazis.

What Deutsch manages to do is take an already existing obsessive focus on Trump the individual and move it in an even more counterproductive and mindless direction. Blaming Trump the man apparently isn’t superficial enough for him, so he encourages you to demonize the voter. You know the average person who’s intentionality given two awful candidates to choose from every four years. They’re the real problem according to him. Moreover, he doesn’t just want you to blame Trump voters, he wants you to consider them Nazis. This is the sort of clown they put on political television.

The fact that such nonsense so seamlessly flowed from his mouth demonstrates a total lack of capacity for reason. According to this logic, every Obama voter should be seen as a reckless imperialist murderer directly responsible for the destruction of Libya and the emergence of slave markets there. Feel free to use this sort of logic, but you won’t like where it leads.

Even worse for Deutsch, blaming voters is a surefire way to achieve noting politically.

Trump supporters expressed outrage over what Deutsch said, and I’m sympathetic to that. What he said was ludicrous, dangerous and petty. That said, many of those same people got equally bent out of shape over the fact Trump press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave a Virginia restaurant by its owners. On this front I disagree, and think it’s important to draw a distinction between what Deutch said and what the owner of the Red Hen restaurant did.

Of course, I’m not arguing “anything goes” when it comes to government officials and bureaucrats, but kicking Sanders out of a restaurant is a non-violent political statement specifically directed at someone who voluntarily works for government. Standing up to and making government officials uncomfortable is part of our political heritage. We should also never forget how uncomfortable our unaccountable and overbearing government makes us feel all the time.

Finally, the action may herald the beginning of a new sort of activism based on grassroots action as opposed to the superficial, nonsensical and completely phony resistance promulgated by cable television pundits and washed up corporate Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Chucky Schumer.

Obama wasn’t the problem, Trump isn’t the problem, and one slice of desperate, irritated voters isn’t the problem either. If we want to start blaming voters then we should look in the mirror, because all of us allowed this to happen. Demonizing and dehumanizing our neighbors because they voted differently might feel good, but it won’t get us anywhere.

However, giving government officials a hard time for doing terrible things is a reasonable tactic, irrespective of which party happens to be in power. They work for us, and if they’re screwing us over (which is at least 95% of the time) we shouldn’t just bow down and accept it.

*  *  *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit the Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KqcGPU Tyler Durden

Forget Net Neutrality: The E.U. Seems Determined to Destroy the Internet

Broken computerDigital free speech and access activists are raising alarms that new European Union regulations under consideration will lead to massive internet censorship and a costly enforcement system that could crush innovation and competition.

It’s all about online copyright enforcement and the harsh measures that content creators like media outlets and entertainment companies want the European Union to adopt in order to try to stop the uncontrolled spread of their works. So far it seems that the European Union is agreeing with the big dogs. Last week the European Parliament’s Legislative Affairs Committee voted to advance a “Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.”

That inscrutably innocuous name for legislation hides a far-reaching proposal that has two components that are causing heartburn for organizations like Creative Commons (devoted to helping people more freely share content online) and the digital activists of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

Article 11 will grant media outlets he authority to require anybody potentially excerpting even just snippets of their content to pay them a fee or get a license first, greatly expanding how much content is covered under copyright law. We’re talking about examples like the previews of chunks of text and photos that show up when you share a link on a social media outlet like Twitter or Facebook.

Spain and Germany have previously attempted these kind of regulations at the behest of entrenched media outlets trying to protect their turf as the internet disrupts their revenue models. In Spain, the attempt to use copyright as some sort of link tax backfired terribly, prompting Google to respond by dumping Spanish media outlets from news searches. It did not open up new revenues of income for Spanish media outlets but actually reduced access. Whatever the financial solution to media disruption might be, it’s certainly not trying to nickle-and-dime people for links.

A pack of more than 160 scholars sent a letter to the E.U. warning against the passage of Article 11, saying the impact would be to “likely impede the free flow of information that is of vital importance to democracy.” The transaction costs of sharing information would be greatly increased and this would end up blowing back on “journalists, photographers, citizen journalists and many other non-institutional creators and producers of news, especially the growing number of freelancers.”

But the problems of Article 11 are small potatoes compared to the potential impacts of Article 13. In the United States, we have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which exempts online platforms from liability for copyright infringement for content posted by third-parties as long as they take this content down when copyright holders request it.

The DMCA has already resulted in a lengthy history of horrible censorship in practice, as the takedown request system gets abused to shutter fair use of content and parodies and to censor criticism.

Article 13 is the DMCA on steroids. Rather than waiting for takedown demands, Article 13 would require platforms that allow users to post and upload content to automate a system of filtering out material that has been submitted to a database as copyrighted. How would an automated system be able to determine whether copyrighted material is being published legally? The answer is that it probably won’t do a good job, and that’s a huge cause for concern. Timothy Vollmer at Creative Commons warns that this will have significant consequences for online speech:

Article 13 will limit freedom of expression, as the required upload filters won’t be able to tell the difference between copyright infringement and permitted uses of copyrighted works under limitations and exceptions. It puts into jeopardy the sharing of video remixes, memes, parody, and code, even works that include openly licensed content.

While some might look forward to a word without memes, there are some serious, serious problems here in that the punishment will fall now on platforms because the system is stacked against them. Cory Doctorow at EFF warns how it could blow back against sites like Wikipedia:

Article 13 punishes any site that fails to block copyright infringement, but it won’t punish people who abuse the system. There are no penalties for falsely claiming copyright over someone else’s work, which means that someone could upload all of Wikipedia to a filter system (for instance, one of the many sites that incorporate Wikpedia’s content into their own databases) and then claim ownership over it on Twitter, Facebook and WordPress, and everyone else would be prevented from quoting Wikipedia on any of those services until they sorted out the false claims. It will be a lot easier to make these false claims that it will be to figure out which of the hundreds of millions of copyrighted claims are real and which ones are pranks or hoaxes or censorship attempts.

Article 13 also leaves you out in the cold when your own work is censored thanks to a malfunctioning copyright bot. Your only option when you get censored is to raise an objection with the platform and hope they see it your way—but if they fail to give real consideration to your petition, you have to go to court to plead your case.

Now think about the costs for any sort of internet start-up, or even an existing smaller company, which “provide[s] to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users,” that they will need to pay to comply with these rules. Just as Section 11 entrenches the control of media information distribution to a small group of established companies, Section 13 will further entrench control over online content sharing with the biggest companies who can afford to absorb and automate the costs of compliance. Edima, the trade organization that represents online companies, has a massive chart showing who could be affected by Section 13. It includes dating apps and sites, meaning they’d have to run all your pictures through a database to make sure you aren’t pretending to be Brad Pitt or Scarlett Johannson online. They could get sued if they don’t catch you!

When the European Union adopted expansive and expensive online data privacy regulations, observers warned that rather than reining in the influence of tech giants like Google and Facebook, it would actually allow them to strengthen their control of online spaces. And that’s exactly what’s happening. Those tech giants have the money and the lawyers to deal with the complex, confounding regulations. Others in the tech sector are not so fortunate.

Both of these articles, despite extremely loud opposition from online experts and tech companies, passed the committee in very split votes. So at least some members have a sense of the potentially terrible consequences. There’s still a lengthy and complex negotiation process to move the directive through the European Parliament. That body is likely to vote next on July 4 and could potentially make changes if there’s enough opposition.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2txGvnX
via IFTTT

WTI Extends Gains After Biggest Crude Draw Since Sept 2016

WTI/RBOB prices soared today on the heels of Iran oil sanction threats from Washington. With expectations of further draws (after last week’s big surprise draw), API reported a massive 9.22mm barrel draw – the biggest since Sept 2016.

 

API

  • Crude -9.22mm (-3mm exp) – biggest draw since Sept 2016

  • Cushing -1.741mm (-1.3mm exp)

  • Gasoline +1.152mm

  • Distillates +1.75mm

Following last week’s surprising large crude draw (but product builds) API reported a 9.22mm crude draw – which if it holds for EIA, will be the biggest draw since Sept 2016…

 

WTI topped $70 – highest in a month – after US sanction threats against Iran trumped Saudi output increase headlines. Heading into the API print, WTI was flatlined at around $70.50, before kneejerking higher on the API print

“Even if Saudi Arabia is ramping up, there’s enough concern in the market about production shutdowns, whether it’s Canada, Libya, to hold these prices up,” said Rob Haworth, who helps oversee $151 billion at U.S. Bank Wealth Management in Seattle. “It’s a market that still has a bullish bias to it.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Mt5YpB Tyler Durden

For First Time In Years, North Korea Cancels Its Annual “Anti-America” Rally

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Could peace with tyrannical North Korea really be happening? It seems like it could be, as North Korea has canceled its annual “anti-America” rally for the first time in several years.

According to American Military News, the rally served as one of North Korea’s most symbolic and political events, held annually on July 27 in remembrance of the start of the Korean War. North Korea historically celebrated the day as a national holiday called “Victory in the Fatherland Liberation War.”  The rally included events focused on the Korean War, complete with nationalist fervor and anti-U.S. postage stamps.

Last year’s event included a reported 100,000 attendees in Kim Il Sung Square, according to the Associated Press.  Officials had no on-the-record comment on the decision not to hold the event this year. But Associated Press staff in the North Korean capital confirmed Monday that it would not be held.

North Korea has also noticeably toned down its anti-American rhetoric over the past several months to create a more conciliatory atmosphere. In the wake of meetings with President Donald Trump, it seems like peace is possible with the Communist regime, at least for the time being.  The cancellation of the rally looks to be, on the surface anyway, a solid and major attempt to avoid souring and reduce the tensions which will help increase dialogue.

But horrifyingly, more than 70% of leftist in America don’t actually want peace with North Korea.

But for those who actually are anti-war and don’t think it’s necessary to send nukes flying just to make one man look bad, this rally’s cancellation could be the start of a peaceful and diplomatic relationship with North Korea.

While North Korea has cut back on its criticism of the current U.S. administration, the tyrannical regime has also stepped up its attacks on “capitalist values” in general.  According to the Associated Press, this is an oblique warning that its diplomatic outreach to the world should not be taken to mean it’s ready to throw away its socialist ideals anytime soon.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Msu3Nr Tyler Durden

New Hope for the Freedom Caucus in Tuesday’s Primaries, Plus Trump Endorsements and Mitt Romney

Americans in five states are heading to the polls on Tuesday to vote in primary elections. A handful of races in Colorado, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, and Utah, as well as a few primary runoffs in Mississippi and South Carolina, carry a national weight.

A Candidate for the House Freedom Caucus

The House Freedom Caucus suffered a noticeable loss earlier in the month after Rep. Mark Sanford (R–S.C.) was defeated by state Rep. Katie Arrington in the Republican primary for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. In the face of this loss, a challenger in the state’s 4th Congressional District is offering to take Sanford’s place.

Former state Sen. Lee Bright is competing against state Sen. William Timmons in a primary runoff for Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R–S.C.) soon-to-be vacant seat. Gowdy announced at the beginning of the year that he would neither seek reelection nor “any other political or elected office.” Gowdy, who worked as a federal prosecutor before his time as a politician, said his skills “are better utilized in a courtroom than in Congress.”

Jim Bourg/REUTERS/NewscomUpon announcing his run, former State Sen. Lee Bright promised that his first action in the House would be joining the Freedom Caucus. Bright said he “would be honored to join” just before touting support for legislation that would introduce congressional term limits.

Bright has received endorsements from members of the Freedom Caucus as well as from conservative and libertarian organizations such as the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, and the National Association of Gun Rights. Timmons has also received significant endorsements, ranging from Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) to several South Carolina politicians.

Mitt Romney Seeks a Comeback

Mitt Romney and Utah state Rep. Mike Kennedy are facing off to see who will take over Sen. Orrin Hatch’s (R–Utah) Senate seat. Hatch (R–Utah) announced his retirement in January after spending over 40 years on Capitol Hill. Hatch promised in 2012 that his seventh term would be his last, but a few of his comments regarding an eighth term led to speculation over whether or not the sentiment was sincere. Hatch ultimately made his decision, but not without dropping Romney’s name first.

“I can see why he might not want to do it, but I can also see why if he did it, it would be a great thing for America,” Hatch said earlier in the year, as reported by the Deseret News.

For the past year, Romney, who was previously a Massachusetts governor and the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, made himself clear that he wasn’t finished with politics just yet. Should he win Tuesday’s primary against Kennedy, he’s expected to beat Salt Lake County Councilmember Jenny Wilson, the Democratic nominee.

President Trump Makes His Endorsements

President Trump gave his “full endorsement” to Rep. Dan Donovan (R–N.Y.), the incumbent in the race for New York’s 11th Congressional District. Donovan faces former Rep. Michael Grimm (R–N.Y.), who held the seat before pleading guilty to tax evasion in 2014.

While Grimm’s prison time and felony conviction followed him on the campaign trail, Donovan’s campaign enjoyed a tweet published by Trump in May.

Donald Trump, Jr. and Rudy Giuliani, who is currently fulfilling a role as Trump’s lawyer, followed suit by recording robocalls for Donovan.

Trump also endorsed Romney back in February, despite a history of personal disagreements between the two. Still, the president called Romney a “great Senator” on Twitter.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2txDjst
via IFTTT

US Dead-Cat-Bounce Fades As ‘Weaponized’ Yuan Tumbles

It was BTFD day in America…

 

China was a mixed bag overnight as the tech-heavy CHINEXT was suddenly panic bid (National Team?) but SHCOMP closed in a bear market…

 

Europe continues to slide…

 

But US stock investors (machines) decided today was BTFD day (Trannies never made it into the green today)…

 

But all major indices remain down from Friday…

 

The Dow managed to scramble back above its 200DMA…but closed back below it…

 

With FANG Stocks bouncing…

But all still down on the week… AAPL (red) scrambled back into the green…

 

 

And while stocks had a dead cat bounce of a day, –…trading in a very narrow range once again…

 

For some context as to just now narrow this range is – here’s 10Y…

 

The Dollar Index bounced off Fed-spike highs today, breaking a 4-day losing streak

 

Yuan leads the weakness supporting the dollar…

 

Yuan is tumbling…

 

Cryptos were lower on the day despite good news from Facebook…

 

Crude spiked despite dollar gains and PMs limped lower…

 

WTI topped $70 on the heels of US threats on Iran oil sanctions

What happens next?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2ItwUn0 Tyler Durden

School Security Guard Who Didn’t Stop the Parkland Shooter Was Suspended for Sexually Harassing Students

ParklandLest you thought we were finished with tales of unfathomable incompetence on the part of Broward County, Florida, authority figures, consider this: The first Marjory Stoneman Douglas security guard who spotted Nikolas Cruz on campus and took no action to detain him was previously suspended for sexually harassing students.

Due to his inaction during the shooting, Medina was initially reassigned to an administrative position elsewhere in the Broward County school system. But on Tuesday, the superintendent finally decided to terminate his employment.

Andrew Medina worked as an unarmed security guard at Stoneman Douglas. In 2017, a disciplinary panel recommended that he be fired for sexually harassing two female students. (One of those students, Meadow Pollack, was later killed in the shooting.) But school officials decided to suspend Medina for three days instead, according to CBS News.

On the day of the shooting, Medina was the first school official to spot Cruz—who was no longer welcome at the school, and known to be a threat. He did not confront Cruz, and apparently failed to realize that Cruz was armed. He took no action, other than radioing another unarmed security guard, David Taylor, to inform him that Cruz was headed his way. When the shooting started, Taylor hid in a janitor’s closet, according to The Sun Sentinel. He was initially reassigned as well, but has now been fired.

Unlike School Resource Officer Scot Peterson—who also proved to be incompetent—neither Medina nor Taylor were armed. But if Medina wasn’t aware that Cruz was armed, he should have pursued him. If he was aware, but was afraid to approach, at the very least he should have made a “code red” call. He did not.

It seems fairly clear that the school district’s first impulse was to merely transfer Medina into a different role, and only changed course due to outrage from parents—including Pollack’s father—who just recently learned about the sexual harassment episode. It’s astonishing that a school guard could sexually harass a female student, and then utterly fail to prevent her death, and still find employment within the district. But that’s public schools for you.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2KeycIp
via IFTTT

Market Drop Prompts Trump To Offer China A Trade War “Olive Branch”

One day after the market tanked followed media reports that the Trump administration would pursue initiatives to limit Chinese investments in US tech industries, on Tuesday the president suggested that he will ease off demands for such new restrictions, and will rely instead on a 1988 law being updated by Congress that authorizes the government to review foreign investments for national security problems.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said that “we have the greatest technology in the world, people come and steal it. We have to protect that and that can be done through CFIUS,” or the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which traditionally has screened foreign investments to see whether they endanger national security.

Trump also said that the recent WSJ article reporting that the administration was planning two further initiatives, in addition to CFIUS, to prevent Beijing from obtaining advanced U.S. technology, “a bad leak…probably just made up.”

Why is this stated policy important? Because according to the WSJ it would represent a potential “olive branch” for Trump in the escalating trade war with China, and a signal that the US is willing to break the tit-for-tat escalation:

If Mr. Trump’s decision holds through June 30, when the new policies are scheduled to be announced, it would represent a significant backing away from threats the president has made against China and a possible olive branch to Beijing before the July 6 impositon of tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese goods.

Meanwhile, lawmakers who have worked on a CFIUS reform bill have also been arguing in administration meetings that additional investment restrictions weren’t necessary given changes being made to CFIUS.

Separately, the report notes that relying mainly on CFIUS — if that is the final decision — would be a big victory for Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow and others who have tried to tamp down the burgeoning trade battle with China.

It would also mark the end, for now, of the ascendancy of the so-called nationalist wing represented by White House trade adviser Peter Navarro and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. The two camps have jockeyed for power for months over the China issue and the battle is sure to continue.

As for the punchline, here is the WSJ’s explanation what prompted the concession by Trjmp:

Industry lobbyists and China experts who follow the issue closely attribute the shift to recent declines in the stock market and to U.S. companies getting battered by tariffs in U.S. trade battles with the European Union, Canada, Mexico and China.

Whether or not that is accurate remains to be seen, and may need another sharp drop in the S&P to be validated. It would algo suggest that if China were to sell enough stocks from its FX reserve account, it could effectively run US foreign policy.

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Kod4v5 Tyler Durden

18 Democrats Sue Trump To Reunite Immigrant Families

As outrage over President Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy continues to bubble, a group of Democratic attorneys general from 17 states, including Washington, are suing to force the Trump administration to reunite migrant families who have been separated at the US-Mexico border.

In what may be simply a coincidence, the new lawsuit was filed just hours after the Supreme Court overturned a series of lower court rulings blocking the third version of President Trump’s travel ban, which stoked opposition among the same group of attorney generals.

The group filed the lawsuit in a US District Court in Seattle on Tuesday: it’s the first legal challenge to the practice made by US states, and accuses the administration of denying the migrants the right to due process and their right to seek asylum, the Associated Press reported.

Migrants

Before Trump signed his executive order ending the separations, US authorities had separated 2,300 children from their parents in recent weeks, triggering widespread condemnation as photos and audio recordings of weeping children emerged. Furthermore, the AGs argued that Trump’s executive order is riddled with caveats and, importantly, fails to require that families are reunited.

The lawsuit says the migrants have been denied due process and their right to seek asylum.

Meanwhile, in what seems to us like a bizarre request given that they’ve been detained for a reason, immigrant-rights advocates are asking a federal judge to order the release of the parents who were separated from their children at the border, as dozens of demonstrators were arrested Tuesday at a rally ahead of a Los Angeles appearance by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The court action was brought by the Los Angeles-based pro bono law firm Public Counsel on behalf of three Central American mothers whose children were detained by ICE in April, the AP reports.

“These parents are terrified for their children and want nothing more than to ensure the scarring that this experience has already caused does not continue to inflict irreparable harm,” Judy London, a Public Counsel attorney, said in a statement.

The administration has asked a federal court in Los Angeles to let authorities detain families together for an extended period during immigration proceedings. Under a 1997 court settlement, children must be released from detention as quickly as possible.

Arrests

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said his department still has 2,047 immigrant children who were separated from their parents at the border in custody. That is only six fewer children than the number in HHS custody as of last Wednesday. Outrage over the US’s handling of the minors in custody exploded yet again following reports that a 15-year-old Honduran boy walked off one Texas facility, allegedly to find his parents.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2lEOXgN Tyler Durden